NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Commercial Crew Vehicles General => Topic started by: manboy on 04/20/2012 05:44 am

Title: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 04/20/2012 05:44 am
Link to the original thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26825.0)

The April 17th update is out.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/document_library.html
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: beancounter on 04/23/2012 07:18 am
Link to the original thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26825.0)

The April 17th update is out.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/document_library.html
Thanks.  Looking forward to July/August.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight 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!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: beancounter 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!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan 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 (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.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 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.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: psloss 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.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: psloss 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...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy 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.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Confusador 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.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 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). 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy 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?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: krytek 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.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF 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.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy 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.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh 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?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 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
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii 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?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra 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.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 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
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: GClark on 05/26/2012 08:47 am
ISTR that LM was prohibited from bidding as a prime in CC due to being prime contractor for Orion.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: darkenfast on 05/28/2012 10:48 am
Has there been any comment from the revelant Congress people regarding SpaceX's recent successful berthing of Dragon at the ISS? I found the crew's comments regarding manned Dragon interesting in light of the current issues with CCDev.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: beancounter on 05/28/2012 01:28 pm
Has there been any comment from the revelant Congress people regarding SpaceX's recent successful berthing of Dragon at the ISS? I found the crew's comments regarding manned Dragon interesting in light of the current issues with CCDev.
Other than trying to take credit when previously been trying to kill of CCDev, not really.

With respect to the current issues with CCDev, I presume you mean:
1.  The reduced funding levels from the Administration ask;
2.  The differing funding levels between House and Senate;
3.  The down-select issue;
4.  The SAA versus FAR issue.

Have I missed any?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/05/2012 06:53 pm
ISTR that LM was prohibited from bidding as a prime in CC due to being prime contractor for Orion.

There was a clause in the NASA Authorization Act that indicates that an Orion contractor must get approval from Congress before receiving funds to modify Orion in order for it to be able to act as an ISS escape pod.

Quote
403(b)(6) [...] If one or more contractors involved with
9 development of the multi-purpose crew vehicle seek
10 to compete in development of a commercial crew
11 service with crew rescue capability, separate legisla12
tive authority must be enacted to enable the Admin13
istrator to provide funding for any modifications of
14 the multi-purpose crew vehicle necessary to fulfill
15 the ISS crew rescue function.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 06/14/2012 10:35 pm
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. [...]

Minutes of this meeting have just been posted:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/658655main_NAC CSC 5 1 12 FACA _FINAL_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/658655main_NAC CSC 5 1 12 FACA _FINAL_508.pdf)

The section titled Commercial Crew Program Certification Status Briefing on pages 18 - 21 may be of most interest.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/15/2012 02:12 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. [...]

Minutes of this meeting have just been posted:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/658655main_NAC CSC 5 1 12 FACA _FINAL_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/658655main_NAC CSC 5 1 12 FACA _FINAL_508.pdf)

The section titled Commercial Crew Program Certification Status Briefing on pages 18 - 21 may be of most interest.

A few questions of interest from the minutes:

Quote
Ms. Smith: Assuming there will not be 3 partners in CCiCap, if you down-select from 2 to 1 partner, then what?
Mr. Mango: We need competition. The cost for 1 is greater than for 2 or 3. Optional milestones give a better return than expected. Instead of putting in the X, they put in X + Y because they saw that there was potential for the future. Competition yields a better price and a more innovative product.

Ms. Smith asked about the criteria for down-selection.
Mr. Mango had no specific criteria for that; they have the goals and how many are selected is left to the selection authorities. We know we want more than 1, but we are not committed to a particular number.

Ms. Smith raised the issue of having a finite amount of money.
Mr. Mango: In CCDev2, awards were given for varying amounts, so they already started to make some conscious decisions about what they could afford. But no algorithm for that has been devised.

Mr. Oswald feared they might be sacrificing life-cycle costs.
Mr. Mango: That would mean total costs would go up. A restricted budget means we have to look at how we incentivize competition within whatever profile Congress gives us. We are still very much in the proposal evaluation period on CCiCAP.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/15/2012 04:18 am
The section titled Commercial Crew Program Certification Status Briefing on pages 18 - 21 may be of most interest.

Thanks; very interesting.

A couple of questions of interest from the minutes...

Always wondered about the net effect of early down-select to 1 and subsequent non-compete (e.g., early move from SAA to FAR); "The cost for 1 is greater than for 2 or 3." is  going to get some attention.  Wish there was a bit more context.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/15/2012 05:55 am
Always wondered about the net effect of early down-select to 1 and subsequent non-compete (e.g., early move from SAA to FAR); "The cost for 1 is greater than for 2 or 3." is  going to get some attention.  Wish there was a bit more context.

Many engineering and manufacturing companies have a policy of having at least 2 suppliers for everything, one of their procurement managers could be called to brief Congress.  Also someone from the Monopolies Commission can talk about price goring.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 06/15/2012 01:25 pm
The section titled Commercial Crew Program Certification Status Briefing on pages 18 - 21 may be of most interest.

Thanks; very interesting.

A couple of questions of interest from the minutes...

Always wondered about the net effect of early down-select to 1 and subsequent non-compete (e.g., early move from SAA to FAR); "The cost for 1 is greater than for 2 or 3." is  going to get some attention.  Wish there was a bit more context.

I'm sure that is one of the items that the folks in Congress hear, and question the management in the Commerical Crew office.

Since no spending plan based on what the available funding is going to be.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: 8900 on 06/16/2012 08:23 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
ETA Captive Carry Flight Test
this one already completed? The chart is not up-to-date, let's wait for the next release.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 06/16/2012 05:52 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
Although for some reason it has a composite structure and uses a pusher escape system.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 06/16/2012 06:59 pm
MLAS is not a pusher LAS.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/16/2012 08:20 pm
MLAS is not a pusher LAS.
Only because of the load path. I'm betting most in this field still consider it a pusher.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 06/16/2012 08:23 pm
Load path determines it
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 06/17/2012 04:53 am
No, I'd say the location of the center of thrust relative to the center of mass determines it.

If the center of thrust is is aft of the center of mass, it's a pusher. Otherwise, it's a tractor. Just the same as for any aircraft.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Silmfeanor on 06/17/2012 10:34 am
No, I'd say the location of the center of thrust relative to the center of mass determines it.

If the center of thrust is is aft of the center of mass, it's a pusher. Otherwise, it's a tractor. Just the same as for any aircraft.

Perhaps this is not really something that can be discussed or argued about, but just a standing fact in the world of aerospace engineering?
I vaguely remember reading something about MLAS before, where this same question was asked. It most certainly is a puller for the capsule engineers, no matter where the center of thrust is.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 06/17/2012 12:59 pm
No, I'd say the location of the center of thrust relative to the center of mass determines it.

If the center of thrust is is aft of the center of mass, it's a pusher. Otherwise, it's a tractor. Just the same as for any aircraft.

I didn't post a question. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nomadd on 06/18/2012 11:43 am
 Gotta go with Jim on this one. Even if the center of thrust is aft, you're still pulling the vessel.
 Semantics and not technology maybe. More defining the term than the reality. What are you going to call it if the load path is distributed vertically?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/19/2012 06:25 pm
There was an update on commercial crew in this Bolden/FAA press conference:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/06/18/nasafaa-press-conference-on-commercial-crew-agreement/

Quote
Q: When will CCiCAP selection be announced?

Bolden: We fully expect to announce those selected by mid-July or so. That’s our hope. [...]

Q: How will CciCap work?

Bolden: NASA will fund three companies this summer. Two companies will get full funding and the third company will receive half funding. That will go through 21 months. NASA will then put out a request for contracts to provide services under FAR. Any company will be able to bid on it.

NASA would prefer that Congress fully fund the President’s request for commercial crew at $830 million but Congress may come in at less. NASA will ask for significant greater amounts in future years to keep to a 2017 schedule for commercial crew flights.

See also:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=43025

Quote
How many companies selected in CC down select (Bolden said earlier announcement in mid-July)? Two and a half, per recent agreement with Congress. Take them through 21-month process, full funders all the way, half funded as best they could. Following that, an RFP under the FAR under which any company can bid.

And finally:
http://www.newspacejournal.com/2012/06/19/nasa-plans-to-announce-commercial-crew-awards-next-month/comment-page-1/#comment-626918

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 06/19/2012 07:12 pm
Seventh 60-day report on Commercial Spaceflight has just been posted (June 2012):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf)

CCDev 2 Milestone Schedule (June 13, 2012):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Silmfeanor on 06/19/2012 08:03 pm
Seventh 60-day report on Commercial Spaceflight has just been posted (June 2012):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf)

CCDev 2 Milestone Schedule (June 13, 2012):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf)
Thanks, a good picture of CST-100 and Blue origin's vehicle.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 06/19/2012 11:12 pm
Seventh 60-day report on Commercial Spaceflight has just been posted (June 2012):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf)

CCDev 2 Milestone Schedule (June 13, 2012):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf)
For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).

Seventh 60-day report on Commercial Spaceflight has just been posted (June 2012):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf)

CCDev 2 Milestone Schedule (June 13, 2012):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf)
Thanks, a good picture of CST-100 and Blue origin's vehicle.
Here's a larger version.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Silmfeanor on 06/19/2012 11:41 pm

For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).

thanks for the larger picture.
I'm not sure what your question is regarding the second in-situ crew trial - it's scheduled for q3 2012. The pictures we have seen are the first in-situ crew trials as far as I know.
Presumably they'll make some changes from the input they received in the first trial, then try again in the second trial.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Geron on 06/20/2012 04:37 am
Isn't it bad that the contracting mechanism switched to FAR? I seem to recall Elon Musk and others stating that they would consider opting out of Comercial Crew if FAR was used over space act agreements as the contracting mechanism is much more expensive and not productive?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/20/2012 04:50 am
Isn't it bad that the contracting mechanism switched to FAR? I seem to recall Elon Musk and others stating that they would consider opting out of Comercial Crew if FAR was used over space act agreements as the contracting mechanism is much more expensive and not productive?

For development, yes. For services provided at a fixed price, no. For example, CRS.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jorge on 06/20/2012 04:51 am
Isn't it bad that the contracting mechanism switched to FAR?

CCiCAP is back to SAAs. CCP was always going to be FAR.

Quote
I seem to recall Elon Musk and others stating that they would consider opting out of Comercial Crew if FAR was used over space act agreements as the contracting mechanism is much more expensive and not productive?

Only for development (CCDev/CCiCAP). CRS is FAR-based and Elon hasn't opted out of that, so presumably he doesn't have a problem with CCP being FAR either.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/20/2012 05:20 am
Of course, it wasn't just Elon who had a problem with early FAR (not saying were implying that.) I seem to recall the Dream Chaser folks weren't too happy about it either, and I doubt they were alone.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 06/20/2012 06:09 am

For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).

thanks for the larger picture.
I'm not sure what your question is regarding the second in-situ crew trial - it's scheduled for q3 2012. The pictures we have seen are the first in-situ crew trials as far as I know.
Presumably they'll make some changes from the input they received in the first trial, then try again in the second trial.
It was reported they had already completed the second trial.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Silmfeanor on 06/20/2012 07:56 am

For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).

thanks for the larger picture.
I'm not sure what your question is regarding the second in-situ crew trial - it's scheduled for q3 2012. The pictures we have seen are the first in-situ crew trials as far as I know.
Presumably they'll make some changes from the input they received in the first trial, then try again in the second trial.
It was reported they had already completed the second trial.

Interesting. NASA indeed refers to this:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/dragon_accomm2.html (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/dragon_accomm2.html)
but as you said, there's still a milestone on that CCDev for Q3 2012 - perhaps SpaceX split up the first milestone in 2 sessions? Or they decided they wanted to do another one?
Some miscommunication for sure. Anyone we could ask for more information about this?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 06/20/2012 07:18 pm

For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).

thanks for the larger picture.
I'm not sure what your question is regarding the second in-situ crew trial - it's scheduled for q3 2012. The pictures we have seen are the first in-situ crew trials as far as I know.
Presumably they'll make some changes from the input they received in the first trial, then try again in the second trial.
It was reported they had already completed the second trial.

Interesting. NASA indeed refers to this:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/dragon_accomm2.html (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/dragon_accomm2.html)
but as you said, there's still a milestone on that CCDev for Q3 2012 - perhaps SpaceX split up the first milestone in 2 sessions? Or they decided they wanted to do another one?
Some miscommunication for sure. Anyone we could ask for more information about this?

Many of the CCDev2 milestones have a final test report/summary that comes after the actual testing that actually constitutes the completion of that milestone.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jason1701 on 06/23/2012 04:24 pm
LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story

The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rmencos on 06/23/2012 04:49 pm
LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story

The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.

Interesting.  My take on Mango's answers is that Boeing and Sierra Nevada will get full contracts and SpaceX will get the partial.  He stated that SpaceX is basically half way there.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 06/23/2012 05:43 pm
My reading is also SpaceX and Boeing for full contracts and Sierra Nevada for a partial.

At this point in "the gap" you want to go with those closest to going live. Dragon is obviously well along, and Boeing can catch up fastest.

Both also have BEO potential, which previously didn't seem to be a consideration but recent comments by NASA types seem to bring into the mix. IMO this may be an unmentioned fallback criteria for if Orion / SLS get cut or significantly delayed.  Example - 2 years added to Orion's high altitude LAS test

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120622-orion-abort-test-delay.html

As much as I like it, DC is not yet as far along as SS2 is much less even a suborbital test flight. (not that SS2 is orbital, just an observation). I wouldn't even be surprised if it didn't make the cut, with Liberty taking #3.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/23/2012 10:18 pm
LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story

The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.

Interesting.  My take on Mango's answers is that Boeing and Sierra Nevada will get full contracts and SpaceX will get the partial.  He stated that SpaceX is basically half way there.

Mango was just describing the progress of CCDev-2 participants. I wouldn't read anything into it. In any event, Phil McAlister is the person making the selection.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 06/25/2012 01:30 am
LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story

The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.

Interesting.  My take on Mango's answers is that Boeing and Sierra Nevada will get full contracts and SpaceX will get the partial.  He stated that SpaceX is basically half way there.

Mango was just describing the progress of CCDev-2 participants. I wouldn't read anything into it. In any event, Phil McAlister is the person making the selection.

Gerstenmaier is the deciding offical, not McAlister.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: beancounter on 06/25/2012 04:33 am
My reading is also SpaceX and Boeing for full contracts and Sierra Nevada for a partial.

At this point in "the gap" you want to go with those closest to going live. Dragon is obviously well along, and Boeing can catch up fastest.

Both also have BEO potential, which previously didn't seem to be a consideration but recent comments by NASA types seem to bring into the mix. IMO this may be an unmentioned fallback criteria for if Orion / SLS get cut or significantly delayed.  Example - 2 years added to Orion's high altitude LAS test

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120622-orion-abort-test-delay.html

As much as I like it, DC is not yet as far along as SS2 is much less even a suborbital test flight. (not that SS2 is orbital, just an observation). I wouldn't even be surprised if it didn't make the cut, with Liberty taking #3.
How does that work?  I haven't yet seen any hardware, test or otherwise to suggest that Liberty is anything more than vapourware at this point.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/25/2012 01:47 pm
LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story

The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.

Interesting.  My take on Mango's answers is that Boeing and Sierra Nevada will get full contracts and SpaceX will get the partial.  He stated that SpaceX is basically half way there.

Mango was just describing the progress of CCDev-2 participants. I wouldn't read anything into it. In any event, Phil McAlister is the person making the selection.

Gerstenmaier is the deciding offical, not McAlister.


Are you sure? It was McAlister for CCDev-2.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 06/25/2012 02:00 pm
LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story

The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.

Interesting.  My take on Mango's answers is that Boeing and Sierra Nevada will get full contracts and SpaceX will get the partial.  He stated that SpaceX is basically half way there.

Mango was just describing the progress of CCDev-2 participants. I wouldn't read anything into it. In any event, Phil McAlister is the person making the selection.

Gerstenmaier is the deciding offical, not McAlister.


Are you sure? It was McAlister for CCDev-2.

100%
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/25/2012 02:17 pm
I generally trust Gerst but I don't like the fact that it's somebody outside the Commercial Crew Office that is deciding.  How close is Gerst to ATK?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 06/25/2012 02:18 pm

Are you sure? It was McAlister for CCDev-2.

Different award amounts. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/25/2012 03:08 pm
Dont forget that the companies bidding for contracts will also be the ones to request funding amounts. IF SpaceX is as far along as we have been led to believe it is entirely possible they could get the partial award due to the low amount of their bid rather than validation of the concept either way.  This is similar to why Blue Origin was picked for CCDev2, not necessarily the strength of the concept but for the low amount they requested.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/25/2012 03:24 pm
Dont forget that the companies bidding for contracts will also be the ones to request funding amounts. IF SpaceX is as far along as we have been led to believe it is entirely possible they could get the partial award due to the low amount of their bid rather than validation of the concept either way.  This is similar to why Blue Origin was picked for CCDev2, not necessarily the strength of the concept but for the low amount they requested.

Congress also stated that they want commercial crew ready as soon as possible. So there is some logic to giving SpaceX full funding in order for them to be ready in 2015 or 2016 (instead of 2017).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/25/2012 03:43 pm
Congress also stated that they want commercial crew ready as soon as possible. So there is some logic to giving SpaceX full funding in order for them to be ready in 2015 or 2016 (instead of 2017).

Like I said, it would be dependent on the funding amounts that the company asks for. Not much reason to throw money at a provider who did not ask or need it, that is the entire point of the commercial model.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/25/2012 04:19 pm
I can almost guarantee you that all of the leading companies (except Blue Origin) asked for the maximum of $500M because none of the companies need less than $500M to complete their program. I am guessing that whomever gets partial funding will probably push more of its milestones to the optional phase. Although, you probably don't want to push too many milestones to the optional phase in order not to get too far behind the other ones when it comes time to downselect to two in 2014. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: beancounter on 06/26/2012 03:59 am
I can almost guarantee you that all of the leading companies (except Blue Origin) asked for the maximum of $500M because none of the companies need less than $500M to complete their program. I am guessing that whomever gets partial funding will probably push more of its milestones to the optional phase. Although, you probably don't want to push too many milestones to the optional phase in order not to get too far behind the other ones when it comes time to downselect to two in 2014. 

Sorry must have missed that.  Who was it that stated downselect to 2 in 2014?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jjm390 on 06/26/2012 04:13 am

For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).

thanks for the larger picture.
I'm not sure what your question is regarding the second in-situ crew trial - it's scheduled for q3 2012. The pictures we have seen are the first in-situ crew trials as far as I know.
Presumably they'll make some changes from the input they received in the first trial, then try again in the second trial.
It was reported they had already completed the second trial.

Interesting. NASA indeed refers to this:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/dragon_accomm2.html (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/dragon_accomm2.html)
but as you said, there's still a milestone on that CCDev for Q3 2012 - perhaps SpaceX split up the first milestone in 2 sessions? Or they decided they wanted to do another one?
Some miscommunication for sure. Anyone we could ask for more information about this?

If you are going by URL title, you are most likely being missled. As a computer scientist, I can almost guarantee the 2 is an iterator for page revision rather than referring to the second round of testing.  :)

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/26/2012 04:18 pm
I can almost guarantee you that all of the leading companies (except Blue Origin) asked for the maximum of $500M because none of the companies need less than $500M to complete their program. I am guessing that whomever gets partial funding will probably push more of its milestones to the optional phase. Although, you probably don't want to push too many milestones to the optional phase in order not to get too far behind the other ones when it comes time to downselect to two in 2014. 

Sorry must have missed that.  Who was it that stated downselect to 2 in 2014?

It hasn't been stated directly. According to Gerst, NASA intends to buy 2 commercial crew flights per year starting in 2017 (or earlier). It has been stated previously that NASA intends to award commercial crew services contract after the CCiCap base period in 2014. So I am guessing that there will be a downselection to 2 during the CCiCap optional milestones/certification period. But it is just a guess at this point. Gerst has also made the point that these plans aren't set in stone.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/26/2012 09:35 pm
At the risk of being overly-pedantic... Need to be careful with the term "downselect".  Based on available information:
1. A subset ("2.5") of the CCiCap proposals will receive an award this year: a CCiCap funded SAA.  It is higly likely those will come from the current CCDev-2 "leaders", but not a given (can not be legally).
2. At least one from a TBD number of crew transportation services (CTS*) proposals will receive an award circa 2014: a CTS FAR contract.  It is highly likely that will be a subset of (1), but not a given (can not be legally).

In any case, NASA needs at least two willing, able and viable CTS competitors to avoid the overhead a non-compete would entail--even if there is ultimately only one CTS contract award.  Which IMHO given present and likely future budget constraints is the most probable outcome.


* I think "CTS" is still the moniker.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/26/2012 11:55 pm
I am not sure what you mean by 2 CTS competitors. According to Bolden, there will be 2.5 awards for the CCiCap base period. In 2014, there will likely be an award for crew transportation services for one or more companies. I am hoping that there will be two awards. But it might be one as you say. Although, going from 2.5 to 2 would make more sense than going to 2.5 to 1 in my opinion. Since the CCiCap optional milestones period, certification and the CTS contract all start in 2014, there is likely to be a reduction (or "downselection") to 2 (or one) providers in 2014 for each of these phases.

N.B. I know that NASA will say that this isn't "really" a downselection in the sense that new entrants are welcomed for each phase. But the fact remains that CCiCap will be "reduced" from 4 companies to 2.5 companies which will probably be further reduced to 2 during the CCiCap optional milestones period (or possibly one).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/27/2012 12:11 am
I have to say that the terminology of "downselect" is definitely misused in relation to CCiCap.  CCiCap has less funded contracts to offer, but that does not mean only the currently funded contracts under CCDev 2 will be eligible for a CCiCap award.  ATK is currently in the running with the complete Liberty system, and have a good chance of winning just as SpaceX, SNC, or Boeing. Not to mention bids which were submitted and for which we have no public knowledge of.  Same will apply for CTS. System maturity will definitely effect the business case, but each contract is essentially tabular rosa.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/27/2012 12:50 am
I am not sure what you mean by 2 CTS competitors.

Only saying that there must be at least two willing, able and viable contenders to make CTS competitive--regardless of what happens with CCiCap.  Without that, tons of non-complete sole-source contract bureacracy and overhead would kick in.  Hope that makes sense.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/27/2012 05:52 pm
I am not sure what you mean by 2 CTS competitors.

Only saying that there must be at least two willing, able and viable contenders to make CTS competitive--regardless of what happens with CCiCap.  Without that, tons of non-complete sole-source contract bureacracy and overhead would kick in.  Hope that makes sense.

Yes I agree with that. But you seem to be implying that the 2 CTS competitors might eventually be reduced to one. My view is that whomever gets a contract for CTS in 2014 is likely to cross the finish line in 2017 unless they go bankrupt (which seems unlikely).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/28/2012 07:06 am
I am not sure what you mean by 2 CTS competitors.
Only saying that there must be at least at least two willing, able and viable contenders to make CTS competitive--regardless of what happens with CCiCap.  Without that, tons of non-complete sole-source contract bureacracy and overhead would kick in.  Hope that makes sense.
Yes I agree with that. But you seem to be implying that the 2 CTS competitors might eventually be reduced to one. My view is that whomever gets a contract for CTS in 2014 is likely to cross the finish line in 2017 unless they go bankrupt (which seems unlikely).

Yes, I believe (or at least hope) that there will be at least 2 CTS competitors and they are most likely to be the "2.0" of the "2.5" CCiCap winners (altho again, not a given).   Whether there will be 2 CTS suppliers (more than 1 CTS contract award) and the impact if there is only 1, is another matter probably best discussed in a non-update thread.

edit: "at least 2"
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/28/2012 01:46 pm
I am still not clear what you mean by 2 CTS competitors. There will be 2.5 commercial crew providers until the end of the CCiCap base period in 2014. All 3 of these providers (and possibly even new ones) are likely to compete for the CTS contract which will also be awarded in 2014. At that point in time, the commercial crew providers are likely to go from 2.5 to 2 or from 2.5 to 1. In other words, there will be a reduction of providers in 2014 when the CTS is awarded but that should be the last reduction of commercial crew providers.  At least, that is how I understand it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/28/2012 02:11 pm
I think we're saying the same thing, with one small quibble: there are no "commercial crew providers" (or suppliers) until a CTS contract is awarded--and arguably not until they've show they can deliver, which may or may not happen by the time a CTS contract is awarded.  Until then, there are only potential CTS competitors.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/28/2012 04:38 pm
I think we're saying the same thing, with one small quibble: there are no "commercial crew providers" (or suppliers) until a CTS contract is awarded--and arguably not until they've show they can deliver, which may or may not happen by the time a CTS contract is awarded.  Until then, there are only potential CTS competitors.

OK. I sometimes use the expression "commercial crew participants" instead of providers for that reason. But I noticed that most in Congress and NASA use the expression "commercial crew providers" when speaking of the CCDev-2 companies eventhough, they may or may not be retained for a CTS contract. The terminology gets confusing...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2012 02:03 pm
There was an update on commercial crew in this Bolden/FAA press conference:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/06/18/nasafaa-press-conference-on-commercial-crew-agreement/

Quote
Q: When will CCiCAP selection be announced?

Bolden: We fully expect to announce those selected by mid-July or so. That’s our hope. [...]

Q: How will CciCap work?

Bolden: NASA will fund three companies this summer. Two companies will get full funding and the third company will receive half funding. That will go through 21 months. NASA will then put out a request for contracts to provide services under FAR. Any company will be able to bid on it.

NASA would prefer that Congress fully fund the President’s request for commercial crew at $830 million but Congress may come in at less. NASA will ask for significant greater amounts in future years to keep to a 2017 schedule for commercial crew flights.

See also:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=43025

Quote
How many companies selected in CC down select (Bolden said earlier announcement in mid-July)? Two and a half, per recent agreement with Congress. Take them through 21-month process, full funders all the way, half funded as best they could. Following that, an RFP under the FAR under which any company can bid.

And finally:
http://www.newspacejournal.com/2012/06/19/nasa-plans-to-announce-commercial-crew-awards-next-month/comment-page-1/#comment-626918

We are now past mid-July.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/16/2012 02:53 pm
We never really know what negotiations are still going on behind the scene. Maybe our friend 51D might be privy to things he has seen or heard but cannot comment upon… ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 07/16/2012 04:29 pm
We never really know what negotiations are still going on behind the scene. Maybe our friend 51D might be privy to things he has seen or heard but cannot comment upon… ;)

The pessimist in me says SNC will likely lose out, since they've got the coolest vehicle and Congress seems intent on downgrading us to capsules...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 07/16/2012 10:45 pm
We never really know what negotiations are still going on behind the scene. Maybe our friend 51D might be privy to things he has seen or heard but cannot comment upon… ;)

The pessimist in me says SNC will likely lose out, since they've got the coolest vehicle and Congress seems intent on downgrading us to capsules...

I don’t know about that.  In certain ways it might be the most dangerous vehicle, in that it has an exposed TPS in orbit.  But, that aside, I think it has a lot of support for a variety of reasons.

1)   It’s a reusable spaceplane that looks like a mini-space shuttle.  Many who aren’t well educated on such things view that as “high-tech” and “futuristic” in that it looks like an airplane.  Obviously the Shuttle taught us that perception isn’t necessarily reality.  But regardless, a mini-shuttle landing on the SLF at KSC is a visual effect that I think many in NASA, and even Congress would like to see with the Shuttle retired.
2)   It’s based on a NASA design, so NASA can always talk about how DC is the culmination of work that THEY did many years ago.  It’s not quite as easy to say that about Dragon and CST-100, although in certain ways it could be said.  At least some tech in those is based on previous NASA projects.  DC would reflect well on NASA in the public’s eye I think, as well as Congress’s eye.
3)   Although it probably wouldn’t take off at KSC, it would land there and be processed there, which helps validate NASA’s multi-use Spaceport concept. 

So I have a hard time seeing DC NOT be selected, barring some major technological or safety hurdle.  However, for different reasons, I have a hard time not seeing SpaceX, CST-100, and Liberty not be selected.  But obviously probably 1.5 of those contenders won’t be…so I dunno…
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/16/2012 11:06 pm
My hope:

CST100, Dreamchaser, and Dragon get funded this round. I’d give CST100 and Dreamchaser full funding, Dragon the .5 award(My concern with space X is have they bitten off more than they can chew launch wise but hopely the .5 keeps Dragon Rider going long enough in case the other two have problems)

Blue Origin hard to say how much progress has been done and Liberty is far too risky(attempting to develop both spacecraft and rocket in this short time period does not look likely).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spectre9 on 07/17/2012 12:39 am
It is my hope that Dream Chaser is funded.

The rest are all capsules so any one of them can be picked I don't think it really matters.

The only thing I really don't want to see is ATK/Boeing being the top 2.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/17/2012 01:15 am
You know what, I don't think 2.5 awards is really that bad. I suppose it depends on who is chosen and what the outcome is, but it isn't necessarily a really bad thing. Assuming the judgement is fair. It'd be better if you could get 3 full awards with optional orbital manned milestones (so you can downselect to 2 from 3 potentially competent competitors), because it increases the capability to go to the third player at some later time if something goes wrong with one of the other two.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/17/2012 01:55 am
We never really know what negotiations are still going on behind the scene. Maybe our friend 51D might be privy to things he has seen or heard but cannot comment upon… ;)

The pessimist in me says SNC will likely lose out, since they've got the coolest vehicle and Congress seems intent on downgrading us to capsules...

All they have to do is promise to do an RPM close in (no reason to other than the "hey that is cool" factor) and I would think they had it in the bag.

Truthfully I think that whoever is chosen will have a strong case to provide crew services, it just might not be someone's favorite choice. 


Edit: I wonder how likely the chances will be that the company(ies) that don't get a contract will protest ala Planetspace in CRS?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/17/2012 02:15 am
my farthings worth,
     Follow the money; whoever provides the most pork or political advantage; I don't see it being based on technology or ability at this stage in the game; maybe I am being a cynic, but politics will decide who wins. I think it is obvious who I would hope to be on the winning side, but we supported Bonnie Prince Charlie, and look what happened there ;D
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/17/2012 02:16 am
CRS was a FAR contract, SAA may not have the same recourse.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: WulfTheSaxon on 07/17/2012 02:51 am
It is my hope that Dream Chaser is funded.

The rest are all capsules so any one of them can be picked I don't think it really matters.

The only thing I really don't want to see is ATK/Boeing being the top 2.

The rest are all capsules, true, but Dragon is to be landed propulsively.

My hope is that Sierra Nevada and SpaceX get full awards, without much care as to who gets the “.5”. Boeing can afford to go it alone, I’m by no means a fan of SRBs, and Blue Origin is far too secretive…
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/17/2012 03:26 am
The awards cover both developing spacecraft and man rating the launch vehicles.  So there will have be two awards in one.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 07/17/2012 03:32 am
The awards cover both developing spacecraft and man rating the launch vehicles.  So there will have be two awards in one.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. If Sierra Nevada only gets half funding, they could still make it to completion if Boeing gets full funding, because Boeing will be paying ULA for the human rating of the Atlas V and Sierra Nevada won't need to. Symbiotic.




Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/17/2012 10:51 am
The awards cover both developing spacecraft and man rating the launch vehicles.  So there will have be two awards in one.

No, the awards are for a crew service and there will be one award apiece.  How the winner decides to allocate the money it is up to them.  They can spend all the NASA money on the spacecraft and choose to fund launch vehicle work internally or have a subcontractor paid for it.  Or the other way around.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 07/17/2012 12:13 pm
We never really know what negotiations are still going on behind the scene. Maybe our friend 51D might be privy to things he has seen or heard but cannot comment upon… ;)

The pessimist in me says SNC will likely lose out, since they've got the coolest vehicle and Congress seems intent on downgrading us to capsules...
Which system is chosen is not up to Congress. It is NASA that makes that call.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 07/17/2012 04:47 pm
The awards cover both developing spacecraft and man rating the launch vehicles.  So there will have be two awards in one.

No, the awards are for a crew service and there will be one award apiece.  How the winner decides to allocate the money it is up to them.  They can spend all the NASA money on the spacecraft and choose to fund launch vehicle work internally or have a subcontractor paid for it.  Or the other way around.

Any rough idea what the next level of milestones will be?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/17/2012 05:09 pm
I am not sure that I understand you question. The next round is CCiCap and should be awarded soon. This week or next week according to NW.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rmencos on 07/17/2012 07:43 pm
The awards cover both developing spacecraft and man rating the launch vehicles.  So there will have be two awards in one.

No, the awards are for a crew service and there will be one award apiece.  How the winner decides to allocate the money it is up to them.  They can spend all the NASA money on the spacecraft and choose to fund launch vehicle work internally or have a subcontractor paid for it.  Or the other way around.

Any rough idea what the next level of milestones will be?


EDIT: NASA set out goals and the participants should formulate their milestones from those goals.

Here's the language (most of it) from the CCiCap solicitation:

For the base period, to be concluded no later than May 31, 2014, NASA’s goals are for Participants to:
 
1.   Complete the detailed integrated design of the CTS.
2.   Demonstrate a process to analyze, quantify, and understand the risks associated with the design.
3.   Establish the criteria and plans for the Participants’ certification of the system for the orbital crewed demonstration flight, which    considers potential customer standards.
4.   Conduct significant risk reduction activities (for example, uncrewed test flight, pad abort test, or drop test).

For the optional goals, which must be stated in the proposal, the participant can plan on going beyond the May 31, 2014 base period  NASA states:

NASA goals for this period include significant test activities leading to the Participant’s certification of the system for orbital crewed demonstration flight. This demonstration should meet as many of the following goals as possible:

1.   Mission duration: a minimum of 3 days on-orbit
2.   Orbital altitude: achieve an orbit with a minimum altitude of 200nm
3.   Demonstrate controlled orbital maneuverability (for example: a simulated rendezvous)
4.   Demonstrate system sizing sufficient for a minimum of four crew members (NASA does not intend to provide crew for any proposed demonstration flights and recommends flying only the minimum crew necessary for a demonstration flight).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 07/19/2012 10:40 pm
These must be the final two milestones for ULA completed under their unfunded CCDev2 agreement, since all others were already met last year.

5a - System Requirements Review (SRR)
5b - Hazard, System Safety and PRA Review

----------------------

NASA Partner United Launch Alliance Completes Two Atlas V Reviews
RELEASE : 12-245 July 19, 2012

CENTENNIAL, Colo. -- NASA partner United Launch Alliance (ULA) has completed a review of its Atlas V rocket to assess its compliance with NASA human spaceflight safety and performance requirements.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/jul/HQ_12-245_ULA_Atlas_V_SRR.html (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/jul/HQ_12-245_ULA_Atlas_V_SRR.html)

(I'll have an article on this shortly - Chris).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: SpacemanInSPACE on 07/22/2012 04:24 am
Which system is chosen is not up to Congress. It is NASA that makes that call.

You don't think certain congressmen are lobbying for their preferred vehicle? While they can't choose which vehicle, they can set funding levels. They have an influence over the decision.

L2 has been pretty hot on CCDev btw, indulging info!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: daveklingler on 07/24/2012 05:57 am
I don’t know about that.  In certain ways it might be the most dangerous vehicle, in that it has an exposed TPS in orbit.  But, that aside, I think it has a lot of support for a variety of reasons.

1)   It’s a reusable spaceplane that looks like a mini-space shuttle.  Many who aren’t well educated on such things view that as “high-tech” and “futuristic” in that it looks like an airplane.  Obviously the Shuttle taught us that perception isn’t necessarily reality.  But regardless, a mini-shuttle landing on the SLF at KSC is a visual effect that I think many in NASA, and even Congress would like to see with the Shuttle retired.
2)   It’s based on a NASA design, so NASA can always talk about how DC is the culmination of work that THEY did many years ago.  It’s not quite as easy to say that about Dragon and CST-100, although in certain ways it could be said.  At least some tech in those is based on previous NASA projects.  DC would reflect well on NASA in the public’s eye I think, as well as Congress’s eye.
3)   Although it probably wouldn’t take off at KSC, it would land there and be processed there, which helps validate NASA’s multi-use Spaceport concept. 

I think there are much better reasons for the evaluation team to choose DC.

1.  Lower reentry accelerations so DC can play a lifeboat role in present and future NASA operations.
2.  1000-mile crossrange to give DC a greater landing flexibility, again for DC's lifeboat role.  It can get down more quickly (many runway choices) and shave hours off the time it takes to get a crew member to a hospital.
3.  Non-toxic propellants allow immediate crew egress at a public airport, again for a possible lifeboat role. 

Reasons that don't officially get evaluated, but might enter the evaluator's mind:

A.  Unmanned DC has a lot of potential.  It's a flexible robotic vehicle that can stay on-orbit for long periods of time.  Its non-toxic, storable propellant gives it some interesting mission capabilities.  It might be a great vehicle down the line as NASA forays into satellite repair and refueling.

B.  Manned DC has a lot of potential as well.  Priced competitively, it's a more attractive option for a lot of commercial applications, and NASA is trying to seed that market.

C.  Finally getting a lifting body into service would be a big technology risk reduction for future NASA-developed vehicles, assuming NASA ever again finds itself in the position of developing a lifting body vehicle.  There's a realistic possibility that NASA may be out of that role.

Regarding your #3, why do you think DC wouldn't launch at KSC?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Confusador on 07/24/2012 08:23 am
Regarding your #3, why do you think DC wouldn't launch at KSC?

So far I haven't seen any indication that they intend to use a different pad for crewed Atlas V launches; it looks like they're just going to make whatever modifications they need at SLC-41.  So, at the Cape: yes. At KSC: no.

It gets a little bit grey because I suspect that everyone will be using the crew quarters and medical facilities at KSC to prepare for flight, but that's a different topic.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/24/2012 12:11 pm
I don’t know about that.  In certain ways it might be the most dangerous vehicle, in that it has an exposed TPS in orbit.  But, that aside, I think it has a lot of support for a variety of reasons.

1)   It’s a reusable spaceplane that looks like a mini-space shuttle.  Many who aren’t well educated on such things view that as “high-tech” and “futuristic” in that it looks like an airplane.  Obviously the Shuttle taught us that perception isn’t necessarily reality.  But regardless, a mini-shuttle landing on the SLF at KSC is a visual effect that I think many in NASA, and even Congress would like to see with the Shuttle retired.
2)   It’s based on a NASA design, so NASA can always talk about how DC is the culmination of work that THEY did many years ago.  It’s not quite as easy to say that about Dragon and CST-100, although in certain ways it could be said.  At least some tech in those is based on previous NASA projects.  DC would reflect well on NASA in the public’s eye I think, as well as Congress’s eye.
3)   Although it probably wouldn’t take off at KSC, it would land there and be processed there, which helps validate NASA’s multi-use Spaceport concept. 

I think there are much better reasons for the evaluation team to choose DC.

1.  Lower reentry accelerations so DC can play a lifeboat role in present and future NASA operations.
2.  1000-mile crossrange to give DC a greater landing flexibility, again for DC's lifeboat role.  It can get down more quickly (many runway choices) and shave hours off the time it takes to get a crew member to a hospital.
3.  Non-toxic propellants allow immediate crew egress at a public airport, again for a possible lifeboat role. 

Reasons that don't officially get evaluated, but might enter the evaluator's mind:

A.  Unmanned DC has a lot of potential.  It's a flexible robotic vehicle that can stay on-orbit for long periods of time.  Its non-toxic, storable propellant gives it some interesting mission capabilities.  It might be a great vehicle down the line as NASA forays into satellite repair and refueling.

B.  Manned DC has a lot of potential as well.  Priced competitively, it's a more attractive option for a lot of commercial applications, and NASA is trying to seed that market.

C.  Finally getting a lifting body into service would be a big technology risk reduction for future NASA-developed vehicles, assuming NASA ever again finds itself in the position of developing a lifting body vehicle.  There's a realistic possibility that NASA may be out of that role.

Regarding your #3, why do you think DC wouldn't launch at KSC?

None of those "reasons" matter.  None of them are requirements, therefore have no bearing on the selection process
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 07/24/2012 02:36 pm
...
A.  Unmanned DC has a lot of potential.  It's a flexible robotic vehicle that can stay on-orbit for long periods of time.  Its non-toxic, storable propellant gives it some interesting mission capabilities.  It might be a great vehicle down the line as NASA forays into satellite repair and refueling.
B.  Manned DC has a lot of potential as well.  Priced competitively, it's a more attractive option for a lot of commercial applications, and NASA is trying to seed that market.
C.  Finally getting a lifting body into service would be a big technology risk reduction for future NASA-developed vehicles, assuming NASA ever again finds itself in the position of developing a lifting body vehicle.  There's a realistic possibility that NASA may be out of that role.

None of those "reasons" matter.  None of them are requirements, therefore have no bearing on the selection process
Don't be bad Jim! I can put some other as good reasons:
D) Lifting bodies are cool.
E) Is a baby Shuttle.
F) It would use the KSC airstip to land, thus they could still put some cool escort trains.
G) The DC on an Atlas V looks amazing, like an arrow.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/24/2012 05:10 pm
Prior to award anouncement the potential winners are in cofidential negotiations about milestone payment amounts and reporting details. This should take about a week. But it is also not a set length either other than it must finish before 1 Aug. Only until all negotiations with each of the potential award nominies (BTW during this period a potential award nominie can be droped or moved in priority based on dificulty of negotiations or failure to come to an agreement. But this is rare and is not likely to happen.)

All of this must happen before any releases because not only the exact award amount is stated but the milestone schedule is also published at that time (minus the payment amounts for each milestone only the total award is published). So NASA does not yet know when negotiations will end. Usually the release is made on the same date as the contracts are signed. Also usually not until all parties (the possible 3 different providers) have signed.

NASA must spend the cash before 1 Aug or FY012?

CCDev-2 ends July 31. NASA's schedule is to have no break. Plus any delay risks NASA loosing some of its CCP FY2012 funds because it can only be spent during FY2012, giving only 2 months of activity for CCiCap to complete milestones for the amount NASA expects to spend in FY2012.

I am not sure that CCDev-2 has to end on July 31st; it goes into the third quarter of 2012 according to the milestones chart.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf

As far as funding for CCiCap is concerned, different budget rules apply for SAAs; the commercial crew funding for FY 2012 doesn't need to be spent in FY 2012 it gets carried over into the next fiscal year if it is not spent in FY2012.   
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/24/2012 05:14 pm
Prior to award anouncement the potential winners are in cofidential negotiations about milestone payment amounts and reporting details. This should take about a week. But it is also not a set length either other than it must finish before 1 Aug. Only until all negotiations with each of the potential award nominies (BTW during this period a potential award nominie can be droped or moved in priority based on dificulty of negotiations or failure to come to an agreement. But this is rare and is not likely to happen.)

All of this must happen before any releases because not only the exact award amount is stated but the milestone schedule is also published at that time (minus the payment amounts for each milestone only the total award is published). So NASA does not yet know when negotiations will end. Usually the release is made on the same date as the contracts are signed. Also usually not until all parties (the possible 3 different providers) have signed.

The process is well explained in the following slide from the Commercial Crew Office's February 14th presentation:
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 07/24/2012 07:57 pm
Regarding your #3, why do you think DC wouldn't launch at KSC?

So far I haven't seen any indication that they intend to use a different pad for crewed Atlas V launches; it looks like they're just going to make whatever modifications they need at SLC-41.  So, at the Cape: yes. At KSC: no.

It gets a little bit grey because I suspect that everyone will be using the crew quarters and medical facilities at KSC to prepare for flight, but that's a different topic.

Yea, that's what I was referring to.  It looks like they are intending to launch it and CST-100 at LC-41, although the spacecraft themselves will be processed at KSC/LC-39.  That could certainly change.  There could be a scenario where SNC and Boeing go together on a new ML that is designed for Atlas V, and can be easily configured for either Dreamchaser or CST-100.  NASA could potentially force the issue since they are the ones paying for the mission service, and require their crews to be launched from -their- Launch Complex for safety/control reasons or whatever (and also it will be a better visual if they are launching from LC-39, I'm sure NASA would think).  .  But so far all the art and talk I've seen look like a modified UT at LC-41 with a crew elevator and new crew access swing bridge.  THat's why I don't think they'll launch from LC-39.  At this point at least. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 07/24/2012 08:09 pm

I think there are much better reasons for the evaluation team to choose DC.

1.  Lower reentry accelerations so DC can play a lifeboat role in present and future NASA operations.
2.  1000-mile crossrange to give DC a greater landing flexibility, again for DC's lifeboat role.  It can get down more quickly (many runway choices) and shave hours off the time it takes to get a crew member to a hospital.
3.  Non-toxic propellants allow immediate crew egress at a public airport, again for a possible lifeboat role. 


Has there been talk of using Dreamchaser for a life boat?

I guess I thought the plan now was to use the spacecraft that would be on station doing crew rotations would be the "lifeboat" in case of emergency.  Sort of like how Soyuz is being used.  I think the whole lifeboat concept was back before STS was cancelled, and they envisioned the Shuttle doing crew rotations, then returning to Earth, which would leave the crew without an emergency ride home.  With the capsules, I think they are being designed to stay on station for at least 6 months (or longer), and thus there's always an emergency ride home.  And even then it only needs to be large enough for 3-4 people, because I think Russia wants to keep supporting it's crews with Soyuz, so there will always be at least one Soyuz on station to evac it's crew if necessary.

Maybe I don't have that quite right, but that's how I understood it.  And that means there wouldn't be a need for a dedictaed lifeboat.  So those advantages of DReamchaser wouldn't really factor in.  However, also note if it were to be a dedicated lifeboat, it's TPS is exposed to micrometeors and orbital debris strikes for an exteded period...which sort of causes a problem if your "lifeboat" has a hole in it.  ;-)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 07/25/2012 05:28 pm
Prior to award anouncement the potential winners are in cofidential negotiations about milestone payment amounts and reporting details. This should take about a week. But it is also not a set length either other than it must finish before 1 Aug. Only until all negotiations with each of the potential award nominies (BTW during this period a potential award nominie can be droped or moved in priority based on dificulty of negotiations or failure to come to an agreement. But this is rare and is not likely to happen.)

All of this must happen before any releases because not only the exact award amount is stated but the milestone schedule is also published at that time (minus the payment amounts for each milestone only the total award is published). So NASA does not yet know when negotiations will end. Usually the release is made on the same date as the contracts are signed. Also usually not until all parties (the possible 3 different providers) have signed.

NASA must spend the cash before 1 Aug or FY012?

CCDev-2 ends July 31. NASA's schedule is to have no break. Plus any delay risks NASA loosing some of its CCP FY2012 funds because it can only be spent during FY2012, giving only 2 months of activity for CCiCap to complete milestones for the amount NASA expects to spend in FY2012.

I am not sure that CCDev-2 has to end on July 31st; it goes into the third quarter of 2012 according to the milestones chart.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf

As far as funding is concerned, different budget rules apply for SAAs; the commercial crew funding for FY 2012 doesn't need to be spent in FY 2012 it gets carried over into the next fiscal year if it is not spent in FY2012.   


CCDev2 officially ends April 2013 (24 months from award) or when all milestones are complete - whichever is earlier.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/25/2012 11:05 pm
Prior to award anouncement the potential winners are in cofidential negotiations about milestone payment amounts and reporting details. This should take about a week. But it is also not a set length either other than it must finish before 1 Aug. Only until all negotiations with each of the potential award nominies (BTW during this period a potential award nominie can be droped or moved in priority based on dificulty of negotiations or failure to come to an agreement. But this is rare and is not likely to happen.)

All of this must happen before any releases because not only the exact award amount is stated but the milestone schedule is also published at that time (minus the payment amounts for each milestone only the total award is published). So NASA does not yet know when negotiations will end. Usually the release is made on the same date as the contracts are signed. Also usually not until all parties (the possible 3 different providers) have signed.

NASA must spend the cash before 1 Aug or FY012?

CCDev-2 ends July 31. NASA's schedule is to have no break. Plus any delay risks NASA loosing some of its CCP FY2012 funds because it can only be spent during FY2012, giving only 2 months of activity for CCiCap to complete milestones for the amount NASA expects to spend in FY2012.

I am not sure that CCDev-2 has to end on July 31st; it goes into the third quarter of 2012 according to the milestones chart.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf

As far as funding is concerned, different budget rules apply for SAAs; the commercial crew funding for FY 2012 doesn't need to be spent in FY 2012 it gets carried over into the next fiscal year if it is not spent in FY2012.   


CCDev2 officially ends April 2013 (24 months from award) or when all milestones are complete - whichever is earlier.

From the SNC SAA:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS01S_SAA-%20SNC_Redacted.pdf (http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS01S_SAA-%20SNC_Redacted.pdf)

Quote
ARTICLE 15. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement becomes effective upon the date of the last signature below and shall remain in effect until the completion of all obligations of both Parties hereto, or two (2) years from the date of the last signature, whichever comes first.


You're correct about the max duration.

But past FY funds can not be put on a new contract, only current or future FY funds can be put on a new contract. So if NASA wants to use the remaining funds available in FY2012 not obligated for the CCDev2 contracts then they need to sign the contracts before 1 Oct 2012. You are probably correct that the olbligated FY2012 funds that has been put on contract with the CCDev2 SAA's could be paid to the contractors in FY2013 if they don't finish all of their milestones in FY2013. But if it isn't paid out it's gone, such as for milestones not completed by April 2013. I don't think any of the CCDev2 contractors will not complete all milestones by then though.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 07/27/2012 03:43 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q3hHvdEqYE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH-lFiX-C1E
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 07/28/2012 12:27 am
The way I see it, it's DreamChaser and then a bunch of boring capsules...fingers crossed that it's not just a bunch of boring capsules after the downselect! ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/28/2012 02:53 am
Winged vehicles are boring. They are only for LEO.

PS.  Trains are even more boring
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 07/28/2012 02:58 am
Winged vehicles are boring. They are only for LEO.

PS.  Trains are even more boring

Space trains.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oberon_Command on 07/28/2012 03:27 am
Winged vehicles are boring. They are only for LEO.

PS.  Trains are even more boring

Space trains.


With wings?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: zerm on 07/28/2012 03:28 am
PS.  Trains are even more boring

Except when you're driving one (yes... I have driven a real locomotive, and it was not boring).


Quite frankly, I don't care how we get US astronauts from US soil and back into space, as long as we do it soon... even if it's "boring."
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: PeterAlt on 07/28/2012 03:36 am
My reading is also SpaceX and Boeing for full contracts and Sierra Nevada for a partial.

At this point in "the gap" you want to go with those closest to going live. Dragon is obviously well along, and Boeing can catch up fastest.

Both also have BEO potential, which previously didn't seem to be a consideration but recent comments by NASA types seem to bring into the mix. IMO this may be an unmentioned fallback criteria for if Orion / SLS get cut or significantly delayed.  Example - 2 years added to Orion's high altitude LAS test

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120622-orion-abort-test-delay.html

As much as I like it, DC is not yet as far along as SS2 is much less even a suborbital test flight. (not that SS2 is orbital, just an observation). I wouldn't even be surprised if it didn't make the cut, with Liberty taking #3.

So, we've discounted ATK from the picture? Is that a fair assumption? I don't know how I feel about their entry. Super aggressive. Is that a good quality or something we need to be suspicious of?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 07/28/2012 03:38 am
Quote
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust

Rominger: Liberty would be part of ATK if get fully-funded CCiCap award. Otherwise, consider spinout & outside investment #newspace2012
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: kirghizstan on 07/28/2012 03:39 am
in the newspace2012 video the guy from SNC mentioned CCiCap announcement soon.  If i understand correctly companies who have been initially selected would be in negotiations right now.  so my random thought is, would this guy mention ccicap if they knew they were not one of the initial selections
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 07/28/2012 03:40 am
All this is assumption. We really don't know what NASA is thinking on this. We'll just have to wait and see. I won't believe anything unless Chris posts it himself. Until then.........
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 07/28/2012 03:41 am
A way to set the idea of spinning off Liberty in peoples heads so it wouldn't be a surprise later?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/28/2012 10:38 am
All this is assumption. We really don't know what NASA is thinking on this. We'll just have to wait and see. I won't believe anything unless Chris posts it himself. Until then.........
Yes, we’re down to the short ones now…. Might as well catch some Olympics and Auto Racing on the tube over the weekend to distract myself…  I guess we can only estimate angels on a pinhead for so long…  ;D
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/28/2012 12:54 pm
Quote
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust

Rominger: Liberty would be part of ATK if get fully-funded CCiCap award. Otherwise, consider spinout & outside investment #newspace2012

If commercial crew was really commercial that in itself should be a reason not to fund ATK.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: zerm on 07/28/2012 04:22 pm
No matter what the pick, some group is gonna be celebrating and some group is gonna be crushed.

The best analogy that I can make is one of sports. If your team advances in a playoff, you don’t really care why, you just get happy and pull for them to move on. If your favored team gets eliminated from a playoff, however, it is human nature to shrink into the mindset of “they were robbed,” or “The ref.s made bad calls,” or “The other team cheated,” or “The fix was in,” or “The deck was stacked against us,” or “there was favoritism,” or even “someone was bribed to throw the game,” or some combination of any of those. Rarely does anyone look back and say “Well, that goes all the way back to training camp- our team could have made better decisions and set us up to compete at a better or even different level.”

The same will be true when this selection is made by NASA. Just as an example, if SNC is selected and something such as Liberty is not- the SNC critics and Liberty fans will use all of the above mentioned mechanisms to justify why their team was eliminated. Likewise, if it goes the other way around the SNC is eliminated and Liberty is selected, the ATK critics will do the same.

Thus, here in cyber space it is a no-win situation for NASA… which is why most of the vitriol here on the Internet and in the forums is pretty much ignored by the career NASA folks- and well be it. So, what you have is a lot of usernames shouting and trash-talking one another in countless binary encoded 1’s and 0’s and accomplishing nothing more than aggravating each other. Although fun to read, and sometimes fun to participate in, it all has nothing to do with what next will actually take US astronauts into space from US soil and when… but it beats video games IMO.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/28/2012 06:02 pm
If Liberty wins, there will be real justification for accusations of favoritism. They've never developed a launch vehicle before, and picking them violates every principle of trying to get fast, domestic access to LEO.

Akin's law:
Quote
39. The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:
       1)  No new launch vehicles.
       2)  No new launch vehicles.
       3)  Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles.
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

As far as everyone else, well, I think they have decent proposals (though it'd be weird if Excalibur wins).

EDIT:this has nothing to do with fanboy-ism. ATK continues to /lie/ about blackzones on the existing launch vehicles. They are a bad actor.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Downix on 07/28/2012 07:04 pm
If Liberty wins, there will be real justification for accusations of favoritism. They've never developed a launch vehicle before, and picking them violates every principle of trying to get fast, domestic access to LEO.

Akin's law:
Quote
39. The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:
       1)  No new launch vehicles.
       2)  No new launch vehicles.
       3)  Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles.
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

As far as everyone else, well, I think they have decent proposals (though it'd be weird if Excalibur wins).

EDIT:this has nothing to do with fanboy-ism. ATK continues to /lie/ about blackzones on the existing launch vehicles. They are a bad actor.
I've not seen ATK mentioning blackzones in quite awhile.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: peter-b on 07/28/2012 07:27 pm
Or it could be Liberty, Dream Chaser, Boeing, since that would keep three new spacecraft in the running for the time being (while SpaceX kept flying Dragon in the mean time.)

Cargo and crewed Dragon are not really the same spacecraft, so I question the validity of your assumption here.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 07/28/2012 07:37 pm
Or it could be Liberty, Dream Chaser, Boeing, since that would keep three new spacecraft in the running for the time being (while SpaceX kept flying Dragon in the mean time.)

Cargo and crewed Dragon are not really the same spacecraft, so I question the validity of your assumption here.
This brings up a good question - what are the critical differences between the Dragon and dragon Rider - is SpaceX building a new spacecraft or modifying a cargo vehicle for manned spaceflight?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Downix on 07/28/2012 07:56 pm
Or it could be Liberty, Dream Chaser, Boeing, since that would keep three new spacecraft in the running for the time being (while SpaceX kept flying Dragon in the mean time.)

Cargo and crewed Dragon are not really the same spacecraft, so I question the validity of your assumption here.
This brings up a good question - what are the critical differences between the Dragon and dragon Rider - is SpaceX building a new spacecraft or modifying a cargo vehicle for manned spaceflight?
New spacecraft which will then be used for Cargo once it enters service.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/28/2012 08:02 pm
If Liberty wins, there will be real justification for accusations of favoritism. They've never developed a launch vehicle before, and picking them violates every principle of trying to get fast, domestic access to LEO.

Akin's law:
Quote
39. The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:
       1)  No new launch vehicles.
       2)  No new launch vehicles.
       3)  Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles.
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

As far as everyone else, well, I think they have decent proposals (though it'd be weird if Excalibur wins).

EDIT:this has nothing to do with fanboy-ism. ATK continues to /lie/ about blackzones on the existing launch vehicles. They are a bad actor.
I've not seen ATK mentioning blackzones in quite awhile.
Well, it featured quite prominently among their claims in the public unveiling of the Liberty spacecraft and Liberty launch vehicle just a couple months ago. They should've apologized, not just repeated the long-discredited blackzone lie. They publicly lied about a supposedly big safety issue, and they should have a just-as-public apology. Fear-mongering like that has no excuse.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Downix on 07/28/2012 08:11 pm
If Liberty wins, there will be real justification for accusations of favoritism. They've never developed a launch vehicle before, and picking them violates every principle of trying to get fast, domestic access to LEO.

Akin's law:
Quote
39. The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:
       1)  No new launch vehicles.
       2)  No new launch vehicles.
       3)  Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles.
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

As far as everyone else, well, I think they have decent proposals (though it'd be weird if Excalibur wins).

EDIT:this has nothing to do with fanboy-ism. ATK continues to /lie/ about blackzones on the existing launch vehicles. They are a bad actor.
I've not seen ATK mentioning blackzones in quite awhile.
Well, it featured quite prominently among their claims in the public unveiling of the Liberty spacecraft and Liberty launch vehicle just a couple months ago. They should've apologized, not just repeated the long-discredited blackzone lie. They publicly lied about a supposedly big safety issue, and they should have a just-as-public apology. Fear-mongering like that has no excuse.
If they'd kept it up, I would be with you. But they dropped it. It may have been carried forward from Ares I spreadsheets and some marketing guy thought it looked good.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/28/2012 08:14 pm
If Liberty wins, there will be real justification for accusations of favoritism. They've never developed a launch vehicle before, and picking them violates every principle of trying to get fast, domestic access to LEO.

Akin's law:
Quote
39. The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:
       1)  No new launch vehicles.
       2)  No new launch vehicles.
       3)  Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles.
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

As far as everyone else, well, I think they have decent proposals (though it'd be weird if Excalibur wins).

EDIT:this has nothing to do with fanboy-ism. ATK continues to /lie/ about blackzones on the existing launch vehicles. They are a bad actor.
I've not seen ATK mentioning blackzones in quite awhile.
Well, it featured quite prominently among their claims in the public unveiling of the Liberty spacecraft and Liberty launch vehicle just a couple months ago. They should've apologized, not just repeated the long-discredited blackzone lie. They publicly lied about a supposedly big safety issue, and they should have a just-as-public apology. Fear-mongering like that has no excuse.
If they'd kept it up, I would be with you. But they dropped it. It may have been carried forward from Ares I spreadsheets and some marketing guy thought it looked good.
Dropped it? They haven't really had a big public marketing release since then.

It wasn't an accident. The guy speaking about it spoke as if he had authority, not just some marketing guy. He had slides to "back up" the claims, and spoke strongly about the topic. Not an accident, it was intentional dishonesty. Or willful ignorance, which is the same thing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 07/28/2012 09:30 pm
ATK Dropped Blackzones - and rightfully so.

It was the right thing to do.  Rommel was here at NewSpace 2012 and it never came up once.

People will continue to hate on ATK for reasons that may have been justified years ago... but refusing to see the innovation and acceptance of the new commercial economic model is something to be commended and encouraged.

I am very comfortable with ATK and their Liberty Launch System wrt how they are approaching it economically. 

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChefPat on 07/31/2012 06:30 pm
Here's (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48390277/ns/technology_and_science-space/) an excellent article covering some of the down select.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ugordan on 07/31/2012 07:15 pm
The person is strong in this one.  No mention at all of CST-100 or DreamChaser, with just a passing reference to Atlas.  It seemed like he was trying to paint the completion as one soley between SpaceX and ATK.

What did you expect from someone who wrote that commentary as a "response to a series by NBC News' Jay Barbree" and is working on a book about SpaceX?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 07/31/2012 07:15 pm
Here's (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48390277/ns/technology_and_science-space/) an excellent article covering some of the down select.

The person is strong in this one.  No mention at all of CST-100 or DreamChaser, with just a passing reference to Atlas.  It seemed like he was trying to paint the completion as one soley between SpaceX and ATK.

Article written by a guy who just happens to be writting a book about SpaceX.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rabidpanda on 07/31/2012 07:22 pm
The person is strong in this one.  No mention at all of CST-100 or DreamChaser, with just a passing reference to Atlas.  It seemed like he was trying to paint the completion as one soley between SpaceX and ATK.

What did you expect from someone who wrote that commentary as a "response to a series by NBC News' Jay Barbree" and is working on a book about SpaceX?

He could have at least mentioned the other competitors.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 07/31/2012 07:25 pm
The person is strong in this one.  No mention at all of CST-100 or DreamChaser, with just a passing reference to Atlas.  It seemed like he was trying to paint the completion as one soley between SpaceX and ATK.

What did you expect from someone who wrote that commentary as a "response to a series by NBC News' Jay Barbree" and is working on a book about SpaceX?

He could have at least mentioned the other competitors.

they call it spin
 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/31/2012 07:45 pm
Here's (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48390277/ns/technology_and_science-space/) an excellent article covering some of the down select.

Although the article is very much one sided, it's hard to disagree with anything that he says. If SpaceX doesn't receive full funding for CCiCap, NASA's decision will be difficult to explain to taxpayers. As far as ATK, their proposal is the remnant of a failed Ares I program that costs taxpayers $8 billion dollars. They don't deserve additionnal money for it.

I am also pulling for the DC mostly because it is in my opinion the most cool and futuristic spacecraft (although retrorockets are also cool and futuristic).  DC is also born through COTS unfunded agreements and private investments.

The DC and SpaceX' proposals represents everything that COTS and CCDev/CCicCap should be about. CCDev/CCicap wasn't meant as an SLS-MPCV/Ariane supplement program.  But old habits die hard. So I don't expect NASA to do the right thing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 07/31/2012 08:12 pm
The article is remarkably non-objective and has a very clear bias towards a vendor (SpaceX) with a obvious agenda. While it is clear that SpaceX has done outstanding work - technical and otherwise, IMO the article is not even journalism, its sales - for a book? i don't know but it is of limited value.
On the other hand a history of COTS and CCDEV could be invaluable in helping to understand how our govt. works and what can be done to improve government acquisition.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/31/2012 08:18 pm
The article is remarkably non-objective and has a very clear bias towards a vendor (SpaceX) with a obvious agenda. While it is clear that SpaceX has done outstanding work - technical and otherwise, IMO the article is not even journalism, its sales - for a book? i don't know but it is of limited value.
On the other hand a history of COTS and CCDEV could be invaluable in helping to understand how our govt. works and what can be done to improve government acquisition.

It's a commentary. It wasn't meant to be objective. Besides, I think that he was trying to show the contrast between a company like ATK and SpaceX. Adding comments about DC and Boeing would have detracted from the point that he was trying to make which is that NASA needs to do things differently. Choosing ATK as one of the leading commercial crew provider (if that happens) is not doing things very differently from Constellation.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Alan Boyle on 07/31/2012 08:52 pm
I wanted to provide a little more information about the commentary by Stewart Money. The original pieces by Jay Barbree, which were also commentaries, were pretty positive regarding Liberty and Boeing CST-100, and didn't say much about Sierra Nevada and Blue Origin. But Jay was rather negative on SpaceX, and we did get some complaints (including from SpaceX) that the company really wasn't getting a fair shake. Of course, anyone can add comments to the story, but I felt in this case that it was appropriate for SpaceX to have an opportunity to respond at greater length if they wanted. I told them they were welcome to do so in an op-ed response.

As it turned out, the folks at SpaceX instead encouraged Stewart to write his commentary and submit it for consideration. So that's why the commentary was SpaceX-centric ... it was meant as a way to give SpaceX's supporters more of an extended say after Jay's criticism.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/31/2012 08:54 pm
Although the article is very much one sided, it's hard to disagree with anything that he says.

No, it isn't hard at all.  He wrote that "SpaceX is the only entrant in the competition that has already flown to the space station with the complete system being offered", which is not true at all.  Falcon 9 v1.1 (a much-heavier stretched version of the current rocket) hasn't flown, nor has its new, much higher thrust Merlin 1D engines, and Dragon Rider (or whatever it is called) does differ from Dragon.

 - Ed Kyle 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Alan Boyle on 07/31/2012 09:02 pm
Also, on the CCDev / CCP front, I wrote this story that I hope is a just-the-facts guide to what's happened so far, plus what will happen:

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/20/12840538-follow-the-money-in-the-commercial-space-race
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 07/31/2012 09:29 pm
If Liberty wins, there will be real justification for accusations of favoritism. They've never developed a launch vehicle before, and picking them violates every principle of trying to get fast, domestic access to LEO.

Akin's law:
Quote
39. The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:
       1)  No new launch vehicles.
       2)  No new launch vehicles.
       3)  Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles.
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

As far as everyone else, well, I think they have decent proposals (though it'd be weird if Excalibur wins).

EDIT:this has nothing to do with fanboy-ism. ATK continues to /lie/ about blackzones on the existing launch vehicles. They are a bad actor.

Playing devil’s advocate here but couldn't you equally apply those laws to the SLS if you wanted to go along that line of thinking and that's still pressing ahead. So there is nothing to say the same will not happen with ATK?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/31/2012 09:32 pm
Also, on the CCDev / CCP front, I wrote this story that I hope is a just-the-facts guide to what's happened so far, plus what will happen:

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/20/12840538-follow-the-money-in-the-commercial-space-race

Thanks. A lot of good quotes from Ed Mango in that article. He mentions that the CCiCap will use funding from FY 2012, 2013 and 2014. That is not unexpected but it was never made clear before if it would include FY2014 funding or not. Also, the fact than the awards might be less than the expected $300M to $500M is interesting. There might be a lot more optional milestones than expected.

I am guessing that the awards will be about $300-350M, $300-350M and $150-175M which is about the funding expected from FY 2012 and FY 2013. The funding for FY 2014 could end up being optional milestones.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: wjbarnett on 07/31/2012 09:43 pm
Also, on the CCDev / CCP front, I wrote this story that I hope is a just-the-facts guide to what's happened so far, plus what will happen:

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/20/12840538-follow-the-money-in-the-commercial-space-race

Thank you Alan for writing this excellent, comprehensive review of the NASA commercial programs. No doubt some details are not possible to include, but its a great summary for the public that needs to see/understand that NASA and HSF are not already 'out of business'.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/31/2012 11:40 pm

What did you expect from someone who wrote that commentary as a "response to a series by NBC News' Jay Barbree" and is working on a book about SpaceX?

Wow, just read through that op-ed myself. It is a shame, as the argument can be made for SpaceX, and so easily, but for them to take on THE most seasoned space flight journalist with that fluffy, almost sickly, love story of an op-ed is not going to wash with the doubters.

And I'm getting really sick of Dragon being compared to Shuttle. "It's so much cheaper and safer, puppies and kittens..." Noooo, don't do that! It was counter productive if anything.

The best thing, the BEST THING, these op-eds could do is to embrace the fact they had a bunch of failures to start off with and they fought back to the point of C2+. Success out of failure is a great and admirably angle.

They need to stop making them out as some sort of Space Camp group of teenagers who have never tasted failure, with a spacecraft that's the BIG ALTERATIVE to big bad NASA, because nothing makes a SpaceX fan look like a moron than when they use that "Woo, SpaceX cool. Boo, NASA" attitude.

Yeah, not an update, but someone posted THAT as an update on here.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/31/2012 11:48 pm
Also, on the CCDev / CCP front, I wrote this story that I hope is a just-the-facts guide to what's happened so far, plus what will happen:

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/20/12840538-follow-the-money-in-the-commercial-space-race

Thank God for facts ;) I needed that after getting annoyed by the other article! ;D

I could put my hand up on the SLS part (the hardware representation) but I know it's aimed at a wider audience and I'm not going to start telling Sir Alan of Boyle what to write! :D
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 08/01/2012 12:01 am

What did you expect from someone who wrote that commentary as a "response to a series by NBC News' Jay Barbree" and is working on a book about SpaceX?

Wow, just read through that op-ed myself. It is a shame, as the argument can be made for SpaceX, and so easily, but for them to take on THE most seasoned space flight journalist with that fluffy, almost sickly, love story of an op-ed is not going to wash with the doubters.

Chris, I guess I'm more shocked that this piece warrants such a reaction from you, when the original piece by Mr. Barbree apparently did not. (Unless I missed it) Please don't stare yourself blind on the "THE most seasoned space flight journalist" label. Appeal to authority only goes so far.

Was this a great opinion piece? No, it certainly could have been more even-handed. (and this is coming from a SpaceX 'fan') But it was an understandable reaction. At least a contrasting view was aired on the same news site.

Attempting to link ATK to Challenger is a low blow. But so is attempting to equate SpaceX to Apollo 1.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/01/2012 12:11 am

What did you expect from someone who wrote that commentary as a "response to a series by NBC News' Jay Barbree" and is working on a book about SpaceX?

Wow, just read through that op-ed myself. It is a shame, as the argument can be made for SpaceX, and so easily, but for them to take on THE most seasoned space flight journalist with that fluffy, almost sickly, love story of an op-ed is not going to wash with the doubters.

Chris, I guess I'm more shocked that this piece warrants such a reaction from you, when the original piece by Mr. Barbree apparently did not. (Unless I missed it) Please don't stare yourself blind on the "THE most seasoned space flight journalist" label. Appeal to authority only goes so far.

Was this a great opinion piece? No, it certainly could have been more even-handed. (and this is coming from a SpaceX 'fan') But it was an understandable reaction. At least a contrasting view was aired on the same platform.

I can only comment on what's put in front of me, and that one was.....so I reacted.

:)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: kirghizstan on 08/01/2012 12:23 am
mr bolye's statement that "The initial rocket flights would be powered by shuttle-style RS-25 engines, plus an updated Saturn-style J-2X for the upper stage, plus an extended version of the solid-rocket boosters that were used on the space shuttle. " is wrong with regards to the j-2x as we all know, but a decent article for those who know little to nothing about what is going on at NASA
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: beancounter on 08/01/2012 12:52 am
Got to say that this is an 'Update' thread and all I've read through the last pages are discussion which has it's own thread.  Came looking for updates, not discussion.  Post of the article links may be update but nothing else.  Does anyone have any others?
Cheers.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/01/2012 12:55 am
Yeah, it's a bit of a fail as an update thread and I may change the thread title to reflect.

We'll be able to start an actua update thread per the CCiCAP awards.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 08/01/2012 01:26 am
Speaking of CCiCAP, has there been any word on when the awards are going to be announced? I thought it would happen last week, but I was clearly wrong...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/01/2012 01:33 am
The update thread on L2 has more up to date information on CCiCap. But we are not allowed to share it...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Confusador on 08/01/2012 01:55 am
Speaking of CCiCAP, has there been any word on when the awards are going to be announced? I thought it would happen last week, but I was clearly wrong...

I don't know what's on L2, but Wayne Hale has suggested Friday: (https://twitter.com/waynehale/statuses/228964929347137536)

Quote
July is slipping away with no NASA awards for CCiCap. Rumor says 30 or 31, but NASA likes Fridays so I'm betting on 8/3. But I'm an optimist
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 08/01/2012 01:57 am
Guessing the date of the announcement may be easier than guessing the substance of it, but it's still pointless guessing. Just wait.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/01/2012 07:44 am
Converted into a discussion thread.

A new discussion thread, and a new UPDATE thread will be created after the CCiCAP announcement.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: uko on 08/01/2012 08:45 am
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/07/31/commercial-crew-announcement-this-week/#more-41471
Nice speculation here about the awards:
"Charles Lurio of The Lurio Report has emailed me saying that he has heard from a very reliable source that NASA will announce the next round of commercial crew funding on Thursday or Friday."
"I had heard from a source during the NewSpace 2012 Conference that NASA’s announcement had been delayed from July because White House officials are not happy with one of the awards. It’s not clear precisely what that means, but speculation has focused on the possibility of ATK receiving an award for its Ares I-derived Liberty system."
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/01/2012 09:33 am
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/07/31/commercial-crew-announcement-this-week/#more-41471
Nice speculation here about the awards:
"Charles Lurio of The Lurio Report has emailed me saying that he has heard from a very reliable source that NASA will announce the next round of commercial crew funding on Thursday or Friday."
"I had heard from a source during the NewSpace 2012 Conference that NASA’s announcement had been delayed from July because White House officials are not happy with one of the awards. It’s not clear precisely what that means, but speculation has focused on the possibility of ATK receiving an award for its Ares I-derived Liberty system."
Ha, I liked this article…  It relates to my thread on the “Sons of Constellation”… ;)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29410.0
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: kirghizstan on 08/01/2012 11:03 am
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/07/31/commercial-crew-announcement-this-week/#more-41471
Nice speculation here about the awards:
"Charles Lurio of The Lurio Report has emailed me saying that he has heard from a very reliable source that NASA will announce the next round of commercial crew funding on Thursday or Friday."
"I had heard from a source during the NewSpace 2012 Conference that NASA’s announcement had been delayed from July because White House officials are not happy with one of the awards. It’s not clear precisely what that means, but speculation has focused on the possibility of ATK receiving an award for its Ares I-derived Liberty system."

wouldn't the white house have been notified of what nasa was thinking before actually going to the companies?  if they didn't want ATK they would have said no then.  something like that coming at this late of a stage would be really surprising to me.

on a side note, do you ever think someone will write a book on the story inside the obama's executive branch and NASA?  probably just be an ebook but still would be a very interesting read.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/01/2012 01:27 pm
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/07/31/commercial-crew-announcement-this-week/#more-41471
Nice speculation here about the awards:
"Charles Lurio of The Lurio Report has emailed me saying that he has heard from a very reliable source that NASA will announce the next round of commercial crew funding on Thursday or Friday."
"I had heard from a source during the NewSpace 2012 Conference that NASA’s announcement had been delayed from July because White House officials are not happy with one of the awards. It’s not clear precisely what that means, but speculation has focused on the possibility of ATK receiving an award for its Ares I-derived Liberty system."

wouldn't the white house have been notified of what nasa was thinking before actually going to the companies?  if they didn't want ATK they would have said no then.  something like that coming at this late of a stage would be really surprising to me.

on a side note, do you ever think someone will write a book on the story inside the obama's executive branch and NASA?  probably just be an ebook but still would be a very interesting read.

Gerst is the selecting officer. If he decides that ATK gets full funding, it gets full funding. The White House (or even Bolden for that matter) cannot undo his selections. The only thing that the White House can do about it is delay the announcement or perhaps renegotiate the deal with Wolf to have four providers instead of three.

If NASA has actually chosen ATK, I hope that it is not for political reasons or because it is launching from KSC or because it has commonality with SLS/MPCV. But given NASA's past history, I am not too confident that Gerst decisions will be based solely on business and technical merits as it should be. If that is the case, I can understand the White House being unhappy about one of Gerst's selections.  Gerst must have know how the White House would react ahead of time. The White House doesn't think of the commercial crew program as an SLS/MPCV supplement program and it is a shame that some at NASA think of commercial crew that way. I am surprised and disapointed that Gerst is one of them (assuming that this report is true). I always thought of Gerst as a common sense kind of guy.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: anonymous1138 on 08/01/2012 01:50 pm
Gerst is the selecting officer. If he decides that ATK gets full funding, it gets full funding. The White House (or even Bolden for that matter) cannot undo his selections. The only thing that the White House can do about it is delay the announcement or perhaps renegotiate the deal with Wolf to have four providers instead of three.

If NASA has actually chosen ATK, I hope that it is not for political reasons or because it is launching from KSC or because it has commonality with SLS/MPCV. But given NASA's past history, I am not too confident that Gerst decisions will be based solely on business and technical merits as it should be. If that is the case, I can understand the White House being unhappy about one of Gerst's selections.  Gerst must have know how the White House would react ahead of time. The White House doesn't think of the commercial crew program as an SLS/MPCV supplement program. 

I have heard only good things spoken about Gerstenmeier. Any decisions made purely on business and technical merit will probably - over time, at least - be accepted. I know that if there is a hint that politics played a role in the selection process over and above business and technical merit, there will be great disappointment.

I'll be very surprised if ATK gets any award.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/01/2012 02:13 pm
Assuming that this report/rumor is true, the selection statement would probably say that ATK has won based on business and technical merits. Whether this is true is hard to verify other than through hearsay.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 08/01/2012 02:49 pm
It's possible SpaceX has received a partial or no award at all. If ATK has received a full award, I would suspect that the selection would look like....ATK and Sierra Nevada receiving full awards and SpaceX or Boeing receiving partial. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/01/2012 02:52 pm
What I do find a bit curious is that before an announcement is made that those higher up are aware of it. Why go through the motion of a decision being made and then risk exposure politically whether it is from the Hill or the WH. That leaves the opening to lay the claim of political interference. In an ideal world Gerst would tell Bolden, who would inform the WH for go, no go… Then a notification would go out of a decision has been made and not the other way around… Curious…
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Wayne Hale on 08/01/2012 04:09 pm
Hope I'm not the source for Lurio . . .  I'm just guessing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/01/2012 04:15 pm
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/07/31/commercial-crew-announcement-this-week/#more-41471
Nice speculation here about the awards: ...
"I had heard from a source during the NewSpace 2012 Conference that NASA’s announcement had been delayed from July because White House officials are not happy with one of the awards. It’s not clear precisely what that means, but speculation has focused on the possibility of ATK receiving an award for its Ares I-derived Liberty system."

Emphasis on speculation

If any of this rumor (the White House meddling part) is true, than whoever loses has grounds for all manner of appeal, not to mention political haymaking during an election year. 

That's why I don't believe this rumor.

  - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/01/2012 04:16 pm
Hope I'm not the source for Lurio . . .  I'm just guessing.

There's so much floating around, rumors can be sourced from 101 places right now.

I'm not touching this until they go official. Probably the safest approach.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/01/2012 05:11 pm
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/07/31/commercial-crew-announcement-this-week/#more-41471
Nice speculation here about the awards: ...
"I had heard from a source during the NewSpace 2012 Conference that NASA’s announcement had been delayed from July because White House officials are not happy with one of the awards. It’s not clear precisely what that means, but speculation has focused on the possibility of ATK receiving an award for its Ares I-derived Liberty system."

Emphasis on speculation

If any of this rumor (the White House meddling part) is true, than whoever loses has grounds for all manner of appeal, not to mention political haymaking during an election year. 

That's why I don't believe this rumor.

  - Ed Kyle

It didn't say anything about the White House meddling. It just says that the White House is not happy.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 08/01/2012 05:12 pm
Gerst is the selecting officer. If he decides that ATK gets full funding, it gets full funding. The White House (or even Bolden for that matter) cannot undo his selections. The only thing that the White House can do about it is delay the announcement or perhaps renegotiate the deal with Wolf to have four providers instead of three.

If NASA has actually chosen ATK, I hope that it is not for political reasons or because it is launching from KSC or because it has commonality with SLS/MPCV. But given NASA's past history, I am not too confident that Gerst decisions will be based solely on business and technical merits as it should be. If that is the case, I can understand the White House being unhappy about one of Gerst's selections.  Gerst must have know how the White House would react ahead of time. The White House doesn't think of the commercial crew program as an SLS/MPCV supplement program. 

I have heard only good things spoken about Gerstenmeier. Any decisions made purely on business and technical merit will probably - over time, at least - be accepted.

Let’s all try and be kind to him.  Have a feeling some will throw the mud all over regarding this civil servant.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/01/2012 05:26 pm
Gerst is accountable for his decisions. If he made his decisions based on business and technical merits, he has nothing to worry about.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 08/01/2012 05:33 pm
Gerst is accountable for his decisions. If he made his decisions based on business and technical merits, he has nothing to worry about.

I wish that were true.   When media can say 2+2 =5 ,and people believe it; then we have major problems.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 08/01/2012 05:53 pm
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/07/31/commercial-crew-announcement-this-week/#more-41471
Nice speculation here about the awards: ...
"I had heard from a source during the NewSpace 2012 Conference that NASA’s announcement had been delayed from July because White House officials are not happy with one of the awards. It’s not clear precisely what that means, but speculation has focused on the possibility of ATK receiving an award for its Ares I-derived Liberty system."

Emphasis on speculation

If any of this rumor (the White House meddling part) is true, than whoever loses has grounds for all manner of appeal, not to mention political haymaking during an election year. 

That's why I don't believe this rumor.

  - Ed Kyle

Can't appeal or sue for SAAs, unlike contract awards.  You can complain but it won't get you anywhere.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/01/2012 06:10 pm
Gerst is the selecting officer. If he decides that ATK gets full funding, it gets full funding. The White House (or even Bolden for that matter) cannot undo his selections. The only thing that the White House can do about it is delay the announcement or perhaps renegotiate the deal with Wolf to have four providers instead of three.

If NASA has actually chosen ATK, I hope that it is not for political reasons or because it is launching from KSC or because it has commonality with SLS/MPCV. But given NASA's past history, I am not too confident that Gerst decisions will be based solely on business and technical merits as it should be. If that is the case, I can understand the White House being unhappy about one of Gerst's selections.  Gerst must have know how the White House would react ahead of time. The White House doesn't think of the commercial crew program as an SLS/MPCV supplement program. 

I have heard only good things spoken about Gerstenmeier. Any decisions made purely on business and technical merit will probably - over time, at least - be accepted.

Let’s all try and be kind to him.  Have a feeling some will throw the mud all over regarding this civil servant.

I’ll second that… Gerst works tirelessly and has had difficult decisions to make on his watch. Government rockets have to serve many masters…
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sdsds on 08/01/2012 06:11 pm
I am not too confident that Gerst decisions will be based solely on business and technical merits as it should be. [...] I always thought of Gerst as a common sense kind of guy.

I am confident Gerstenmeier's decision will be based solely on the appropriate criteria. He is as a common sense kind of guy with unimpeachable ethics.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rdale on 08/01/2012 06:27 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2012/release-20120801.html
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 08/01/2012 06:34 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2012/release-20120801.html

It looks like your friday prediction was a good one, Wayne. :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: kirghizstan on 08/01/2012 06:37 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2012/release-20120801.html

It looks like your friday prediction was a good one, Wayne. :)

surprise surprise, Wayne was right, what it must be like to be right more than not :D
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 08/01/2012 06:41 pm
way to go RDALE!!!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: HammerD on 08/01/2012 06:47 pm
way to go RDALE!!!

Nice call.  I think ATK's Liberty and SpaceX will get full funding!  Not sure about partial...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 08/01/2012 06:49 pm
way to go RDALE!!!

Nice call.  I think ATK's Liberty and SpaceX will get full funding!  Not sure about partial...

I'm calling it with ATK's Liberty & Dream Chaser getting full funding with CST-100 getting the partial.

Orbiter
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/01/2012 06:52 pm
I just hope Dream Chaser doesn't miss out.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 08/01/2012 06:54 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2012/release-20120801.html

It looks like your friday prediction was a good one, Wayne. :)

surprise surprise, Wayne was right, what it must be like to be right more than not :D

And those speculating (e.g. in L2) about ties to stock markets and political wheelings....
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 08/01/2012 06:55 pm
I just hope Dream Chaser doesn't miss out.
Those of us with a sense of style agree.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: HammerD on 08/01/2012 07:03 pm
I just hope Dream Chaser doesn't miss out.
Those of us with a sense of style agree.

The only reason I'm not bullish on the Dream Chaser is because it is winged design (kinda similar to Shuttle).  Been there and done that.   Of course you could say the same about the capsule designs ;)  So actually I'm not really sure.  50/50 here.

You could also argue that SpaceX doesn't need full funding as they have already proven themselves with flights.  So why pay someone who can/will do it anyway? On the other hand it has less risk, potentially.

Blue Origin could be the dark knight here - with them being so secretive who knows ?

Anyway, I am sure all of us will be eagerly waiting the results and maybe more entertainingly the fall out of the results ;)

Should be an interesting weekend with MSL's arrival at Mars this weekend too!  (And I have Monday off work ;)

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/01/2012 07:16 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2012/release-20120801.html

It looks like your friday prediction was a good one, Wayne. :)

surprise surprise, Wayne was right, what it must be like to be right more than not :D

And those speculating (e.g. in L2) about ties to stock markets and political wheelings....

Except that the announcement will be made before the market closes... So much for that theory...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Alpha Control on 08/01/2012 07:17 pm
And those speculating (e.g. in L2) about ties to stock markets and political wheelings....

The political angle of a late Friday news release is a valid one. It's been done.

So, Friday morning! I know we'll all be glued to this site & NASA TV for this! :)

My hope is for Dream Chaser (Full), and Boeing and SpaceX, with no preference as to the remaining full or partial.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 08/01/2012 07:19 pm
I just hope Dream Chaser doesn't miss out.
Those of us with a sense of style agree.

Fingers crossed - DreamChaser is certainly the one I'm rooting for! 

And even from a more objective standpoint, how many different versions of a capsule design does the cash-strapped agency need?  Having DC and a capsule would make more strategic sense for an agency looking to get the most diverse set of features/capabilities out of its limited budget.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/01/2012 07:20 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2012/release-20120801.html

It looks like your friday prediction was a good one, Wayne. :)

For the record, people that have L2 have know since Monday that the announcement would likely be on Friday because of a post on L2. L2 is fun to have!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 08/01/2012 07:27 pm
Having DC and a capsule would make more strategic sense for an agency looking to get the most diverse set of features/capabilities out of its limited budget.

Perhaps, but not if you want the highest probability of having at least two functioning and reliable systems. And that may be closer to the official criteria than what you mentioned.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 08/01/2012 07:43 pm
I just hope Dream Chaser doesn't miss out.
Those of us with a sense of style agree.

Fingers crossed - DreamChaser is certainly the one I'm rooting for! 

And even from a more objective standpoint, how many different versions of a capsule design does the cash-strapped agency need?  Having DC and a capsule would make more strategic sense for an agency looking to get the most diverse set of features/capabilities out of its limited budget.

Is diversity part of the selection criteria?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 08/01/2012 07:50 pm
Is diversity part of the selection criteria?

Maybe not officially, though it was certainly part of the spirit of this "commercial" initiative which is quickly becoming more of a conventional contract award.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sdsds on 08/01/2012 07:56 pm
If this must become a predictions thread, please predict the "effectiveness" and "confidence" ratings which you feel will be given for Technical Approach and Business Information.

I predict Boeing's will be the only proposal that receives a blue or green (very high or high) effectiveness rating for both technical and business, AND "high" confidence for both.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/01/2012 08:22 pm
I just hope Dream Chaser doesn't miss out.
Those of us with a sense of style agree.

Fingers crossed - DreamChaser is certainly the one I'm rooting for! 

And even from a more objective standpoint, how many different versions of a capsule design does the cash-strapped agency need?  Having DC and a capsule would make more strategic sense for an agency looking to get the most diverse set of features/capabilities out of its limited budget.

Is diversity part of the selection criteria?

It was for CCDev-2. The selection statement specifically says that NASA decided to choose a lifting body over a capsule partly for the purpose of diversifying their portfolio.  McAlister had also stated in a CCDev-2 pre-award conference that diversity was a factor. I am not sure how relevant it will be for CCiCap, however.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Wayne Hale on 08/01/2012 08:22 pm
I used to guess about the shuttle landing weather, too.

NASA doesn't pay much attention to the stock market, but they like to make big announcements on Friday (generally later in the day I must say) so that people have the weekend to think it over before reacting.  Of course, Congress usually takes Friday off so they won't be there to react.

Finally, Gerst will make the best possible decision, but like everyone he has bosses.  No smart person makes a big decision without getting his boss's opinion.  Its subtle, but yes, their opinion really does weigh into the final decision.  If the 'boss' is adamant in opposition to your (preliminary) decision, you have three choices - change your boss's mind (good luck), sign your retirement papers, or change your decision. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 08/01/2012 08:37 pm
  If the 'boss' is adamant in opposition to your (preliminary) decision, you have three choices - change your boss's mind (good luck), sign your retirement papers, or change your decision. 

Sounds as though it's not really Gerst's decision.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: kirghizstan on 08/01/2012 08:42 pm
I just hope Dream Chaser doesn't miss out.

I love how chris says things like this when he has to know the results by now.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: marsavian on 08/01/2012 08:46 pm
Liberty and Dragon to get full awards with DC and CST-100 fighting over the partial, leaning towards DC as CST-100 looks superfluous against Dragon and Orionlite.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 08/01/2012 08:52 pm
would be fun if Blue Origin (little info out there) comes in and gets an award.   That would be a shocker.

Anyhow I hope the "cleansed" list of companies comes out.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: kirghizstan on 08/01/2012 08:54 pm
How about we just start a poll thread of the choices.  It won't let me for some reason but here are the options I would allow

Full - DC, Dragon; Half - CST
Full - DC, Dragon; Half - Liberty
Full - CST, Dragon; Half - DC
Full - CST, Dragon; Half - Liberty
Full - Liberty, Dragon; Half - CST
Full - Liberty, Dragon; Half - DC
Full - CST, DC; Half - Dragon
Full - CST, DC; Half - Liberty
Full - CST, Liberty; Half - Dragon
Full - CST, Liberty; Half - DC
Full - DC, Liberty; Half - Dragon
Full - DC, Liberty; Half - CST
Other (please post)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sdsds on 08/01/2012 08:56 pm
There's a slight variant on the "Sign your retirement papers" option: don't sign your retirement papers. Admittedly this variant might result in the same employment status! ;)

The only real difference might who gets involved in the post-mortem assessment.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 08/01/2012 08:58 pm
How about we just start a poll thread of the choices.  It won't let me for some reason but here are the options I would allow

Full - DC, Dragon; Half - CST
Full - DC, Dragon; Half - Liberty
Full - CST, Dragon; Half - DC
Full - CST, Dragon; Half - Liberty
Full - Liberty, Dragon; Half - CST
Full - Liberty, Dragon; Half - DC
Full - CST, DC; Half - Dragon
Full - CST, DC; Half - Liberty
Full - CST, Liberty; Half - Dragon
Full - CST, Liberty; Half - DC
Full - DC, Liberty; Half - Dragon
Full - DC, Liberty; Half - CST
Other (please post)

Seconded...

...Actually, let me try to set one up.

~Jon
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 08/01/2012 09:01 pm
How about we just start a poll thread of the choices.  It won't let me for some reason but here are the options I would allow

Full - DC, Dragon; Half - CST
Full - DC, Dragon; Half - Liberty
Full - CST, Dragon; Half - DC
Full - CST, Dragon; Half - Liberty
Full - Liberty, Dragon; Half - CST
Full - Liberty, Dragon; Half - DC
Full - CST, DC; Half - Dragon
Full - CST, DC; Half - Liberty
Full - CST, Liberty; Half - Dragon
Full - CST, Liberty; Half - DC
Full - DC, Liberty; Half - Dragon
Full - DC, Liberty; Half - CST
Other (please post)
Don't forget blue origin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: kirghizstan on 08/01/2012 09:02 pm
How about we just start a poll thread of the choices.  It won't let me for some reason but here are the options I would allow

Full - DC, Dragon; Half - CST
Full - DC, Dragon; Half - Liberty
Full - CST, Dragon; Half - DC
Full - CST, Dragon; Half - Liberty
Full - Liberty, Dragon; Half - CST
Full - Liberty, Dragon; Half - DC
Full - CST, DC; Half - Dragon
Full - CST, DC; Half - Liberty
Full - CST, Liberty; Half - Dragon
Full - CST, Liberty; Half - DC
Full - DC, Liberty; Half - Dragon
Full - DC, Liberty; Half - CST
Other (please post)
Don't forget blue origin

the reason for other, because really does anyone actually expect them to be funded?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Norm Hartnett on 08/01/2012 09:04 pm
What I'd like to see; Full Awards: SpaceX, Dream Chaser, Partial Award Blue Origin (diversity triumphant)

What I hope to see; Full Awards: SpaceX, Dream Chaser, Partial Award CST-100

What I expect to see; Full Awards: CST-100, SpaceX, Partial Award Dream Chaser

What I fear to see; Full Awards: CST-100, Liberty, Partial Award SpaceX (old boy network triumphant)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: PeterAlt on 08/01/2012 09:20 pm
I just hope Dream Chaser doesn't miss out.

Me too! My gut tells me they'll get half, but I hope they get full!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: PeterAlt on 08/01/2012 09:24 pm
It's a good thing the conference will be at 9am. As Han Solo once said "I hate long waits!"
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 08/01/2012 09:33 pm
For those who didn't see yet, I setup a poll with the selections that kirghizstan suggested: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29570.0
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: PeterAlt on 08/01/2012 09:44 pm
What I'd like to see; Full Awards: SpaceX, Dream Chaser, Partial Award Blue Origin (diversity triumphant)

What I hope to see; Full Awards: SpaceX, Dream Chaser, Partial Award CST-100

What I expect to see; Full Awards: CST-100, SpaceX, Partial Award Dream Chaser

What I fear to see; Full Awards: CST-100, Liberty, Partial Award SpaceX (old boy network triumphant)

Dido... NASA has invested so much in the previous rounds in CST-100... Add the fact that they've passed every milestone so far in a timely manner in flying colors... I don't see NASA trading that favoritism with another candidate. SpaceX has been a "second" favorite, so I don't see that going away either....
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/01/2012 10:44 pm
{snip}

Other (please post)

At this stage of the game it can also be

Full - man-rate Atlas V, man-rate Falcon 9; Half - DC.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 08/01/2012 10:54 pm
Gerst is the selecting officer. If he decides that ATK gets full funding, it gets full funding. The White House (or even Bolden for that matter) cannot undo his selections. The only thing that the White House can do about it is delay the announcement or perhaps renegotiate the deal with Wolf to have four providers instead of three.

If NASA has actually chosen ATK, I hope that it is not for political reasons or because it is launching from KSC or because it has commonality with SLS/MPCV. But given NASA's past history, I am not too confident that Gerst decisions will be based solely on business and technical merits as it should be. If that is the case, I can understand the White House being unhappy about one of Gerst's selections.  Gerst must have know how the White House would react ahead of time. The White House doesn't think of the commercial crew program as an SLS/MPCV supplement program. 

I have heard only good things spoken about Gerstenmeier. Any decisions made purely on business and technical merit will probably - over time, at least - be accepted.

Let’s all try and be kind to him.  Have a feeling some will throw the mud all over regarding this civil servant.

I have a lot of respect for Gerstenmaier, and I'm sure that respect will continue irregardless to who he chooses.

EDIT: Although I am hoping SpaceX gets a full, with Dream Chaser and CST-100 getting the other two awards.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/01/2012 11:24 pm
{snip}

Other (please post)

At this stage of the game it can also be

Full - man-rate Atlas V, man-rate Falcon 9; Half - DC.

NASA gets to choose among the proposals that were made. It doesn't get  to make its own proposals. Each proposal has to be an end to end system.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 08/02/2012 12:31 am

Full - man-rate Atlas V, man-rate Falcon 9; Half - DC.

Lost for words that I can post without being moderated.

That is not what is being competed. NASA is looking total crew to orbit package, which the spacecraft is the major part and launch vehicle is done by a supplier or subtier element of the proposer.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jason1701 on 08/02/2012 04:30 am

Full - man-rate Atlas V, man-rate Falcon 9; Half - DC.

Lost for words that I can post without being moderated.

That is not what is being competed. NASA is looking total crew to orbit package, which the spacecraft is the major part and launch vehicle is done by a supplier or subtier element of the proposer.

This must be the tenth time Jim has had to post that message for the same person.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/02/2012 08:21 am

Full - man-rate Atlas V, man-rate Falcon 9; Half - DC.

Lost for words that I can post without being moderated.

That is not what is being competed. NASA is looking total crew to orbit package, which the spacecraft is the major part and launch vehicle is done by a supplier or subtier element of the proposer.

This must be the tenth time Jim has had to post that message for the same person.

Which means the spacecraft companies have to pay for man rating the launch vehicles.  Those costs will be charged back to NASA.

It helps that Boeing make the CST-100 and are a major shareholder in ULA.  So the practical difference is which salesman gets the commission on the sale.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 08/02/2012 11:24 am

1.  Which means the spacecraft companies have to pay for man rating the launch vehicles. 

2.  Those costs will be charged back to NASA.


1.  Was always the intent.

2.  Not true, but so what?  Either way, NASA would pays.  But  NASA isn't fully funding CCiCAP cost just as it didn't for COTS. The companies have to provide internal funding. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 08/02/2012 11:26 am

It helps that Boeing make the CST-100 and are a major shareholder in ULA.  So the practical difference is which salesman gets the commission on the sale.

huh?  Another meaningless point.  Then, how is it any different than Spacex, who both builds the Dragon and Falcon?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/02/2012 01:57 pm
I can see it becoming a bit tense on here. Let's not, after all, the Internet is a happy place, right? ;)

Gerst is the selecting officer. If he decides that ATK gets full funding, it gets full funding. The White House (or even Bolden for that matter) cannot undo his selections. The only thing that the White House can do about it is delay the announcement or perhaps renegotiate the deal with Wolf to have four providers instead of three.

If NASA has actually chosen ATK, I hope that it is not for political reasons or because it is launching from KSC or because it has commonality with SLS/MPCV. But given NASA's past history, I am not too confident that Gerst decisions will be based solely on business and technical merits as it should be. If that is the case, I can understand the White House being unhappy about one of Gerst's selections.  Gerst must have know how the White House would react ahead of time. The White House doesn't think of the commercial crew program as an SLS/MPCV supplement program. 

I have heard only good things spoken about Gerstenmeier. Any decisions made purely on business and technical merit will probably - over time, at least - be accepted.

Let’s all try and be kind to him.  Have a feeling some will throw the mud all over regarding this civil servant.

I have a lot of respect for Gerstenmaier, and I'm sure that respect will continue irregardless to who he chooses.

EDIT: Although I am hoping SpaceX gets a full, with Dream Chaser and CST-100 getting the other two awards.

Huge amount of respect for Mr Gerstenmeier. He could select a bunch of washing machines for CCiCAP tomorrow and that wouldn't change.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/02/2012 02:05 pm
Yes, I agree. I may have been off on this. Gerst seems like a common sense kind of guy. I would expect his picks for CCicap to reflect that. My first impression was likely the right one. I don't think that Gerst likes to play politics eventhough he is often thrown into the political arena.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Drkskywxlt on 08/02/2012 03:17 pm
What I'd like to see; Full Awards: SpaceX, Dream Chaser, Partial Award Blue Origin (diversity triumphant)

What I hope to see; Full Awards: SpaceX, Dream Chaser, Partial Award CST-100

What I expect to see; Full Awards: CST-100, SpaceX, Partial Award Dream Chaser

What I fear to see; Full Awards: CST-100, Liberty, Partial Award SpaceX (old boy network triumphant)

Absolutely agree.  Anyone but ATK. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/02/2012 03:41 pm

It helps that Boeing make the CST-100 and are a major shareholder in ULA.  So the practical difference is which salesman gets the commission on the sale.

huh?  Another meaningless point.  Then, how is it any different than Spacex, who both builds the Dragon and Falcon?

It is highly unlikely that large amounts of money from Dream Chaser's allocation will be going to pay for the man rating of the Falcon 9, SpaceX will have attached all the money to the Dragon bid.  If Boeing is not given a grant for the CST-100 then ULA will almost certainly be sending the bill for man rating the Atlas V to Sierra Nevada.  NASA may have bids that will pay twice for man rating the Atlas V.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 08/02/2012 07:24 pm
  NASA may have bids that will pay twice for man rating the Atlas V.

No.

A.  There are no "bids", just work proposals
b.  The teaming arrangements will determine who pays for what, but ULA is not going to double bill its partners.  It is even ludicrous to think that
ULA would try to stick it to its partners.  They know that future business rides on this
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 08/22/2012 09:30 pm
Latest 60 day report has just been posted on the NASA website:

› Commercial Spaceflight - 60 Day Report, Issue 8 (PDF) (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/679670main_August_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf)
› CCDev2 Milestone Schedule (PDF - 8/15/12) (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/679671main_CCDev2_Public_August2012_508.pdf)

Eighth issue, with articles on the CCiCap partners announcement, the near-completion of all CCDev2 milestones, Orbital's progress toward the Antares test flight for the COTS program, and the announcement of the Certification Products Contract (CPC).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/14/2012 06:59 pm
There is some information on the price of the CCiCap optional milestones in the Hearing Charter:

Quote
In addition to the funds shown above, the three companies selected for CCiCap submitted optional milestones, that include such big ticket items as launch and landing simulations, spacecraft qualification testing, crew escape system pad abort tests, purchasing launch vehicles necessary for demonstration flights, and crewed orbital test flights. The optional milestones have aggregate total cost estimates in the range of $4.5 Billion, more than four times greater than the costs assumed for the CCiCap base period (2012-2014).

See page 4:
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/images/HHRG-112-%20SY-20120914-SD001.pdf

See the post above. The CCiCap optional milestones are more expensive than I expected.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 09/14/2012 07:15 pm
That's an average of 1.5B per company. If you assume that each Atlas V launch would cost something like 200M, plus the capsule. And you had two flights, that's 600M just on direct costs. You have to add the ground infrastructure (crew access tower, probably a new MLP for the Atlas V, etc. Plus certification, development and such under a FAR contract. I still remember that Orbital stated that their Prometheus development plus Atlas V upgrades was something like 3.5B to 4B project. It doesn't seems that high a number from that POV.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/14/2012 07:19 pm
That's an average of 1.5B per company. If you assume that each Atlas V launch would cost something like 200M, plus the capsule. And you had two flights, that's 600M just on direct costs. You have to add the ground infrastructure (crew access tower, probably a new MLP for the Atlas V, etc. Plus certification, development and such under a FAR contract. I still remember that Orbital stated that their Prometheus development plus Atlas V upgrades was something like 3.5B to 4B project. It doesn't seems that high a number from that POV.

Yeah. That's a good point about the cost of crew access tower, etc. For the Atlas V, these amounts are likely counted in double since Boeing can't assume that DC will share the payment of these costs and vis-versa (in other words, each company must assume that the other one will have been downselected in 2014).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/21/2012 01:14 am
Didn't know where to put this question but wanted to find the details of it;  and implications toward Commercial Crew from the people that work with NASA and understand this.

NASA-STD-5012
??
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/21/2012 03:05 am
Didn't know where to put this question but wanted to find the details of it;  and implications toward Commercial Crew from the people that work with NASA and understand this.

NASA-STD-5012
??


it doesn't mean anything unless it is in the contract
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vulture4 on 09/21/2012 04:40 am
That's an average of 1.5B per company. If you assume that each Atlas V launch would cost something like 200M, plus the capsule. And you had two flights, that's 600M just on direct costs. You have to add the ground infrastructure (crew access tower, probably a new MLP for the Atlas V, etc. Plus certification, development and such under a FAR contract. I still remember that Orbital stated that their Prometheus development plus Atlas V upgrades was something like 3.5B to 4B project. It doesn't seems that high a number from that POV.

Yeah. That's a good point about the cost of crew access tower, etc. For the Atlas V, these amounts are likely counted in double since Boeing can't assume that DC will share the payment of these costs and vis-versa (in other words, each company must assume that the other one will have been downselected in 2014).

ULA may supply the access tower for both vehicles, saving a lot of duplication and potential design interference. There might be slight differences in the hatch locaton but a typical swingarm access system would be flexible enough for both.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/21/2012 01:58 pm
Didn't know where to put this question but wanted to find the details of it;  and implications toward Commercial Crew from the people that work with NASA and understand this.

NASA-STD-5012
??


it doesn't mean anything unless it is in the contract

confused, your saying NASA might relax its standards?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 09/21/2012 02:42 pm
Didn't know where to put this question but wanted to find the details of it;  and implications toward Commercial Crew from the people that work with NASA and understand this.

NASA-STD-5012
??


it doesn't mean anything unless it is in the contract

confused, your saying NASA might relax its standards?


NASA-STD-5012 (Strength and Life Assessment Requirements for Liquid Fueled Space Propulsion System Engines) is not mandatory under CCDEV or CCiCap Space Act agreements.  However, it is an applicable standard in the following documents:

CCT-STD-1140 Crew Transportation Technical Standards and Design Evaluation Criteria
CCT-REQ-1130 ISS Crew Transportation Certification and Services Requirements Document

Both of these are indirectly referenced in the CCiCap Announcement document as follows:

"This activity is expected to result in significant maturation of commercial CTS capabilities and significant progress towards an orbital crewed demonstration flight of these systems with consideration given to potential customers’ standards (e.g. NASA’s 1100 series and SSP 50808 and industry standards)."

And also:

"3.2     Base Period Goals
For the base period, to be concluded no later than May 31, 2014, NASA’s goals are for Participants to:
[...]
3.  Establish the criteria and plans for the Participants’ certification of the system for the orbital crewed demonstration flight, which considers potential customer standards (e.g. NASA’s 1100 series, SSP 50808 and industry equivalents)."


The upcoming Certification Products Contract (CPC) does call up CCT-STD-1140 and CCT-REQ-1130 as applicable documents -  which means that successful participants must meet the intent of NASA-STD-5012 either directly, or through alternative standards that can be shown to satisfy “meet the intent of” requirements.  The alternative standards clause in the model contract specifically calls up CCT-REQ-1130 Section 3.9 which lists NASA-STD-5012 as a requirement.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/21/2012 04:20 pm
thx for the info....more like what info I was looking for.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 10/18/2012 05:46 pm
There is some info about CST-100, Dragon Rider and CST-100 here:
http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/ispcs-2012-afternoon-session-part-2.html
http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/ispcs-2012-thurs-morning-session-part-2.html

Here is an interesting article on IP rights under CCiCap:
http://ipinspace.com/2012/10/17/ccicap-space-act-agreements-keep-your-ip-rights-if-you-want-to/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 10/20/2012 05:21 pm
Latest NASA Commercial Spaceflight 60-day Report (October 18, 2012) has been published.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/698604main_October_2012_60_Day_Report.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/698604main_October_2012_60_Day_Report.pdf)

• Update on milestones for all three CCiCap participants
• Article about re-usability of all three spacecraft

EDIT: Also a couple of presentations/poster dating from September:

• Commercial Spaceflight Status Briefing, September 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/698589main_Commercial%20Status_September_508.pdf)
• Commercial Crew Program Status, NAC Commercial Space Committee, September 18, 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/698590main_NAC%20Presentation%209-18_508.pdf)
• New Commercial Crew Program Partners poster (9 MB) (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/693131main_CCiCap_Partners_Poster_508.pdf)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 12/13/2012 11:49 pm
Latest NASA Commercial Spaceflight 60-day Report (Issue 10, December 2012) has been published.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/713805main_December_2012_60_Day_Report2.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/713805main_December_2012_60_Day_Report2.pdf)

CCiCap milestones completed:

Boeing             3 of 19
SpaceX            3 of 14
Sierra Nevada   2 of 9

Also a couple of presentations have been posted (first one we already know about):

› Presentation for NASA Advisory Council’s Human Exploration and Operations Committee, November 15, 2012 (PDF) (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/707193main_McAlister_Commercial_NAS_20121115=TAGGED.pdf)
› The latest Commercial Crew overview briefing for public awareness, December, 12, 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/713715main_CCP_Overview_20121203.pdf)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 12/14/2012 03:39 am
Of note concerning SpaceX's SuperDraco -

Quote
To date, the SuperDraco engines have undergone 58 hot-fire tests for a total run time of about 117 seconds. According to SpaceX Project Manager Garrett Reisman, “The SuperDraco development and test effort is indicating that this newly designed engine will surpass our original requirements."
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 12/14/2012 06:27 am
› The latest Commercial Crew overview briefing for public awareness, December, 12, 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/713715main_CCP_Overview_20121203.pdf)

Thanks. This was the first time I'd become aware of "Certification Products Contracts (CPC)" which I read to be in addition to the CCiCap contracts already signed. Basically getting a head-start on the post-CCiCap certification phase.

Quote
Contract Objective - Begin early, critical certification work to meet NASA Crew Transportation System (CTS) requirements

Procurement summary
– Multiple firm fixed price contract awards
– Individual awards capped at a maximum of $10M each
– Phase 1 Period of Performance: 15 months, awarded Dec 2012

Limited Scope
– Submittal and discussion of specific early lifecycle certification products
    – Alternate Standards
    – Hazard Analyses/Reports
    – Verification & Validation Plan
    – Certification Plan
– Begin the process of ISS visiting vehicle integration
– No design/development work funded through CPC

Thinking about it, will be fascinating to see if SNC gets an award for Dream Chaser.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 12/14/2012 11:25 am
› The latest Commercial Crew overview briefing for public awareness, December, 12, 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/713715main_CCP_Overview_20121203.pdf)

Thanks. This was the first time I'd become aware of "Certification Products Contracts (CPC)" which I read to be in addition to the CCiCap contracts already signed.
[...]
Thinking about it, will be fascinating to see if SNC gets an award for Dream Chaser.

Awards for the "Certification Products Contract" were recently announced (December 10) - we even have a thread for it:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30583.0

CPC contractors are:
-- The Boeing Company, Houston, $9,993,000
-- Sierra Nevada Corporation Space System, Louisville, Colo., $10,000,000
-- Space Exploration technologies Corp., Hawthorne, Calif., $9,589,525
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 12/16/2012 09:26 am
› The latest Commercial Crew overview briefing for public awareness, December, 12, 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/713715main_CCP_Overview_20121203.pdf)

Thanks. This was the first time I'd become aware of "Certification Products Contracts (CPC)" which I read to be in addition to the CCiCap contracts already signed.
[...]
Thinking about it, will be fascinating to see if SNC gets an award for Dream Chaser.

Awards for the "Certification Products Contract" were recently announced (December 10) - we even have a thread for it:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30583.0

CPC contractors are:
-- The Boeing Company, Houston, $9,993,000
-- Sierra Nevada Corporation Space System, Louisville, Colo., $10,000,000
-- Space Exploration technologies Corp., Hawthorne, Calif., $9,589,525

Thanks. I'd either become unsubscribed from that sub-forum, or Chris has been having another play and reorg'd them again.  :)

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/26/2013 12:04 pm
There will be no test flights under the CCiCap optional milestones period according to a NASA statement sent to ASAP:

Quote
"NASA will not fly people to orbit under a Space Act Agreement," said Joe Dyer, the panel’s chair, reading from a NASA statement.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130125/SPACE/130125025/Safety-panel-discusses-NASA-concerns-KSC-meeting

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 01/26/2013 05:08 pm
There will be no test flights under the CCiCap optional milestones period according to a NASA statement sent to ASAP:

Quote
"NASA will not fly people to orbit under a Space Act Agreement," said Joe Dyer, the panel’s chair, reading from a NASA statement.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130125/SPACE/130125025/Safety-panel-discusses-NASA-concerns-KSC-meeting

Unless I'm missing the legalese here, this is just re-stating what has already been stated, which is that NASA will not fly NASA astronauts on commercial crew vehicles during the SAA period. If I am reading what they said correctly then there is nothing preventing the companies from flying their own people into space, correct?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 01/26/2013 10:20 pm
Why does the press act like the ASAP has any influence over the NASA administration or in any way represents them?

NASA regularly ignores ASAP and their "recommendations".

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sdsds on 01/26/2013 11:29 pm
The wording is pretty clear: NASA will not pay out under SAAs for milestones that involve flying any people, NASA astronauts or otherwise. If it had been meant to apply only to flying NASA personnel  the statement read by Dyer would have used the term "astronaut."
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/27/2013 01:26 pm
Why does the press act like the ASAP has any influence over the NASA administration or in any way represents them?

NASA regularly ignores ASAP and their "recommendations".

The statement is from NASA not from ASAP. But Gertst already said at the House hearing last year that NASA intended to exercise (at most only) a few of the optional milestones.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 01/28/2013 12:37 am
The statement is from NASA not from ASAP.

Now you're conflating NASA with the NASA administration.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 02/18/2013 10:39 pm
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/02/space_launch_system_orion_woul.html

"NASA has decided to spare its Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule from any direct consequences of budget sequestration this year, according to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden Jr. Taking the cuts instead in the "exploration" part of NASA's budget would be commercial space companies trying to build spaceships to get American astronauts to the International Space Station. The Space Launch System (SLS) is NASA's name for a new booster being developed at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville for deep space missions and the Orion capsule that will ride on top of it."

and from "Aerospace Defense 02/14/13"

NASA’s topline budget for FY13 will be reduced by $726.7 million compared to its budget request if sequestration takes effect. Commercial Space Flight would be reduced by $441.6 million below the FY13 request. NASA would not be able to make Q4 milestone payments to the industry teams working on the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) including SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada.

That's $442M out of $1,112M or 40% (Boeing with $460m, SpaceX: $440M, SNC: $212.5M.

So much for Bolden being a supporter of commercial crew...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 02/18/2013 11:14 pm
Make no mistake about it - SLS/Orion got spared because they have political support in Congress and as they say, excrement rolls down Capitol Hill.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/19/2013 03:17 am
Except that sort of number is needed. It is like saying, oh it isn't fair this new $5 million program (some clearly needed analysis or hardware which actually needs that amount to be effective) was started last year. The year before it was only $1 million, how dare it get a 400% increase while my $2 billion program stays put!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 02/19/2013 03:42 am
Make no mistake about it - SLS/Orion got spared because they have political support in Congress and as they say, excrement rolls down Capitol Hill.


It is pretty brainless of congress to be under funding commercial crew.
 CCDev is probably one of the most important programs NASA has had in the past ten years.

I think it's ridiculous that commercial crew has to compete with exploration since having the first operational will free up money for the latter.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spectre9 on 02/19/2013 05:05 am
Charlie has learnt his lesson it seems.

This will mean Commercial Crew is less likely to get cut.

Strange I know but the more he goes after SLS/Orion the more backlash against Commercial Crew.

I would like to see manned Dragon cancelled.

Keep 1.5 providers.

Atlas V > Falcon 9 v1.1

Just too much launcher risk for my liking. This is only my armchair rocket scientist opinion though, it could be the most reliable launcher ever.

What I do know is that Atlas V does work and it works well today.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/19/2013 05:24 am
I would like to see manned Dragon cancelled.
Keep 1.5 providers.

1.5 providers is a very optimistic, and very unlikely, outcome; at best we're likely to get 1.0.  If you're arguing to cancel manned Dragon, you may as well simply admit that there will be 1.0 providers.  Or are you suggesting that the 0.5 is suppose to be filled by SNC?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 02/19/2013 05:30 am
If I had to choose I'd keep both Dragon and DreamChaser as these two would be the most versatile combination of vehicles.
Two separate systems using completely different LVs and recovery methods.

If one needs to be grounded the other can still fly.

The two vehicles also have complementary capabilities.

But I would not down select to less then two CCDev providers as doing so would defeat much of the purpose of CCDev.



Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 02/19/2013 05:57 am
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/02/space_launch_system_orion_woul.html

"NASA has decided to spare its Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule from any direct consequences of budget sequestration this year, according to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden Jr. Taking the cuts instead in the "exploration" part of NASA's budget would be commercial space companies trying to build spaceships to get American astronauts to the International Space Station. The Space Launch System (SLS) is NASA's name for a new booster being developed at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville for deep space missions and the Orion capsule that will ride on top of it."

and from "Aerospace Defense 02/14/13"

NASA’s topline budget for FY13 will be reduced by $726.7 million compared to its budget request if sequestration takes effect. Commercial Space Flight would be reduced by $441.6 million below the FY13 request. NASA would not be able to make Q4 milestone payments to the industry teams working on the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) including SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada.
So once gain CCP gets half the requested amount. It's very frustrating to see small programs that have a relatively high probability of success get cut when larger programs with abysmal futures (one flight every two years, no concrete destinations or objectives) are spared.

What I do know is that Atlas V does work and it works well today.
But with a much heftier price tag.

Make no mistake about it - SLS/Orion got spared because they have political support in Congress and as they say, excrement rolls down Capitol Hill.


It is pretty brainless of congress to be under funding commercial crew.
 CCDev is probably one of the most important programs NASA has had in the past ten years.

I think it's ridiculous that commercial crew has to compete with exploration since having the first operational will free up money for the latter.


"Brainless" is pretty good way to describe Congress.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/19/2013 06:07 am
The last I heard, some aides in the House had added up the number of flights left until ISS end of life, divided the amount of money being spent on commercial crew by that count and gotten a number much bigger than the price per seat of just continuing to fly on Soyuz. The House asked someone about it - probably Bill Gerstenmaier, I forget - and got the response that commercial crew is more about seeding a new industry than it is about not being dependent on the Russians, or saving money. This resulted in the blowup with Rep Wolf and the letter to Bolden. His response was the 2.5 competitors compromise and the assurance that NASA's only interest in commercial crew is for servicing ISS.

As such, "much of the purpose of CCDev" was defeated months ago.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 02/19/2013 06:10 am

"Brainless" is pretty good way to describe Congress.

This congress as they seems to be incapable of getting anything done and instead fight like a bunch of five year olds.

The last I heard, some aides in the House had added up the number of flights left until ISS end of life, divided the amount of money being spent on commercial crew by that count and gotten a number much bigger than the price per seat of just continuing to fly on Soyuz. The House asked someone about it - probably Bill Gerstenmaier, I forget - and got the response that commercial crew is more about seeding a new industry than it is about not being dependent on the Russians, or saving money. This resulted in the blowup with Rep Wolf and the letter to Bolden. His response was the 2.5 competitors compromise and the assurance that NASA's only interest in commercial crew is for servicing ISS.

As such, "much of the purpose of CCDev" was defeated months ago.

All I can say that is the most broken logic I've ever seen.

Personally I'd rather see money be spent on a domestic solution then be spent on buying seats on Soyuz.

Yes commercial crew is not just about rides to ISS it's about developing a new industry and the tools for future exploration.

I describe the present congress's take on space and science and general as penny wise and dollar dumb.

They make decisions that may save a few cents in the short term but end up costing us dearly in the long term.

A bunch of trained apes could make wiser financial decisions then the present congress.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 02/19/2013 06:11 am
The last I heard, some aides in the House had added up the number of flights left until ISS end of life, divided the amount of money being spent on commercial crew by that count and gotten a number much bigger than the price per seat of just continuing to fly on Soyuz. The House asked someone about it - probably Bill Gerstenmaier, I forget - and got the response that commercial crew is more about seeding a new industry than it is about not being dependent on the Russians, or saving money. This resulted in the blowup with Rep Wolf and the letter to Bolden. His response was the 2.5 competitors compromise and the assurance that NASA's only interest in commercial crew is for servicing ISS.

As such, "much of the purpose of CCDev" was defeated months ago.

Doesn't Wolf keep on insisting that the ISS program will end in 2020?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 02/19/2013 06:26 am

Doesn't Wolf keep on insisting that the ISS program will end in 2020?

Wolf comes off as kinda crazy to me and not the good kind.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/19/2013 06:32 am
Dumb da dumb dumb.

For the federal govt, it makes far more sense to use a domestic solution since a large portion of the money stays in the country and is recovered via taxes. Plus, even the IMF acknowledges that during a recession like this, there is a multiplier greater than one. And that is money that won't have to be used for unemPloyment, food stamps, or Extra prison for the greater domestic unemployed. The cost differential has to be enormous for the Russian solution to be rationally attractive.

And that is ignoring the fact that the chances for ISS to be abandoned in ISS are vanishingly small. And the fact that subsidizing the aerospace/military sector of a geopolitical rival is counter-productive. And the fact that NASA could get a lot of use out of commercial crew (and cargo) for exploration missions. And even the possibility that encouraging the orbital tourism market will help the US in the future. Etc, etc, etc.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 02/19/2013 04:14 pm
Dumb da dumb dumb.

For the federal govt, it makes far more sense to use a domestic solution since a large portion of the money stays in the country and is recovered via taxes. Plus, even the IMF acknowledges that during a recession like this, there is a multiplier greater than one. And that is money that won't have to be used for unemPloyment, food stamps, or Extra prison for the greater domestic unemployed. The cost differential has to be enormous for the Russian solution to be rationally attractive.

And that is ignoring the fact that the chances for ISS to be abandoned in ISS are vanishingly small. And the fact that subsidizing the aerospace/military sector of a geopolitical rival is counter-productive. And the fact that NASA could get a lot of use out of commercial crew (and cargo) for exploration missions. And even the possibility that encouraging the orbital tourism market will help the US in the future. Etc, etc, etc.

True money spent domestically is money that will earn more taxes and by providing jobs and the fact it reduces welfare and crime makes the payoff even larger.

Though in this case it'll prevent some young engineers from becoming more OWS protesters and IT experts from becoming black hat hackers.

CCDev probably in the end probably directly gives twice maybe even three x the value paying the Russians for a ride does and I'm not even counting the creation of a new industry.
The return on that could be truly massive.

I think said aids don't have any clue what they are talking about and need to just shut up.
Really the names of people like that who make big financial decisions should be made public as their decisions do effect the public.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/19/2013 05:41 pm
The last I heard, some aides in the House had added up the number of flights left until ISS end of life, divided the amount of money being spent on commercial crew by that count and gotten a number much bigger than the price per seat of just continuing to fly on Soyuz. The House asked someone about it - probably Bill Gerstenmaier, I forget - and got the response that commercial crew is more about seeding a new industry than it is about not being dependent on the Russians, or saving money. This resulted in the blowup with Rep Wolf and the letter to Bolden. His response was the 2.5 competitors compromise and the assurance that NASA's only interest in commercial crew is for servicing ISS.

As such, "much of the purpose of CCDev" was defeated months ago.

I find it somewhat incredulous that they figured it that only relatively recently.  Commercial crew can not, and never has been able to, compete with Soyuz on a per-seat cost basis (at least for up to 6 seats/yr).

Assuming a CCP operating or per-seat cost of $0, the current CCP break-even vs. Soyuz  is around 2025.  Using the original CCP funding profile and schedule with flights starting in 2015 changes that to around 2022.  Add a few hundred $M/yr for CCP seats, and break-even is well beyond 2028.

If those aides (or whoever) took this long to come to that realization, they should be fired for incompetence.  But before that, see how they answer when asked about the value of increased ISS utilization and 8 seats/yr and what the per-seat price looks like.  I'd bet those two extra seats/yr on Soyuz would carry a very high premium--if they can be had at all.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/19/2013 07:59 pm
Of course, every year that the full needed amount of funding for commercial crew is delayed, the worse this looks. It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: strangequark on 02/19/2013 10:20 pm
Though in this case it'll prevent some young engineers from becoming more OWS protesters and IT experts from becoming black hat hackers.

...most of those weren't engineering majors.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/19/2013 10:52 pm
Though in this case it'll prevent some young engineers from becoming more OWS protesters and IT experts from becoming black hat hackers.

...most of those weren't engineering majors.
Regardless, unemployment breeds unrest and vice. (and, of course, this applies to much more than just Commercial crew, so this is off-topic... but this isn't necessarily an issue if you already have better than full employment and a roaring economy... cutting spending is a very, very good idea then to keep the economy from over-heating... but Florida definitely doesn't have anywhere near this problem right now)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 02/19/2013 11:30 pm
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/02/space_launch_system_orion_woul.html

"NASA has decided to spare its Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule from any direct consequences of budget sequestration this year, according to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden Jr. Taking the cuts instead in the "exploration" part of NASA's budget would be commercial space companies trying to build spaceships to get American astronauts to the International Space Station. The Space Launch System (SLS) is NASA's name for a new booster being developed at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville for deep space missions and the Orion capsule that will ride on top of it."

and from "Aerospace Defense 02/14/13"

NASA’s topline budget for FY13 will be reduced by $726.7 million compared to its budget request if sequestration takes effect. Commercial Space Flight would be reduced by $441.6 million below the FY13 request. NASA would not be able to make Q4 milestone payments to the industry teams working on the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) including SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada.

That's $442M out of $1,112M or 40% (Boeing with $460m, SpaceX: $440M, SNC: $212.5M.

So much for Bolden being a supporter of commercial crew...

Already being discussed here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31117.0

The $442M number is exaggerated because it's compared to the FY13 PBR instead of the FY13 CR. The PBR requested $830M for commercial crew, the CR appropriated $406M, and the sequester would cut that to around $388M.

Also, you shouldn't be using the CCiCAP number as the basis because much of those milestones are FY14, not FY13.

So you are saying that CCiCap will suffer a proportional 4.4% reduction [ (406-388)/406 ], and NOT be used as a cash source to make SLS and Orion "whole"?

Given that at least one of the three particiapants is almost sure to miss 5% of the year's milestones, how likely is it that CCiCap will even spend this much?

(Much of the rest of the responses are headed OT.)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Joffan on 02/20/2013 01:35 am
I would like to see manned Dragon cancelled.

Keep 1.5 providers.

Atlas V > Falcon 9 v1.1

Just too much launcher risk for my liking. This is only my armchair rocket scientist opinion though, it could be the most reliable launcher ever.

What I do know is that Atlas V does work and it works well today.

Brilliant, discard the option that has demonstrated safe return from orbit and focus on the others.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, so it's amazing to me that the obvious strong candidate gets so much negative comment.

As a proponent of high R&D spending, I would always prefer funding more R&D rather than less. Not every project is going to pay off, but you can be sure that none will if you don't fund them.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/20/2013 03:31 am
The $442M number is exaggerated because it's compared to the FY13 PBR instead of the FY13 CR. The PBR requested $830M for commercial crew, the CR appropriated $406M, and the sequester would cut that to around $388M.

Also, you shouldn't be using the CCiCAP number as the basis because much of those milestones are FY14, not FY13.
So you are saying that CCiCap will suffer a proportional 4.4% reduction [ (406-388)/406 ], and NOT be used as a cash source to make SLS and Orion "whole"?

Given that at least one of the three particiapants is almost sure to miss 5% of the year's milestones, how likely is it that CCiCap will even spend this much?

Discounting CPC (~$30M), FY2013 appears to be a bit of a crunch year for CCiCap assuming milestone payments are constrained by the FY budget in which they occur, so an apparently small percentage haircut in FY2013 may have disproportionate effects? (see chart below)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 02/20/2013 04:00 am
(snip)
Odd. In response to a $17.9M budget cut, NASA is claiming that $80.2M worth of milestones will be delayed from 4Q13.

I have no conclusions to draw from that. Make of it what you will.
 
Quote
(Much of the rest of the responses are headed OT.)

I agree. I am self-reporting my reply after I post it; the mods can figure out what to do with it.

That was a tremendous response, and not at all off-topic, and I thank you for it.   The situation gets better, then worse.  CCiCap does take a proportional hit from sequester, ~4.4%, so it is not being raided for SLS and Orion.  However, NASA appears to be doing the usual, maximizing the pain by delaying $80M to cover a $18M shortfall. 

As I don't have your restraint, I will conclude that this is raw political maneuvering, a typical abdication of the responsibility to maximize benefit with limited funds in favor of trying to scare Congress into increasing the budget.  Good luck to NASA on that.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/20/2013 04:06 am
How about I lay out for you the raw information I'm using, share my conclusions, and let you draw your own?

The following, as the lawyers would say, are "facts not in dispute" ...

Thank you!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/20/2013 05:30 am
Quote
NASA would not be able to fund milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013 for Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) such as the SpaceX Inflight Abort Test Review, the Boeing Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control Engine Development Test, and the Sierra Nevada Corporation Integrated System Safety Analysis Review #2.

The values of these milestones are listed in the respective Space Act Agreements between NASA and the three companies:

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=632
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=633
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=634

SpaceX Inflight Abort Test Review - $10M
Boeing Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control Engine Development Test - $50.2M
Sierra Nevada Corporation Integrated System Safety Analysis Review #2 - $20M

Odd. In response to a $17.9M budget cut, NASA is claiming that $80.2M worth of milestones will be delayed from 4Q13.

Thanks again for the food for thought.  Some fear mongering to be sure, but attempting to parse that, I beleive it might have been better phrased as "NASA would not be able to fund all milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013 ...".  Given:
1. ~$17.9M cut off the top.
2. CPC ~$30M is non-negotiable?
3. CCiCap milestones must be paid in full on completion.
4. Then we are short $47.9M; and ...
NASA, not willing to play favorites among the CCiCap contenders and state whose milestones wouldn't get funded in public, punted and used ambiguous language?

Which appears to imply that one or more of the CCiCap contenders will not get all of their milestones funded in FY2013 under sequestration, and thus will likely be out of the running sooner rather than later?  (While some may consider that a threat, others in Congress may consider it a promise.)

So who of the CCiCap contenders is at greatest risk?  Seems Boeing might be... putting out a plan with a single $50.2M milestone in FY2013 seems rather crass and obtuse on Boeing's part?  Might they amend the SAA to split it into smaller parts?  OTOH, if anyone can swim with these sharks and ensure adequate CCiCap funding, it's probably Boeing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 02/20/2013 06:16 am
All I can say that is the most broken logic I've ever seen.

Personally I'd rather see money be spent on a domestic solution then be spent on buying seats on Soyuz.

Yes commercial crew is not just about rides to ISS it's about developing a new industry and the tools for future exploration.

I describe the present congress's take on space and science and general as penny wise and dollar dumb.

They make decisions that may save a few cents in the short term but end up costing us dearly in the long term.

A bunch of trained apes could make wiser financial decisions then the present congress.

You'd have to include the President in your finacial decisions point, as he's as dysfunctional with it all as anyone in Congress.  The lot of them are.

But yea, it's in our national interest to maintain our own access to space, even if it's a little cheaper to buy Soyuz.  But I have a hard time taking such rhetoric seriously.  I think there's too much political will on both sides to get our own access to space back rather than just buy Soyuz long term.
However, I will say this.  I'd be there are those in Congress (on both sides) and other Americans in general who don't or won't view a private company going to the ISS in quite the same way they will a "NASA" rocket and "NASA" spaceship going there.  There may be a feel of "SpaceX" or "Boeing" or "Sierra Nevada" havng access to space, but not quite "America" or "NASA" going to space...if that makes sense.

And so I wonder if some such misplaced perceptions are driving some opinions such as this?  From that view, whether it's Dragon or CST-100 or Soyuz going to the ISS, it's not NASA going there.  NASA's going somewhere BLEO at some time...maybe...  but Orion won't be going to the ISS....so NASA won't be going to the ISS.  So what does it matter which other provider is used?  Are they any different?  Big corporation or foreign government, is there much of a difference?  Let's go with the cheapest one.

I don't agree with that myself, just speculating.
I will say as cool as Commercial crew is, and I think it has some secondary benefits, I think in the grand scheme of things, it would have been better if NASA had made better decisions back after Columbia and during the ESAS study, and developed a LEO "Block 0" Orion and launched on an EELV.  They could have debated a heavy lift cargo launcher separately, but we should have had NASA flying their spaceship to the ISS, as a replacement spacecraft and launcher for the Shuttle by the time it was retired. 
Commercial crew is probably fiscally cheaper, but I think the optics of NASA going there with their own spaceship would have been better.
Yea, I know technically LM is building Orion, and an EELV wouldn't have been "NASA's" rocket, but I think you see where I'm coming from.  It's not quite the same as commercial crew which really looks more like a private company's spaceship that NASA is just buying rides on...not too unlike buying rides on a Soyuz.

CST-100 is based on Boeing's work on their Orion concept, so it should have been possible to have an LEO Orion design that could fly on a single stick EELV (Atlas-55x maybe) , but then serve as the platform for the full BLEO capable Orion to be fully developed once the Shuttle was retired and new ISS service was established.

But, that ship has sailed...we have what we have.  However I do think we should downselect to just one provider, whomever that might be, and proceed with just that with all due haste.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Occupymars on 02/20/2013 09:35 am
The last I heard, some aides in the House had added up the number of flights left until ISS end of life, divided the amount of money being spent on commercial crew by that count and gotten a number much bigger than the price per seat of just continuing to fly on Soyuz. The House asked someone about it - probably Bill Gerstenmaier, I forget - and got the response that commercial crew is more about seeding a new industry than it is about not being dependent on the Russians, or saving money. This resulted in the blowup with Rep Wolf and the letter to Bolden. His response was the 2.5 competitors compromise and the assurance that NASA's only interest in commercial crew is for servicing ISS.

As such, "much of the purpose of CCDev" was defeated months ago.

Doesn't Wolf keep on insisting that the ISS program will end in 2020?
It seems to me that the iss is now the number one enemy of Orion and sls. wolf and spaceporkers like him would love noting more than to kill the iss and divert its funds to the big boondoggle's also if you kill iss you kill COTS too. Two birds whit one stone.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 02/20/2013 11:22 am
The last I heard, some aides in the House had added up the number of flights left until ISS end of life, divided the amount of money being spent on commercial crew by that count and gotten a number much bigger than the price per seat of just continuing to fly on Soyuz. The House asked someone about it - probably Bill Gerstenmaier, I forget - and got the response that commercial crew is more about seeding a new industry than it is about not being dependent on the Russians, or saving money. This resulted in the blowup with Rep Wolf and the letter to Bolden. His response was the 2.5 competitors compromise and the assurance that NASA's only interest in commercial crew is for servicing ISS.

As such, "much of the purpose of CCDev" was defeated months ago.

Doesn't Wolf keep on insisting that the ISS program will end in 2020?
It seems to me that the iss is now the number one enemy of Orion and sls. wolf and spaceporkers like him would love noting more than to kill the iss and divert its funds to the big boondoggle's also if you kill iss you kill COTS too. Two birds whit one stone.

Possibly. It's hard to say. With no one actually named in the post apart from Bolden and Wolf and no mention if it was reported anywhere it could mean anything.  :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 02/20/2013 12:05 pm

Thanks again for the food for thought.  Some fear mongering to be sure, but attempting to parse that, I beleive it might have been better phrased as "NASA would not be able to fund all milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013 ...".  Given:
1. ~$17.9M cut off the top.
2. CPC ~$30M is non-negotiable?
3. CCiCap milestones must be paid in full on completion.
4. Then we are short $47.9M; and ...
NASA, not willing to play favorites among the CCiCap contenders and state whose milestones wouldn't get funded in public, punted and used ambiguous language?

Which appears to imply that one or more of the CCiCap contenders will not get all of their milestones funded in FY2013 under sequestration, and thus will likely be out of the running sooner rather than later?  (While some may consider that a threat, others in Congress may consider it a promise.)

So who of the CCiCap contenders is at greatest risk?  Seems Boeing might be... putting out a plan with a single $50.2M milestone in FY2013 seems rather crass and obtuse on Boeing's part?  Might they amend the SAA to split it into smaller parts?  OTOH, if anyone can swim with these sharks and ensure adequate CCiCap funding, it's probably Boeing.

Hold it. "milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013"
Would that not mean they will be funded in FY2014?
Realistically Boeing is the "safe pair of hands" candidate in the same way OSC is for cargo. NASA's sees the long successful launch track record of Atlas V and expects no trouble. How difficult can CTS-100 be, after all they are Boeing.

Dragon however has the annoying ability to have actually started delivering real stuff to the ISS. Given an awful lot of the flight systems Spacex will use on crewed Dragon are already racking up flight experience (and indeed NASA might even be OK with the re-using the same capsules) it would seem to be very perverse, given NASA's love of "pedigree" if it turned it's back on Spacex for the crew transfer side.

This leaves SNC. It's very NASA (or as some parts of NASA would see themselves). Bold, leading edge, creative (first composite hulled human rated lifting body design anywhere. How cool is that?). But risky.

While new is not necessarily better things change. I'd love SNC to be able to convince NASA (and the Legislature, who ultimately pay the bills) they are the better bet over Boeing and be the #2 provider (providing design as well as LV diversity) but my head says that won't happen.
<sigh>
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 02/20/2013 12:14 pm
But, that ship has sailed...we have what we have.  However I do think we should downselect to just one provider, whomever that might be, and proceed with just that with all due haste.

I was with you till that last para, could you elaborate on why you think we should downselect now? Personally I'd like to see two providers get business, just like with commercial cargo.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/20/2013 12:25 pm
But, that ship has sailed...we have what we have.  However I do think we should downselect to just one provider, whomever that might be, and proceed with just that with all due haste.

I was with you till that last para, could you elaborate on why you think we should downselect now? Personally I'd like to see two providers get business, just like with commercial cargo.
I would keep more providers too with two systems that have as little in common as possible. That way astronauts wont be grounded again for months (or years) if something happens with one of the systems (which is not completely unlikely given that they are all new).
Plus competition will help keeping prices down. A single provider would be able to dictate. It would be better to kill the SLS and use the funds to extent ISS and accelerate commercial crew with 3 providers instead of two. Then do a follow up for a heavy lifter some time down the road, when commercial crew has "paid for itself".
Unfortunately that is impossible to get through politcially. Too many politicians with vested interests in the SLS.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 02/20/2013 01:22 pm
It would be better to kill the SLS and use the funds to extent ISS and accelerate commercial crew with 3 providers instead of two. Then do a follow up for a heavy lifter some time down the road, when commercial crew has "paid for itself".
Unfortunately that is impossible to get through politcially. Too many politicians with vested interests in the SLS.
That's the problem. It's simply not an option.  :(
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 02/20/2013 02:45 pm


Hold it. "milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013"
Would that not mean they will be funded in FY2014?
Realistically Boeing is the "safe pair of hands" candidate in the same way OSC is for cargo. NASA's sees the long successful launch track record of Atlas V and expects no trouble. How difficult can CTS-100 be, after all they are Boeing.

Dragon however has the annoying ability to have actually started delivering real stuff to the ISS. Given an awful lot of the flight systems Spacex will use on crewed Dragon are already racking up flight experience (and indeed NASA might even be OK with the re-using the same capsules) it would seem to be very perverse, given NASA's love of "pedigree" if it turned it's back on Spacex for the crew transfer side.

This leaves SNC. It's very NASA (or as some parts of NASA would see themselves). Bold, leading edge, creative (first composite hulled human rated lifting body design anywhere. How cool is that?). But risky.

While new is not necessarily better things change. I'd love SNC to be able to convince NASA (and the Legislature, who ultimately pay the bills) they are the better bet over Boeing and be the #2 provider (providing design as well as LV diversity) but my head says that won't happen.
<sigh>


I like SNCs design not only because it's daring and innovative but it's also the best vehicle for medical evacuation.

Most capsule designs land in the boonies or in the water.
This temporarily puts the stricken crew member in an even worse situation then they were in on ISS.
Dream Chaser lands on a runway where an ambulance can be already waiting.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/20/2013 02:48 pm


Hold it. "milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013"
Would that not mean they will be funded in FY2014?
Realistically Boeing is the "safe pair of hands" candidate in the same way OSC is for cargo. NASA's sees the long successful launch track record of Atlas V and expects no trouble. How difficult can CTS-100 be, after all they are Boeing.

Dragon however has the annoying ability to have actually started delivering real stuff to the ISS. Given an awful lot of the flight systems Spacex will use on crewed Dragon are already racking up flight experience (and indeed NASA might even be OK with the re-using the same capsules) it would seem to be very perverse, given NASA's love of "pedigree" if it turned it's back on Spacex for the crew transfer side.

This leaves SNC. It's very NASA (or as some parts of NASA would see themselves). Bold, leading edge, creative (first composite hulled human rated lifting body design anywhere. How cool is that?). But risky.

While new is not necessarily better things change. I'd love SNC to be able to convince NASA (and the Legislature, who ultimately pay the bills) they are the better bet over Boeing and be the #2 provider (providing design as well as LV diversity) but my head says that won't happen.
<sigh>


I like SNCs design not only because it's daring and innovative but it's also the best vehiucle for medical evacuation.

Most capsule designs land in the boonies or in the water.
This temporarily puts the stricken crew member in much a worse situation then they were in on ISS.
Dream Chaser lands on a runway where an ambulance can be already waiting.
Has this ever happened? Has it ever been a significant problem?

Admit it, you primarily think it looks cool. ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 02/20/2013 03:14 pm
Has this ever happened? Has it ever been a significant problem?

Admit it, you primarily think it looks cool. ;)

Of course it looks cool but medical emergencies have happened.

http://articles.philly.com/1997-08-15/news/25566238_1_tsibliyev-and-alexander-lazutkin-mir-mission-cosmonauts

As for a bad landing.
http://www.videocosmos.com/soyuz23.shtm


Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/20/2013 04:03 pm
Has this ever happened? Has it ever been a significant problem?

Admit it, you primarily think it looks cool. ;)

Of course it looks cool but medical emergencies have happened.

http://articles.philly.com/1997-08-15/news/25566238_1_tsibliyev-and-alexander-lazutkin-mir-mission-cosmonauts

As for a bad landing.
http://www.videocosmos.com/soyuz23.shtm



So what, they survived.
BTW, you don't want to know what happens when Dreamchaser goes into "ballistic mode"...


Also, Dragon will be doing precision powered landing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 02/20/2013 06:01 pm

So what, they survived.

They barely survived.
Quote
BTW, you don't want to know what happens when Dreamchaser goes into "ballistic mode"...

As for going into ballistic mode no spacecraft be it space plane or capsule should ever be allowed to go into an uncontrolled state.
Besides there has never been a catastrophic avionics failure on STS.
The failure rates of the rest of the system far outweigh that of the avionics and control systems.
How often do airliners just fall out of the sky from loss of their avionics and use of their control surfaces?

Quote
Also, Dragon will be doing precision powered landing.

The landing method is less proven then a gliding landing.
In fact on this last part of the mission STS probably has the best record of any vehicle.

DC is the only CCDev vehicle with non toxic RCS and thus is the only vehicle that is immediately safe to approach after landing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/20/2013 07:01 pm

So what, they survived.

They barely survived.
Quote
BTW, you don't want to know what happens when Dreamchaser goes into "ballistic mode"...

As for going into ballistic mode no spacecraft be it space plane or capsule should ever be allowed to go into an uncontrolled state....
Regardless of whether you want to allow them, they might do it anyway.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 02/20/2013 07:04 pm
But, that ship has sailed...we have what we have.  However I do think we should downselect to just one provider, whomever that might be, and proceed with just that with all due haste.

I was with you till that last para, could you elaborate on why you think we should downselect now? Personally I'd like to see two providers get business, just like with commercial cargo.
I would keep more providers too with two systems that have as little in common as possible. That way astronauts wont be grounded again for months (or years) if something happens with one of the systems (which is not completely unlikely given that they are all new).
Plus competition will help keeping prices down. A single provider would be able to dictate. It would be better to kill the SLS and use the funds to extent ISS and accelerate commercial crew with 3 providers instead of two. Then do a follow up for a heavy lifter some time down the road, when commercial crew has "paid for itself".
Unfortunately that is impossible to get through politcially. Too many politicians with vested interests in the SLS.

Personally, I like all 3 finalists, and think the fact all 3 can’t be used is a shame in a certain way.  But the reality is, NASA only needs about two crew missions to the ISS per year.  Maybe 3 tops.  So even one provider will be operating at a very low capacity.  Much less two or three.  Keeping two just for “assured access” would mean one crew mission each per year likely.  There will be a lot of overhead with such a low flight rate. 
I don’t think “competition” will do anything to keep costs down, any more than it did for EELV’s.  Part of the reason ULA was formed (as I understand) was because after getting caught swiping info form LM, Boeing was going to drop Delta IV and get out of EELV.  USAF/DoD wanted “assured access” to space, so they subsidized them both to retain the two EELV’s, and people have been complaining about the high costs of maintaining two [mostly] redundant EELV’s all of this time.  Without Boeing’s swiping LM’s data, ULA might not have been formed, but USAF/DoD would have probably kept both Boeing and LM making Delta and Atlas for them, and costs would be about the same.

So what makes anyone think that NASA keeping two commercial crew providers flying at an incredibly low rate, will have any different of a result?  I think the more likely outcome is what happened with EELV’s.  The Government is paying twice as much for two expensive redundant providers than they need to, flying at rates too low to benefit from any economies of scale.  If USAF/DoD worked with ULA to retire one of the EELV’s and just focus on the other, likely rates would come down because even though there’d be a “monopoly” (although there is already), the remaining LV will double production, and all assets will be focused on just that one.  Two pads ULA maintains could be closed down, people who work on the retired core would probably be let go from Decatur, etc. 
If NASA maintains two providers for commercial crew, that’s two separate spaceship programs that will have to be subsidized to keep them active.  Even SpaceX would have to charge a lot of money for one single Dragon Rider flight per year.   Moreso with Boeing and SNC because at least SpaceX can cost share part of Dragon Rider with commercial cargo, assuming they maintain that contract while doing Dragon Rider.  Boeing will pretty much have to charge NASA the full annual cost of the CST-100 program into that single commercial crew flight per year. 

Now, with all of that said, a few things could happen.  NASA could combine a SpaceX’s commercial cargo and commercial crew contracts into one contract that is worth less money than the two would be individually, and give them the option to take that.  Which they may do because it’d be more money than just commercial cargo, and they do benefit from a certain amount of cost sharing, and that would help pay for full Dragon Rider development, which I think SpaceX would like to have for other possible plans Elon has (or hopes too).

SNC could get a contract to build a finite amount of DC’s for NASA to have in inventory.   Remember, they will be like the Shuttle, and planned for full reused.  They don’t need to make a new one for each mission like Dragonrider and CST-100.  (as long as NASA plans for brand new crew capsules for every mission anyway). 
So, for some up front costs, NASA can actually have a small fleet of “mini-shuttles” for use.  I don’t think the maintenance of DC will be very much, so if NASA owns 3 or 4 of them, that could be their backup.  ULA will keep Atlas V flying for the EELV program, so DC’s booster will always be there.  After a number are built, then production could be shut down, just like it was for Shuttle.

In this way, NASA might retain two commercial crew vehicles “on the cheap”.  That might leave Boeing out of the picture though.

However, all of that said, two commercial crew providers really aren’t necessary to maintain for NASA.  Orion will be the ISS backup in case of some catastrophic problem in the commercial crew provider that can’t be resolved in about 6 months (the likely time between commercial crew missions).  Also, Soyuz will always be backup to the ISS as it is now, and would probably be utilized before Orion, as Orion will need to launch on a full SLS unfortunately.  If there is a commercial crew mission every 6 months to the ISS, and there is some major problem on a mission.  There is 6 months to get it resolved.  If it can’t be resolved in 6 months, NASA would probably buy seats on a Soyuz for their crew rotation.  If the problem with the commercial crew provider is so catastrophic it can’t be resolved in a whole YEAR, then NASA either plans to buy another Soyuz mission, or they plan an extra Orion and SLS LV to do the crew rotation.  So it’s not like if there was a problem, it would mean that provider would never fly again, or we’d be stuck with no access.  And with a fully disposable, and FAR more simple system like Commercial Crew, the chances that a problem couldn’t be fixed in 6 months or a year are almost impossible I’d think.  Plus the commercial crew vehicle and LV can fly unscrewed on a test mission.  Something that was impossible for STS, which is why the fleet was grounded for so long after Challenger and Columbia.  So they had to be very, VERY sure the problem was fixed before risking another crew on it.  Again, that’s not a problem for commercial crew, which can fly an unscrewed checkout flight to verify the problem has been resolved before risking another crew.  So I don’t really see having just one provider as the problem many make it out to be.

Although this would be where NASA maybe owning a couple of DC’s would be handy to have in the OPF in storage for just such an occasion.  If there’s a problem with the chosen provider, NASA can buy an Atlas, prep DC-1, or DC-2 sitting in the OPF, and send it over to LC-41 for a launch to the ISS.  And when it comes back, you process it and put it back into storage.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/20/2013 10:11 pm
I suppose you could test your hypothesis by reading the three SAAs I linked above to see if SpaceX and SNC have any single milestones that large. (Hint: SpaceX does, and SNC has one nearly as large.)

Yes, there are several.  (Sorry, I think I posted the charts some time ago but can't find it.)  The exposure or risk from underfunding depends on milestone amounts and timing.  The milestones of particular concern are those in Q4 FY2013 or Jul-Sep CY2013; as can be seen, Boeing appears to be the most exposed.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 02/20/2013 10:32 pm
I honestly don't know the decision tree that designates how many Crewed flights there needs to be in any given year to the ISS. But I would think that if we had increased capability with 2 or 3 providers, we could either ensure a full US contingent at all times or a more timely rotation allowing for a more varied occupation schedule.

I'd love to see a greater number of people from varying industries be allowed to rotate on and off more frequently.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 02/20/2013 11:00 pm
The HL-20 and I assume the DC was designed for low refurbishment cost - is there any data to suggest that this is true.  The Boeing CST-100 cost model should show that a new CST-100 will be less than the cost to refurbish the DC ??? or
is the reliability of either the CST-100 or Dragon Rider better than the DC and worth the extra cost for new vehicles every launch.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/20/2013 11:21 pm
The HL-20 and I assume the DC was designed for low refurbishment cost - is there any data to suggest that this is true.  The Boeing CST-100 cost model should show that a new CST-100 will be less than the cost to refurbish the DC ??? or
is the reliability of either the CST-100 or Dragon Rider better than the DC and worth the extra cost for new vehicles every launch.
Dragon and cst100 are both reusable.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 02/20/2013 11:40 pm
I suppose you could test your hypothesis by reading the three SAAs I linked above to see if SpaceX and SNC have any single milestones that large. (Hint: SpaceX does, and SNC has one nearly as large.)

Yes, there are several.  (Sorry, I think I posted the charts some time ago but can't find it.)  The exposure or risk from underfunding depends on milestone amounts and timing.  The milestones of particular concern are those in Q4 FY2013 or Jul-Sep CY2013; as can be seen, Boeing appears to be the most exposed.

I really like graphs and that is a great bar chart.  Thanks!

SpaceX and Boeing have milestones scheduled for September, the last month of FY 13, that total more than the $18M that is really being "sequestered".  If these get paid, or even accomplished, in October, the start of FY-14, all would be well.

If NASA insists on withholding >$80M to cover the <$20M sequester, then there would be an issue, as they would eat into the July milestones, perhaps paying some of them three months late.

And why sould NASA be making a decision of whose milestones to defund?  What's wrong with first come, first served?  Are there political issues to be made by skewing the payouts?

edit: spelling
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 02/21/2013 12:10 am
I honestly don't know the decision tree that designates how many Crewed flights there needs to be in any given year to the ISS. But I would think that if we had increased capability with 2 or 3 providers, we could either ensure a full US contingent at all times or a more timely rotation allowing for a more varied occupation schedule.

The current traffic model is 2 flights/year with 4 crew each, total of 8 seats/year. At least 6 are needed to replace what we have now with Soyuz. 8 would enable expansion of ISS crew to 7 (4 USOS+3 ROS).
Thanks for that. So that's a 6 month rotation? Could we not designate 2 of those 4 seats as bi-monthly rotations? What is currently driving the rotations for crew? Could we not, with more cost effective commercial providers, increase crew rotations?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/21/2013 12:35 am
I honestly don't know the decision tree that designates how many Crewed flights there needs to be in any given year to the ISS. But I would think that if we had increased capability with 2 or 3 providers, we could either ensure a full US contingent at all times or a more timely rotation allowing for a more varied occupation schedule.

Only if you are willing to find the additional funding for these additional flights. Spaceflight isn't free.


The current traffic model is 2 flights/year with 4 crew each, total of 8 seats/year. At least 6 are needed to replace what we have now with Soyuz. 8 would enable expansion of ISS crew to 7 (4 USOS+3 ROS).
Thanks for that. So that's a 6 month rotation? Could we not designate 2 of those 4 seats as bi-monthly rotations? What is currently driving the rotations for crew? Could we not, with more cost effective commercial providers, increase crew rotations?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 02/21/2013 01:30 am
I honestly don't know the decision tree that designates how many Crewed flights there needs to be in any given year to the ISS. But I would think that if we had increased capability with 2 or 3 providers, we could either ensure a full US contingent at all times or a more timely rotation allowing for a more varied occupation schedule.

The current traffic model is 2 flights/year with 4 crew each, total of 8 seats/year. At least 6 are needed to replace what we have now with Soyuz. 8 would enable expansion of ISS crew to 7 (4 USOS+3 ROS).
Thanks for that. So that's a 6 month rotation? Could we not designate 2 of those 4 seats as bi-monthly rotations? What is currently driving the rotations for crew? Could we not, with more cost effective commercial providers, increase crew rotations?

What is the benefit?  Even if the commercial crew providers get their costs WAAAAY down, it wil still be more than zero.  More flights means more costs.  You would incur more training overhead too - you get effeciencies by training 1 crew for 6 months than 2 crews for 3 months. The crew usually take a few weeks to get up to top performance 9and you need to conduct more handover between crews) so you have decreased crew efficiency. So all you have done is add costs and reduced productivity.

it would be awesome to have 3 companies.   Reality is that we will only be able to support funding for one.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/21/2013 01:51 am
There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/21/2013 03:02 am
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/21/2013 03:15 am
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 
Additionally, if the Gateway /is/ actually assembled, it'd have some of its own ECLSS, so the complex's crew compliment could be expanded by a few (partially for the purpose of testing the gateway).

But of course, the gateway hasn't been officially approved or anything yet. A wonderful idea, though.

But seriously, ISS needs a LOT of unmanned cargo flights and only a handful of crew flights. There were 4 Soyuz flights, 4 Progress flights, 2 Dragon flights, 1 ATV (which can carry a lot but is being retired... necessitating more cargo flights) and 1 HTV. And Cygnus hasn't even started, yet. Long term, you can guesstimate about 6 US cargo flights per year and two crew flights per year. 8 flights per year, split between two providers... that's a respectable flight rate for any spacecraft type (the launchers will already be busy with lots of non-HSF flights).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/21/2013 03:16 am
I really like graphs and that is a great bar chart.  Thanks!

SpaceX and Boeing have milestones scheduled for September, the last month of FY 13, that total more than the $18M that is really being "sequestered".  If these get paid, or even accomplished, in October, the start of FY-14, all would be well.

If NASA insists on withholding >$80M to cover the <$20M sequester, then there would be an issue, as they would eat into the July milestones, perhaps paying some of them three months late.

And why sould NASA be making a decision of whose milestones to defund?  What's wrong with first come, first served?  Are there political issues to be made by skewing the payouts?

Thanks and welcome.  I think there's more in play than a $18M sequestration shortfall as you suggest.  But that's a discussion for a different thread.

A "first come, first served" approach won't work as these are extant contracts.  If the work is completed NASA is committed to pay.  Nor would anyone likely commit to the work for milestones based on "first come, first served" unless they have a reasonable guarantee of payment.  That leaves someone--most obviously NASA--to determine which milestones are defunded or delayed.

It is also worth noting that commercial crew commitments for FY2013 total ~$625M = ~$595M CCiCap milestones + ~$30M CPC.  Some of the difference might be made up with funds carried forward (?), but there still appears to be a significant hole--even without sequestration reductions--that I've yet to see explained.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/21/2013 03:18 am
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

Sure.. but they're going to be arguing for Orion for anything Gateway related. I think you just made the case for an early Orion to ISS capability.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 02/21/2013 03:19 am
There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.
That could be challenging to implement. Cygnus will never be able to carry and return crew. I don't believe a CBM would fit on a CST-100 or Dream Chaser and those vehicles currently aren't being designed to be able berth to the ISS. As of this writing only two SIMAC adapters (APAS to SIMAC) are planned to be installed there, if CCP goes with a direct handover than they will both see often use. Which would result in more docking ports needed, new SIMAC adapters would need to be developed to convert the open CBMs but if they don't protrude enough than there may be clearance issues with Dream Chaser's wings.

The standard-sized CBM hatch is much larger than that of SIMAC so your payloads would have to be smaller. I'm unsure how Cygnus' mini-hatch compares.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/21/2013 03:22 am
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

Sure.. but they're going to be arguing for Orion for anything Gateway related. I think you just made the case for an early Orion to ISS capability.

Hardly. There'd still be no money for launching SLS (though enough to keep it afloat), and commercial logistics will already be well-established at that point. Orion on Delta IV Heavy, maybe, but a lot would have to change between where things stand and that point. I think relying on Soyuz alone for keeping ISS crewed (with either Orion or commercial crew as "backup") is far more likely than some switch to using Orion for regular trips to ISS, especially Orion launched on SLS.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/21/2013 03:29 am
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

Sure.. but they're going to be arguing for Orion for anything Gateway related. I think you just made the case for an early Orion to ISS capability.


<snip>I think relying on Soyuz alone for keeping ISS crewed (with either Orion or commercial crew as "backup") is far more likely than some switch to using Orion for regular trips to ISS, especially Orion launched on SLS.

Who said anything about regular trips to the ISS?

The question was about Gateway assembly at the ISS. How do you think they're planning to get Gateway into orbit?

What's the argument against Orion to ISS? "It's inefficient, why? Because SLS throws at least twice (or even three times) the Orion capsule mass. The supporters are going to say they can just fly cargo with crew.. the detractors are going to say: what cargo? Well there's your answer: Gateway.

When this argument is put to the legislators they're going to start to wonder why they're paying for two (or three, or four) systems to do the same thing. The sensible argument, dissimilar redundancy and competition, is over their heads.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/21/2013 03:53 am
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

Sure.. but they're going to be arguing for Orion for anything Gateway related. I think you just made the case for an early Orion to ISS capability.


<snip>I think relying on Soyuz alone for keeping ISS crewed (with either Orion or commercial crew as "backup") is far more likely than some switch to using Orion for regular trips to ISS, especially Orion launched on SLS.

Who said anything about regular trips to the ISS?

The question was about Gateway assembly at the ISS. How do you think they're planning to get Gateway into orbit?...
In fact, EELV-class launch vehicles are considered. They are the likely option at LEAST as much as SLS is, provided first launch this decade.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/21/2013 04:04 am
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 
Almost certainly that would be separate from the initial commercial crew contracts to ISS, and would be considerably later. So the initial contract(s) must be based solely on ISS needs, not exploration needs.

In any case, L2 Gateway is off-topic for a CCiCAP thread.
Yes.  CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.  L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/21/2013 04:15 am
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 
Almost certainly that would be separate from the initial commercial crew contracts to ISS, and would be considerably later. So the initial contract(s) must be based solely on ISS needs, not exploration needs.

In any case, L2 Gateway is off-topic for a CCiCAP thread.
Yes.  CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.  L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.
One single note: The reason we talked about it here in the first place is that the gateway (if built) would likely be built at ISS, thus the crew used to build it would use the same ISS crew transport system. Just to make that clear.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/21/2013 04:18 am
Yes.  CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.  L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.

I thought yg1968's question was relevant:

If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

.. as was my reply. What's off-topic about it?

Whether we like it or not, commercial crew's funding is tied to SLS/Orion funding. The "public option" for ISS crew transport has not gone away. The better that option can be justified, the more perilous commercial crew's funding becomes.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/21/2013 04:18 am
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

Almost certainly that would be separate from the initial commercial crew contracts to ISS, and would be considerably later. So the initial contract(s) must be based solely on ISS needs, not exploration needs.
...
(emphasis mine)
Why "must"? Is there some law that says NASA must only engage in short-term thinking? Or is this some Congressional/NASA powers who don't want commercial crew getting a toe-hold on their exploration turf?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/21/2013 04:42 am
Yes.  CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.  L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.
I thought yg1968's question was relevant:
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 
.. as was my reply. What's off-topic about it?

Because this is the "CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread", and CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.

Does anyone reasonably claim that potential future use of commercial crew transport may support other programs (such as an L2 gateway)?  I'd say "yes".

Does anyone reasonably claim that the viability of commercial crew transport can, should or must be based on the efficacy of those other programs?  I'd say, "no".

In short, two very different discussions IMHO.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/21/2013 04:51 am
Yes.  CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.  L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.
I thought yg1968's question was relevant:
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 
.. as was my reply. What's off-topic about it?

Because this is the "CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread", and CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.

Does anyone reasonably claim that potential future use of commercial crew transport may support other programs (such as an L2 gateway)?  I'd say "yes".

Does anyone reasonably claim that the viability of commercial crew transport can, should or must be based on the efficacy of those other programs?  I'd say, "no".

In short, two very different discussions IMHO.
Jorge went much further than you did and suggested that NASA shouldn't (can't?) take into account future uses of commercial crew. That is pretty ridiculous, if true. Commercial crew's purpose certainly goes beyond ISS, and to /ONLY/ consider its relevance to ISS and nothing else puts it at a SEVERE disadvantage, especially if you're only considering ISS to 2020.

Jorge, what's the story, here?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/21/2013 02:16 pm
Yes.  CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.  L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.
I thought yg1968's question was relevant:
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 
.. as was my reply. What's off-topic about it?

Because this is the "CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread", and CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.

Does anyone reasonably claim that potential future use of commercial crew transport may support other programs (such as an L2 gateway)?  I'd say "yes".

Does anyone reasonably claim that the viability of commercial crew transport can, should or must be based on the efficacy of those other programs?  I'd say, "no".

In short, two very different discussions IMHO.

Yes but I meant that commercial crew could be used for assembly of the L2 Gateway at ISS. So it is related to transportation of crew to ISS. Furthermore, the downselect to one or two providers in the next round may depend on other NASA uses for commercial crew. So they are related subjects in my opinion.   
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 02/21/2013 04:18 pm
There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.

Is there a provider other than SpaceX that could do both?  And I think part of the advantage Cygnus had will be it's large pressurized volume compared to Dragon, but they can't do crew.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/21/2013 04:25 pm
There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.

Is there a provider other than SpaceX that could do both?  And I think part of the advantage Cygnus had will be it's large pressurized volume compared to Dragon, but they can't do crew.

DC can do cargo. Although, there are no plans for a cargo version, the CST-100 could also do cargo if necessary.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 02/21/2013 04:35 pm
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

Sure.. but they're going to be arguing for Orion for anything Gateway related. I think you just made the case for an early Orion to ISS capability.


<snip>I think relying on Soyuz alone for keeping ISS crewed (with either Orion or commercial crew as "backup") is far more likely than some switch to using Orion for regular trips to ISS, especially Orion launched on SLS.

Who said anything about regular trips to the ISS?

The question was about Gateway assembly at the ISS. How do you think they're planning to get Gateway into orbit?...
In fact, EELV-class launch vehicles are considered. They are the likely option at LEAST as much as SLS is, provided first launch this decade.

Well, Since Atlas V along with the Atlas SRB's will be man rated for commercial crew (CST-100 will use one SRB), I don’t know that there’s any reason Orion couldn’t launch from an Atlas 552 (although, it might technically be an Atlas 452 since the 5m PLF wouldn’t be used, it’d look like the CST-100 stack, but with more SRB’s).
Orion –would- need a cut down service module to make it light enough though.  But that would probably be less expensive than launching a whole SLS just to get Orion to the ISS.
Dunno if there’ll ever be a need for that, but I’d think it could be done.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 02/21/2013 04:49 pm
There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.

Is there a provider other than SpaceX that could do both?  And I think part of the advantage Cygnus had will be it's large pressurized volume compared to Dragon, but they can't do crew.

DC can do cargo. Although, there are no plans for a cargo version, the CST-100 could also do cargo if necessary.

Other than small cargo that could fit throught the docking port in an uncrewed CST-100, what else could CST-100 do?  Again, as I understand, I think the stretched Cygnus has capabilities that Dragon, CST-100, and DC can't do as far as pressurized volume.  And I think that's needed when ATV is retired.  And Cygnus can't do crew.
I tink that's where it gets tricky.  in theory, yea, two providers doing both cargo and crew seems ideal.   If it could be mae to work. 

Maybe CST-100 could be fitted with a cargo pod with a rear-facing CBM in place of the service module...which won't really be needed for cargo.  No ECLSS and LAS needed.  .  Like a Cygnus, but in reverse.  Then it's captured and berthed like Cygnus would be, with the capsule facing teh other way.  Once done, the capsule jettisons the pressurized cargo pod like it would the SM, and then returns to Earth normally. 
If something like that could be done, then SpaceX and Boeing could perhaps be both cargo and crew providers.

Ditto for SpaceX.  Just a stretched and Pressurized cargo pod rather tahn the trunk, but with the solar panels on it. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/21/2013 05:10 pm
Russia has been just fine using Progress for logistics for several decades, and its docking port I think is even smaller than iLIDS or NDS or APAS or whatevertheheckitiscallednow. That's not actually a huge constraint especially if you have two other cargo vehicles (HTV and Dragon) which could do a full CBM. And note, Cygnus's actual hatch size is much smaller than CBM. So I see no reason why commercial crew vehicles couldn't do unmanned logistics.

Cygnus may be a good platform for the AR&D module needed for the pieces of the gateway, though that is off-topic.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 02/21/2013 07:06 pm
There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.

Is there a provider other than SpaceX that could do both?  And I think part of the advantage Cygnus had will be it's large pressurized volume compared to Dragon, but they can't do crew.

DC can do cargo. Although, there are no plans for a cargo version, the CST-100 could also do cargo if necessary.

Other than small cargo that could fit throught the docking port in an uncrewed CST-100, what else could CST-100 do?  Again, as I understand, I think the stretched Cygnus has capabilities that Dragon, CST-100, and DC can't do as far as pressurized volume.  And I think that's needed when ATV is retired.  And Cygnus can't do crew.
I tink that's where it gets tricky.  in theory, yea, two providers doing both cargo and crew seems ideal.   If it could be mae to work.

One thing to note about Cygnus is that while it certainly has more pressurized cargo volume than Dragon, it does *not* have a full sized CBM hatch - it has a smaller hatch than Cargo Dragon. (see attached images for comparison)

I don't think doing cargo deliveries through a APAS/SIMAC hatch is a problem - 95+% of the cargo should not need the full CBM hatch. I see no reason why cargo runs with DC or CST-100 should be a problem.

I agree that two combined CRS2/CCrew contracts would be ideal. Two providers to provide both crew and cargo capabilities.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 02/21/2013 07:47 pm
What about the length of Cygnus, particularly the stretched Cygnus, vs. CST-100 and DRagon?
The stretched Cygnus will be almost 5m long, and have 27 cu meters pressurized volume, compared to about 10 cu m for Dragon, and I think CST-100 will be similar.

Myself, again, I'd like two total providers to supply both, as that gives both redundancy, adn efficiency.  And NASA could dump one or the other if they started screwing them around. 
Preferrably Dragon/F9, and then something flying on Atlas V.  So not only are there two spacecraft, but two LV's for better redundancy.
SpaceX and Boeing woudl probably be the two most likely candidates, as Cygnus can't do crew, and DC I think will be pretty limited on it's cargo capabilities, even if there were a stripped out dedicated cargo version of it.  But who knows, maybe DC would work for cargo.

But, I'm just repeating some things I've herad around the forums about why the capabilities of Cygnus can't be replicated by Boieng, SNC, or SpaceX.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/21/2013 07:53 pm
HTV can do full-sized stuff, so there's as much redundancy as you need right there.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 02/21/2013 08:42 pm
Dragon has the ability to provide much needed Down-mass. In fact, as we all know, it's currently the only commercial provider with that capability under contract. Not to say that CST or DC couldn't do this in the future, but that is NOT what they are being given the opportunity to provide NASA with.

Dragon, is exceptionally well positioned for the long-term.

My main concern with CCiCAP is NASA's predilection to go beyond requirements definition and slip into Design direction. Of course, being as this is crew and not cargo, they will be even more intimately involved  in the process, which I think even the commercial providers appreciate to a large degree. But this is a new dance for NASA and I hope in some ways they don't step on too many toes...so to speak.
 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 02/22/2013 12:04 am
HTV can do full-sized stuff, so there's as much redundancy as you need right there.
Doesn't HTV have a limited number of flights left?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/22/2013 12:46 am
HTV can do full-sized stuff, so there's as much redundancy as you need right there.
Doesn't HTV have a limited number of flights left?

No HTVs will be extended. Gerst said that more HTVs will be needed for ISS but that more ATVs weren't needed. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/26/2013 03:19 am
There will be no test flights under the CCiCap optional milestones period according to a NASA statement sent to ASAP:

Quote
"NASA will not fly people to orbit under a Space Act Agreement," said Joe Dyer, the panel’s chair, reading from a NASA statement.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130125/SPACE/130125025/Safety-panel-discusses-NASA-concerns-KSC-meeting

Here are the minutes from that ASAP meeting:
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/ASAP_Public_Meeting_Minutes_1st-Qtr-2013.pdf

Here is a quote from page 4 of the minutes:
Quote
VADM Dyer read a statement prepared by NASA regarding certification:

“NASA is running the CPC contracts in parallel with the Commercial Crew Integration Capability (CCiCap) space act agreements today. This is allowed because they are separate activities with distinct goals. However, the goals of the program do not change nor do they end at the conclusion of the [SAA] base period. There has been no formal Agency-level decision at an Acquisition Strategy Meeting regarding the specific scope and mechanism of the Phase 2 Certification effort. However, we have determined that all NASA certification activity needs to be performed under a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based contract. In addition, NASA has been clear that it does not intend to exercise the optional milestones [carrying out flight test by the provider under the SAA]. However, NASA may choose to pursue some of the initial optional milestones or a portion of a milestone if exercising them furthers the purpose of developing a capability that could ultimately be available to serve both government and commercial customers, but the benefit to the government would need to be high. NASA will not fly people to orbit under a space act agreement.”
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 02/26/2013 04:41 am
It is also worth noting that commercial crew commitments for FY2013 total ~$625M = ~$595M CCiCap milestones + ~$30M CPC.  Some of the difference might be made up with funds carried forward (?), but there still appears to be a significant hole--even without sequestration reductions--that I've yet to see explained.

I'm surprised nobody else has commented on this one yet. Does anybody know how much if any funds were going to carry forward from FY12? My curiosity has definitely been piqued.

~Jon
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/26/2013 01:36 pm
It is also worth noting that commercial crew commitments for FY2013 total ~$625M = ~$595M CCiCap milestones + ~$30M CPC.  Some of the difference might be made up with funds carried forward (?), but there still appears to be a significant hole--even without sequestration reductions--that I've yet to see explained.

I'm surprised nobody else has commented on this one yet. Does anybody know how much if any funds were going to carry forward from FY12? My curiosity has definitely been piqued.

~Jon

I didn't see that math, but I'm not suprised.

Ed Mango has been running the program like he has the $850 million from the president's proposed budget, instead of the actual dollar amounts authorized by Congress.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/26/2013 01:49 pm
It is also worth noting that commercial crew commitments for FY2013 total ~$625M = ~$595M CCiCap milestones + ~$30M CPC.  Some of the difference might be made up with funds carried forward (?), but there still appears to be a significant hole--even without sequestration reductions--that I've yet to see explained.

I'm surprised nobody else has commented on this one yet. Does anybody know how much if any funds were going to carry forward from FY12? My curiosity has definitely been piqued.

~Jon

Ed Mango has mentionned that 75% of the FY 2012 amount for commercial crew would be spent on CCiCap (the other 25% was spent on CCDev2 optional milestones). So you have 75% x 406M = $304.5M for CCiCap for FY 2012. Plus you have at least $385M for commercial crew for FY 2013 if the sequester kicks in (reduction of 5% over FY 2012 amounts) and if the CR continues for the rest of the year. I am not sure about the exact number but I believe that the commercial crew office gets about $30M per year from the commercial crew budget (which must be substracted from the above amounts).  So you get about $637M (95%x406M-30M+75%x406M-75%x30M) for CCiCap less the CCiCap milestones that were already paid in FY 2012 (which obviously don't get carried over to FY 2013) which were for an amount of $160M (60M+20M+50M+30M) based on the SAAs.

So you get about $477M for CCiCap for FY 2013 according to my rough estimates if you carryover the FY 2012 amounts. The commercial crew office was expecting $525M based on the Senate's draft FY 2013 appropriation legislation. So that would essentially explain the hole of about $140-150M (525M-386M =139M) caused by the CR and the sequester.

See this link for more information:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28395.msg881383#msg881383
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/26/2013 02:39 pm
It is also worth noting that commercial crew commitments for FY2013 total ~$625M = ~$595M CCiCap milestones + ~$30M CPC.  Some of the difference might be made up with funds carried forward (?), but there still appears to be a significant hole--even without sequestration reductions--that I've yet to see explained.

I'm surprised nobody else has commented on this one yet. Does anybody know how much if any funds were going to carry forward from FY12? My curiosity has definitely been piqued.
Ed Mango has mentionned that 75% of the FY 2012 amount for commercial crew would be spent on CCiCap (the other 25% was spent on CCDev2 optional milestones). So you have 75% x 406M = $304.5M for CCiCap for FY 2012. Plus you have at least $385M for commercial crew for FY 2013 if the sequester kicks in (reduction of 5% over FY 2012 amounts) and if the CR continues for the rest of the year. I am not sure about the exact number but I believe that the commercial crew office gets about $30M per year from the commercial crew budget (which must be substracted from the above amounts).  So you get about $637M (95%x406M-30M+75%x406M-75%x30M) for CCiCap less the CCiCap milestones that were already paid in FY 2012 (which obviously don't get carried over to FY 2013) which were for an amount of $160M (60M+20M+50M+30M) based on the SAAs.

So you get about $477M for CCiCap for FY 2013 according to my rough estimates if you carryover the FY 2012 amounts. The commercial crew office was expecting $525M based on the Senate's draft FY 2013 appropriation legislation. So that would essentially explain the hole of about $140-150M (525M-386M =139M) caused by the CR and the sequester.

See this link for more information:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28395.msg881383#msg881383

Yes, so based on appropriated funds, without sequester it's ~$60M shortfall; with sequester it's ~$80M shortfall.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/26/2013 07:14 pm
Yes, so based on appropriated funds, without sequester it's ~$60M shortfall; with sequester it's ~$80M shortfall.

I get a $140M to $150M shortfall including the sequester. I am not sure why we end up with different numbers. As I said, I believe that NASA was expecting $525M for commercial crew for FY 2013 based on the Senate draft appropriation bill and on representations made by Wolf on the House side. So the end result is a shortfall of 139M ($525M less $386M). My other (more detailed) calculations are more complicated but I essentially get the same results (shortfall of $625M less $477M = $148M).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/26/2013 07:34 pm
It's a program that needs ~$800 million to work, everyone SHOULD have known that from day 1. It's a bargain. Why does it seem every Congressional staffer and Congressperson (who absolutely should know better) treat it as if the only relevant question is what slice of NASA's budget it gets, as if the only point of NASA is pork for whichever district and not actually accomplishing a goal? In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/26/2013 07:43 pm
Yes, so based on appropriated funds, without sequester it's ~$60M shortfall; with sequester it's ~$80M shortfall.

I get a $140M to $150M shortfall including the sequester. I am not sure why we end up with different numbers. As I said, I believe that NASA was expecting $525M for commercial crew for FY 2013 based on the Senate draft appropriation bill and on representations made by Wolf on the House side. So the end result is a shortfall of 139M ($525M less $386M). My other (more detailed) calculations are more complicated but I essentially get the same results (shortfall of $625M less $477M = $148M).

If NASA actually *planned* on $525M (or *anything* more than $406M) after the CR passed, they were in violation of the law. So no, they weren't doing that.
Regardless, the program needs ~$800 million a year at some point.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/26/2013 07:43 pm
Yes, so based on appropriated funds, without sequester it's ~$60M shortfall; with sequester it's ~$80M shortfall.

I get a $140M to $150M shortfall including the sequester. I am not sure why we end up with different numbers. As I said, I believe that NASA was expecting $525M for commercial crew for FY 2013 based on the Senate draft appropriation bill and on representations made by Wolf on the House side. So the end result is a shortfall of 139M ($525M less $386M). My other (more detailed) calculations are more complicated but I essentially get the same results (shortfall of $625M less $477M = $148M).

If NASA actually *planned* on $525M (or *anything* more than $406M) after the CR passed, they were in violation of the law. So no, they weren't doing that.

CCiCap was awarded last August before the CR was passed. They had no way of knowing whether we would be on a CR or not. Officially, their plans relied on the President's requested amounts. But unofficially, it had enough flexibility for a lesser amount. At least, that's how I understood it. But I could be wrong.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/26/2013 07:58 pm
Yes, so based on appropriated funds, without sequester it's ~$60M shortfall; with sequester it's ~$80M shortfall.

I get a $140M to $150M shortfall including the sequester. I am not sure why we end up with different numbers. As I said, I believe that NASA was expecting $525M for commercial crew for FY 2013 based on the Senate draft appropriation bill and on representations made by Wolf on the House side. So the end result is a shortfall of 139M ($525M less $386M). My other (more detailed) calculations are more complicated but I essentially get the same results (shortfall of $625M less $477M = $148M).

If NASA actually *planned* on $525M (or *anything* more than $406M) after the CR passed, they were in violation of the law. So no, they weren't doing that.
Regardless, the program needs ~$800 million a year at some point.

Even if everybody agreed on that amount, it is unlikely to happen in the short term. It seems that the sequester will happen. But there may be hope that the effect of the sequester wil be dealt with in an appropriation bill or in a new CR that is not clean. I am not very hopeful that this will happen but it is not completely impossible.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/26/2013 08:01 pm
The continual fiscal crises are unnecessarily harming commercial crew and NASA. So is adding language into bills so that NASA can't finally finish the systems necessary to stop having to buy crew rides from the Russians.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 02/26/2013 08:33 pm
The continual fiscal crises are unnecessarily harming commercial crew and NASA. So is adding language into bills so that NASA can't finally finish the systems necessary to stop having to buy crew rides from the Russians.

Purely based on witnessing the actions of Congress in the past few years it seems that neither the US Senate, nor the US House of Representatives are really bothered by paying the Russians for flying US astronauts.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/26/2013 09:02 pm
In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.

If that's true, cancel it now.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 02/26/2013 09:22 pm
In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.

If that's true, cancel it now.

But that is by far the best deal for NASA out of its HSF projects. (development of two independent HSF systems) If you think that is bad, I assume you just want to cancel the entire HSF program.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/26/2013 09:25 pm
In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.

If that's true, cancel it now.

But that is by far the best deal for NASA out of its HSF projects. (development of two independent HSF systems) If you think that is bad, I assume you just want to cancel the entire HSF program.

If, as Robotbeat says, the program can't achieve those goals without funding which is never going to materialize, then why keep throwing money down the black hole?

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/26/2013 09:44 pm
In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.

If that's true, cancel it now.

But that is by far the best deal for NASA out of its HSF projects. (development of two independent HSF systems) If you think that is bad, I assume you just want to cancel the entire HSF program.

If, as Robotbeat says, the program can't achieve those goals without funding which is never going to materialize, then why keep throwing money down the black hole?


Cancel all of NASA, then.

We actually don't know it will "never" materialize. We shouldn't reward those who have been trying to hold Commercial Crew (and thus ISS and thus NASA's current primary HSF program) hostage to ensure funding for a rocket (SLS) we don't need by canceling commercial crew. They are a minority, what they say isn't the end-all be-all.

And it isn't a blackhole, either. Milestones are being completed and even if the program gets prematurely canceled, it will have greatly increased the possibility of non-gov't human orbital spaceflight.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/26/2013 09:51 pm
Cancel all of NASA, then.

Glad you agree.

Quote
We actually don't know it will "never" materialize.

Yes, we do. Some never-say-never optimists not withstanding.

Quote
And it isn't a blackhole, either. Milestones are being completed and even if the program gets prematurely canceled, it will have greatly increased the possibility of non-gov't human orbital spaceflight.

.. but you said it can't meet its goals without that $800M/year at some point. Make up your mind!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/26/2013 09:58 pm
You're arguing that no significant new program in NASA can ever get enough funding. That's a pretty high bar. You're basically saying that every program will either get canceled, have its funding reduced, or at very best remain constant. By supporting such nonsense, you're supporting the very sort of waste you claim to reject. But if you're going to cancel, on purpose, one of the most useful, cost-effective NASA programs just because you throw up our hands at some resistance... Well, that's a small, sad creature. Futilism itself is futile.

To say we should support an effective program isn't naive optimism, it's common freaking sense.

As far as your "cancel NASA" idea, then you should read the URL of this forum, and: http://m.xkcd.com/893/ (read the alt-text).
Cancel all of NASA, then.

Glad you agree.
...
Do not agree whatsoever.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/27/2013 12:22 am
You're arguing that no significant new program in NASA can ever get enough funding.

No I'm not. Where did I argue that?

You said:

In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.

I say it is never going to get around $800M/year. This is not a very controversial statement!

So, IF it's not going to get around $800M/year AND it needs to THEN why fund it at a lower level? Just cancel it and send the money to some other program where that will be full funding, or where a less than total funding will still deliver some results.

Quote
To say we should support an effective program isn't naive optimism, it's common freaking sense.

You said it will not be an effective program without full funding. It's not getting full funding. How is it common sense to support an ineffective program because you really really want it to get full funding?

Quote
As far as your "cancel NASA" idea

Umm.. cancelling NASA was your idea:

Cancel all of NASA, then.

I merely agreed with you.

Quote
Do not agree whatsoever.

Then why'd you say it? I thought you were coming to a logical conclusion based on NASA's recent track record.

Quote
you should read the URL of this forum

This isn't the NASA fan club.

Quote
http://m.xkcd.com/893/

Oh, I see. It's the but I really really want it argument again.

Sorry for letting reality and logic intrude.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 02/27/2013 12:32 am
In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.

I say it is never going to get around $800M/year. This is not a very controversial statement!

So, IF it's not going to get around $800M/year AND it needs to THEN why fund it at a lower level? Just cancel it and send the money to some other program where that will be full funding, or where a less than total funding will still deliver some results.

Who has claimed that it will deliver no result with less than full funding? Of course it will. The schedule will slip, however.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/27/2013 12:38 am
CCDev may have passed its half way mark.  Paying for the paperwork may continue for a couple of years after the spacecraft fly.

CCOps may get called a lot of things and be paid for from some other money pot.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/27/2013 12:52 am
Who has claimed that it will deliver no result with less than full funding? Of course it will. The schedule will slip, however.

Robotbeat did. If he'd like to withdraw that claim, I'll withdraw the recommendation to stop wasting money on a project that he says can't succeed without full funding (at some point).

But the point stands for any other project that needs $X/year and can't get it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 02/27/2013 12:56 am
CCiCap was awarded last August before the CR was passed. They had no way of knowing whether we would be on a CR or not. Officially, their plans relied on the President's requested amounts. But unofficially, it had enough flexibility for a lesser amount. At least, that's how I understood it. But I could be wrong.

Correct - the iCAP plan with optional milestones was to allow fo rall options and funding levels.  The only question is how many partners and if FAR (likely due to congressional demands) or SAA.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spectre9 on 02/27/2013 01:09 am
Right now the idea is "integrated capability"

The only sensible option is CST-100 but Boeing wants full funding and a monopoly to make it worthwhile. That's fair enough if Americans want astronauts launching from their own soil.

Falcon 9 simply doesn't have the launch rate and demonstrated reliability to be able to compete with Atlas V in any way, shape or form.

SpaceX can't simply shaft their commercial customers while doing CRS at the same time forever.

Man rated Atlas V is the most sensible option and Boeing has already been given a larger slice of funding than SNC.

Just cut the waste already.

Some feel SpaceX and SNC are getting money for nothing and this is why.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 02/27/2013 01:12 am
Right now the idea is "integrated capability"

The only sensible option is CST-100 but Boeing wants full funding and a monopoly to make it worthwhile. That's fair enough if Americans want astronauts launching from their own soil.

Falcon 9 simply doesn't have the launch rate and demonstrated reliability to be able to compete with Atlas V in any way, shape or form.

SpaceX can't simply shaft their commercial customers while doing CRS at the same time forever.

Man rated Atlas V is the most sensible option and Boeing has already been given a larger slice of funding than SNC.

Just cut the waste already.

Some feel SpaceX and SNC are getting money for nothing and this is why.

And some feel Boeing is getting money for nothing, especially if SpaceX can ramp up flight rates (it has to, or else game over). SNC's craft is not a capsule which is very attractive, and SpaceX's solution uses a different launcher and would be cheaper (if they hit their numbers, which they have to, or game over)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/27/2013 01:13 am
Yes, so based on appropriated funds, without sequester it's ~$60M shortfall; with sequester it's ~$80M shortfall.
I get a $140M to $150M shortfall including the sequester. I am not sure why we end up with different numbers. As I said, I believe that NASA was expecting $525M for commercial crew for FY 2013 based on the Senate draft appropriation bill and on representations made by Wolf on the House side. So the end result is a shortfall of 139M ($525M less $386M). My other (more detailed) calculations are more complicated but I essentially get the same results (shortfall of $625M less $477M = $148M).

I think we're in nominal agreement.  The difference appears to be what is used as a baseline plus maybe a few assumptions in the detail numbers.  In broad strokes...

To the question: How much NASA needs through FY2013 to meet CCP commitments without significant impact to the program?  What I get is:
-$655M -- FY2013 CCP commitments (CPC + CCiCap) [1]
+$190M -- FY2012 CCDev carry-forward
------
-$465M -- FY2013 funding required

From that: What is the net or shortfall given funding assumptions, from optimistic to pessimistic:
+525M = +$60M (surplus) based on Senate FY2013 language
+406M = -$59M (deficit) based on FY2013 CR
+386M = -$79M (deficit) based on FY2013 CR and sequester

That also answers in part the question; How does a $20M shortfall due to sequester turn into inability to fund $80M of CCICap milestones?  The answer is that it doesn't; a sizeable chunk went away with the CR. [2]


[1] Assumes $30M/yr for CCP program office.  That's probably optimistic as between CPC and CCiCap there's a lot more work than there was under CCDev in FY2012.
[2] In a presentation early-mid last year before the CCiCap awards (sorry can't find the link), NASA stated that operating under a CR posed a significant risk.  Presumably they felt that risk was manageable or that they'd get a reasonable shot at mitigation with an actual budget.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/27/2013 01:17 am
Who has claimed that it will deliver no result with less than full funding? Of course it will. The schedule will slip, however.

Robotbeat did. If he'd like to withdraw that claim, I'll withdraw the recommendation to stop wasting money on a project that he says can't succeed without full funding (at some point).

But the point stands for any other project that needs $X/year and can't get it.

850 million per year was for a program with 4 participants.
Congress has been pushing NASA to down select.
425 million a year is full funding for 2 participants.

I don't believe Bigelow will ever have a private space station, and the whole exercise will enable us to have 2 providers each only providing a single flight to the ISS per year.

I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment. It would have been much better just to pick one, and finish the development ASAP. I don't buy the argument that you can develop 2 integrated crew systems cheaper than 1.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/27/2013 01:27 am
The only sensible option is CST-100 but Boeing wants full funding and a monopoly to make it worthwhile. That's fair enough if Americans want astronauts launching from their own soil.

Heh, how is it "fair enough" exactly? If government granted monopolies are "fair enough" to you then maybe we should just do away with this whole "commercial" nonsense eh? Boeing for LEO, Lockheed Martin for beyond.

Quote
Falcon 9 simply doesn't have the launch rate and demonstrated reliability to be able to compete with Atlas V in any way, shape or form.

5 months (after only 5 launches) vs ~2 months after 36.

No engine out capability on the Atlas V.

Quote
if Americans want astronauts launching from their own soil.

But they don't care if the rockets are made in Russia?

Quote
SpaceX can't simply shaft their commercial customers while doing CRS at the same time forever.

Who said they were? Are BoeLockMart to shaft their government customers to do astronaut launches?

Quote
Some feel SpaceX, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and SNC are getting money for nothing and this is why.

There, fixed that for ya.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/27/2013 01:28 am
850 million per year was for a program with 4 participants.
Congress has been pushing NASA to down select.
425 million a year is full funding for 2 participants.

$850M/yr was for three participants.  $425M/yr will not fully fund two participants, thus the pressure for early down-select to one.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/27/2013 01:32 am
850 million per year was for a program with 4 participants.
Congress has been pushing NASA to down select.
425 million a year is full funding for 2 participants.

Nope. The "compromise" that Bolden worked out with Wolf was before the FY13 budget request and it still said over $800M. That's why KBH went spare. OMB wants $800M for 2.5 participants. They've said they can't do it for less. That's where Robobeat is getting his "can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman" analogy from.

Quote
I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.

So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/27/2013 02:47 am
Who has claimed that it will deliver no result with less than full funding? Of course it will. The schedule will slip, however.

Robotbeat did. If he'd like to withdraw that claim, I'll withdraw the recommendation to stop wasting money on a project that he says can't succeed without full funding (at some point).

But the point stands for any other project that needs $X/year and can't get it.

850 million per year was for a program with 4 participants.
Congress has been pushing NASA to down select.
425 million a year is full funding for 2 participants.

I don't believe Bigelow will ever have a private space station, and the whole exercise will enable us to have 2 providers each only providing a single flight to the ISS per year.

I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment. It would have been much better just to pick one, and finish the development ASAP. I don't buy the argument that you can develop 2 integrated crew systems cheaper than 1.


We already know that the price per seat of commercial crew will be between $26M and $36M per seat which is reasonable compared to other alternatives. NASA is paying commercial crew companies for a need that it has. If the companies are able to find other customers, NASA might be able to get a better price. So it's a win-win for both NASA and the private sector. Having competition prevents a monopoly down the road. Competition seems to have worked for COTS.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/27/2013 02:49 am
Quote
I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.
So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.

So you think that COTS was a bad idea?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/27/2013 03:09 am
Quote
I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.
So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.

So you think that COTS was a bad idea?
He thinks almost all (perhaps simply all) gov't spending is a bad idea, on principle.

To be honest, that's why it's pretty pointless to engage him. If the topic is a NASA program and the question is about whether it should continue or be funded or not, by default his answer is "cancel it."
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/27/2013 03:10 am
We already know that the price per seat of commercial crew will be between $26M and $36M per seat ...
Nit: Not necessarily the price/seat for CTS.  Those are based on Bigelow's statement and assumptions, some of which may apply to CTS, and some which may not.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/27/2013 03:18 am
We already know that the price per seat of commercial crew will be between $26M and $36M per seat ...
Nit: Not necessarily the price/seat for CTS.  Those are based on Bigelow's statement and assumptions, some of which may apply to CTS, and some which may not.

Yes, I meant to say based on Bigelow prices. In any event, we have a pretty good idea that commercial crew prices will likely be no more than Soyuz prices and probably even cheaper.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/27/2013 03:25 am
Quote
I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.
So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.

So you think that COTS was a bad idea?
He thinks almost all (perhaps simply all) gov't spending is a bad idea, on principle.

To be honest, that's why it's pretty pointless to engage him. If the topic is a NASA program and the question is about whether it should continue or be funded or not, by default his answer is "cancel it."

In principle, I usually agree with him. But in this case, the main (and almost the only) customer is the government. So unless a company is assured of getting a NASA crew transportation services contract, it is unlikely to invest the billion(s) of dollars required to get that capability.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/27/2013 04:01 am
Here is the latest 60 day report:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/729639main_February_2013_60_Day_Report_508.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/document_library.html
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/27/2013 01:50 pm
Quote
I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.
So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.

So you think that COTS was a bad idea?
He thinks almost all (perhaps simply all) gov't spending is a bad idea, on principle.

To be honest, that's why it's pretty pointless to engage him. If the topic is a NASA program and the question is about whether it should continue or be funded or not, by default his answer is "cancel it."

The management of COTS was a bad idea. NASA did not need to fund the development of new launch vehicles when there were already too many launch vehicles on the market. You can add the cost of a couple of extra Shuttle logistics flights to the COTS program costs, since the CRS program did not deliver on schedule.

If COTS only funded the development of Dragon and Cygnus, it would have been worthwhile. At anytime, did Kistler look like they were going to deliver a product ?

If the CRS vehicles used an existing launcher, like Delta II, then the extra number of flights could have kept that program alive and lowered launch costs for other NASA missions that had to switch to Altas V instead. And ULA might have found ways to cost reduce Delta II instead of retiring the launcher.

CCDev/CCiCAP will end up costing at least 5 Billion. I believe it may even rival the JWST costs by the time it's done. And the only purpose of the exercise is to develop some domestic capability. Divide the 5 Billion development cost by 8 ISS astronauts per year plus another couple hundred million per flight, and it will always be cheaper to continue using the Russians for ISS flights.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/27/2013 02:07 pm
Quote
I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.
So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.

So you think that COTS was a bad idea?
He thinks almost all (perhaps simply all) gov't spending is a bad idea, on principle.

To be honest, that's why it's pretty pointless to engage him. If the topic is a NASA program and the question is about whether it should continue or be funded or not, by default his answer is "cancel it."

The management of COTS was a bad idea. NASA did not need to fund the development of new launch vehicles when there were already too many launch vehicles on the market. You can add the cost of a couple of extra Shuttle logistics flights to the COTS program costs, since the CRS program did not deliver on schedule.

If COTS only funded the development of Dragon and Cygnus, it would have been worthwhile. At anytime, did Kistler look like they were going to deliver a product ?

If the CRS vehicles used an existing launcher, like Delta II, then the extra number of flights could have kept that program alive and lowered launch costs for other NASA missions that had to switch to Altas V instead. And ULA might have found ways to cost reduce Delta II instead of retiring the launcher.
Quite reasonable points, IMHO, even though I think it has turned out better than should've been expected and in hindsight is a good investment. The EELVs should not have been excluded. Many think they were excluded in order to reduce the chance that NASA's main HSF turf would not be encroached upon.

Quote
CCDev/CCiCAP will end up costing at least 5 Billion. I believe it may even rival the JWST costs by the time it's done. And the only purpose of the exercise is to develop some domestic capability. ...
This last sentence is either untrue or very misleading. It is NOT to simply provide domestic access to ISS. It will provide access to LEO for any future stuff in LEO that NASA wishes with potential for beyond-LEO as well as providing seeds for a possible new commercial industry. Disagree with those goals if you wish, but don't say it has JUST the single purpose of replacing a few Soyuzes.

And where did you get that figure? It seems likely that much of the cause of reaching that level would be from several years of short-funding rather than a failure of the program itself. $5 billion for at least 2 functional commercial crew vehicles is an enormous bargain, by the way. Compare it to Ares I, SLS, Orion, etc.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/27/2013 02:14 pm
Well, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew. 

Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/27/2013 02:22 pm
Well, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew. 

Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense.

$5 billion? That's a complete bargain for 2.5 qualified crewed systems (with multiple abort tests and launches), with milestones paid only when each milestone is completed. JWST is a single, unmanned spacecraft with a single launch. Pretty much as apples-to-oranges as you can get.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 02/27/2013 02:39 pm
Well, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew. 

Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense.

You can't base your reasoning on requested funds. The actuals are considerably less. And even if it did approach JWST, which they haven't and  most likely won't, it's still a huge bargain. Multiple commercial Cargo AND Crew capabilities for a few billion dollars? That is an incredible achievement that will pay dividends for years to come.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 02/28/2013 01:36 am
Well, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew. 

Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense.

$5 billion? That's a complete bargain for 2.5 qualified crewed systems (with multiple abort tests and launches), with milestones paid only when each milestone is completed. JWST is a single, unmanned spacecraft with a single launch. Pretty much as apples-to-oranges as you can get.

You will not have 2.5 qualified systems when this is done, not for $5B.  One.  Maybe 1.5.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/28/2013 03:42 am
Quite reasonable points, IMHO, even though I think it has turned out better than should've been expected and in hindsight is a good investment. The EELVs should not have been excluded. Many think they were excluded in order to reduce the chance that NASA's main HSF turf would not be encroached upon.

The EELVs were not excluded from competing in COTS. This is a myth that people on this forum keep repeating but it isn't actually true. Boeing had a proposal that nearly won over Orbital's proposal in 2008. DC competed in 2006 and would have used an Atlas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 02/28/2013 03:49 am
You will not have 2.5 qualified systems when this is done, not for $5B.  One.  Maybe 1.5.
That's an interesting analysis, what do you base it on? Since Blue Origin seems to be chugging along for essentially zero dollars, I think that's overly pessimistic. we might end up with 2.5 even after Boeing implodes.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/28/2013 03:50 am
Well, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew. 

Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense.

$5 billion? That's a complete bargain for 2.5 qualified crewed systems (with multiple abort tests and launches), with milestones paid only when each milestone is completed. JWST is a single, unmanned spacecraft with a single launch. Pretty much as apples-to-oranges as you can get.

You will not have 2.5 qualified systems when this is done, not for $5B.  One.  Maybe 1.5.

I am hoping for 1.5. For example, SpaceX full award; Boeing or SNC 0.5 award with an emphasis on human rating the Atlas V.  If NASA funds some of these proposals long enough, some of them might decide to continue their program with their own money.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: beancounter on 02/28/2013 05:20 am
You will not have 2.5 qualified systems when this is done, not for $5B.  One.  Maybe 1.5.
That's an interesting analysis, what do you base it on? Since Blue Origin seems to be chugging along for essentially zero dollars, I think that's overly pessimistic. we might end up with 2.5 even after Boeing implodes.

What makes you think Boeing will implode?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/28/2013 10:52 pm
Quite reasonable points, IMHO, even though I think it has turned out better than should've been expected and in hindsight is a good investment. The EELVs should not have been excluded. Many think they were excluded in order to reduce the chance that NASA's main HSF turf would not be encroached upon.

The EELVs were not excluded from competing in COTS. This is a myth that people on this forum keep repeating but it isn't actually true. Boeing had a proposal that nearly won over Orbital's proposal in 2008. DC competed in 2006 and would have used an Atlas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services
Not /explicitly/ excluded, that's not what I meant. And let me make clear this is my opinion; it's based on comments from other experts (such as Jim).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/01/2013 01:18 am
Quite reasonable points, IMHO, even though I think it has turned out better than should've been expected and in hindsight is a good investment. The EELVs should not have been excluded. Many think they were excluded in order to reduce the chance that NASA's main HSF turf would not be encroached upon.

The EELVs were not excluded from competing in COTS. This is a myth that people on this forum keep repeating but it isn't actually true. Boeing had a proposal that nearly won over Orbital's proposal in 2008. DC competed in 2006 and would have used an Atlas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services
Not /explicitly/ excluded, that's not what I meant. And let me make clear this is my opinion; it's based on comments from other experts (such as Jim).

OK. I thought you meant that the EELVs were excluded from competing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/01/2013 01:20 am
Jim implied that there was some opposition (in NASA?) to letting EELVs compete fairly in the program.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 03/03/2013 02:33 am
Well, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew. 

Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense.

$5 billion? That's a complete bargain for 2.5 qualified crewed systems (with multiple abort tests and launches), with milestones paid only when each milestone is completed. JWST is a single, unmanned spacecraft with a single launch. Pretty much as apples-to-oranges as you can get.

Other pluses it will create US jobs which would pay back a return on taxes which will not happen with buying seats on Russian spacecraft.

Then there is the issue that Soyuz was nearly grounded twice so the need for redundancy is paramount.

One thing I really like about CCDev is how the three winners so far all have different recovery methods.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 03/03/2013 05:27 am
What makes you think Boeing will implode?
Wishful thinking. It's the option least likely to advance the state of the art. IMHO. And therefore the one that probably has the best chance of winning, it seems.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 03/03/2013 03:40 pm
What makes you think Boeing will implode?
Wishful thinking. It's the option least likely to advance the state of the art. IMHO. And therefore the one that probably has the best chance of winning, it seems.

It also seems the most redundant, with Dragon and Orion already in production.  I hope Dream Chaser's unique attributes give it the needed edge over another capsule design.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: beancounter on 03/04/2013 02:01 am
What makes you think Boeing will implode?
Wishful thinking. It's the option least likely to advance the state of the art. IMHO. And therefore the one that probably has the best chance of winning, it seems.

It also seems the most redundant, with Dragon and Orion already in production.  I hope Dream Chaser's unique attributes give it the needed edge over another capsule design.

Well Orion is supposed to be BEO and the other's LEO.  The only redundancy is in the LEO program.  None in the BEO program.  That's a worry.  NASA needs redundancy in both IMO.  They've got it with launchers so they're safe there.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 03/04/2013 07:03 am
Well Orion is supposed to be BEO and the other's LEO.  The only redundancy is in the LEO program.  None in the BEO program.  That's a worry.  NASA needs redundancy in both IMO.  They've got it with launchers so they're safe there.

Dragon is the better Orion for BEO.

I don't get the rationale of Orion design at all. It is big and heavy, completely unnecessary for any mission objective, yet not big enough by far to make an additional habitat unnecessary. A design with Dragon and a habitat will beat it on every measure.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 03/05/2013 12:46 am
if Americans want astronauts launching from their own soil.

But they don't care if the rockets are made in Russia?

You said it spot on. This is my biggest gripe with old space (and I include Orbital) right now. Why are they all buying parts from either europe or russia? Any country decides they dislike America for whatever reason and suddenly there goes a section of our space program.

I have no clue why the Air Force even allows national security missions to be flown on rockets that use russian components simply because a lot of older generation people are still nervous about Russia.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/05/2013 12:59 am
Actually, the rocket is being built by Ukraine, not Russia.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 03/05/2013 01:05 am
Actually, the rocket is being built by Ukraine, not Russia.

*Russia and other former soviet republics. Fixed.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/05/2013 01:07 am
Actually, the rocket is being built by Ukraine, not Russia.

*Russia and other former soviet republics. Fixed.
They are no longer monolithic.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 03/05/2013 01:09 am
Actually, the rocket is being built by Ukraine, not Russia.

What rocket are you talking about?

I was talking about the RD-180 which, as far as I'm aware, is still built by NPO Energomash in Russia.

Edit: hmpft.. seems it's "made" by RD AMROSS, which is a Florida company. No idea where it is actually manufactured.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 03/05/2013 01:41 am
Actually, the rocket is being built by Ukraine, not Russia.

What rocket are you talking about?

I was talking about the RD-180 which, as far as I'm aware, is still built by NPO Energomash in Russia.

Edit: hmpft.. seems it's "made" by RD AMROSS, which is a Florida company. No idea where it is actually manufactured.

No matter what label they put on it, manufacturing of the RD-180 still happening in Russia. AeroJet does the same kind of labelling hi-jinx on the NK-33.

If domestic production happens, they'll be sure to make a bigger deal out of it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/05/2013 01:43 am
I was referring to the Antares rocket stage. And BTW, Aerojet and P&W (or whoever now owns them) can make the NK-33 and RD-180 if the fit hits the shan.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 03/05/2013 02:08 am
I was referring to the Antares rocket stage. And BTW, Aerojet and P&W (or whoever now owns them) can make the NK-33 and RD-180 if the fit hits the shan.

You mean they're allowed to try. :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 03/05/2013 02:19 am
I was referring to the Antares rocket stage. And BTW, Aerojet and P&W (or whoever now owns them) can make the NK-33 and RD-180 if the fit hits the shan.

You mean they're allowed to try. :)

He means that they have been transferred the whole IP, even to the point of actually designing the factory and full process documentation, in the RD-180 case. Just add 140M and three years and you'd have a nice RD-180 factory.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/05/2013 02:48 am
Actually, the rocket is being built by Ukraine, not Russia.

What rocket are you talking about?

I was talking about the RD-180 which, as far as I'm aware, is still built by NPO Energomash in Russia.

Edit: hmpft.. seems it's "made" by RD AMROSS, which is a Florida company. No idea where it is actually manufactured.
RD-180 is manufactured by NPO Energomash, which is headquartered in Khimki, Moscow State, Russia.  RD AMROSS is the joint venture with PWR that facilitates import to the U.S..

No one is going to make any RD-180s in the U.S. (or NK-33s for that matter) without the involvement of the Russian companies that own their designs. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/05/2013 03:07 am
Unless the fit hits the shan.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 03/11/2013 06:33 pm
Unless the fit hits the shan.

I think they should start working on a domestic alternative to the RD-180.

If not a US produced RD-180 then maybe the AJ-26-500.


On down selecting I think they can bring it to Spacex,SNC,and Boeing now.
Spacex is a shoe in with their proven CRS performance which leaves the remaining two SNC and Boeing.

SNC's vehicle is better across the board but Boeing has more resources
so choosing between those two is tough.

Though maybe go with 2.5 contractors for it.
This seems the best compromise between cost and redundancy.
2 is the minimum since with 1.5 you're putting too many eggs in one basket.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 03/11/2013 07:36 pm
Unless the fit hits the shan.

I think they should start working on a domestic alternative to the RD-180.

If not a US produced RD-180 then maybe the AJ-26-500.


On down selecting I think they can bring it to Spacex,SNC,and Boeing now.
Spacex is a shoe in with their proven CRS performance which leaves the remaining two SNC and Boeing.

SNC's vehicle is better across the board but Boeing has more resources
so choosing between those two is tough.

Though maybe go with 2.5 contractors for it.
This seems the best compromise between cost and redundancy.
2 is the minimum since with 1.5 you're putting too many eggs in one basket.
Why is the SNC DC "better across the board", the DC has to be more complex then a capsule owing to it requirement to maneuver to land and the DC TPS is under more stress than the CST-100. While i am a DC fan, the CST-100 is a smart, relatively simple design that utilizes proven technology.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 03/11/2013 08:49 pm

Why is the SNC DC "better across the board", the DC has to be more complex then a capsule owing to it requirement to maneuver to land and the DC TPS is under more stress than the CST-100. While i am a DC fan, the CST-100 is a smart, relatively simple design that utilizes proven technology.

I has a low g reentry which is better for fragile items and it's has enough difference from Dragon and Orion to not appear redundant.

The decent and landing method is the most tested and proven of all decent and landing modes used on spacecraft.
If STS proved anything it proved that a runway landing is by far the safest mode of recovery you can't really argue too much with the statistics.
The failure that did occur with STS were launch stack interaction induced.

Would be the only vehicle to use non toxic RCS I feel this is a very important technology for the future.
As for the TPS being more highly stressed that depends.

My gripes with the CST-100 it's actually a little too conservative they made little attempt to push the envelope beyond what's been done before but it is a solid design just an uninspiring one.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/11/2013 09:27 pm
That is still much different from "better across the board." The hybrid propulsion is likely to be, in practice, much lower performance than other options, even if they can get it to work reliably (their bid would be significantly improved if they switched to something else, say ethanol and nitrous). They're also unlikely to be usable for deep space (though it's not /impossible/), unlike both Dragon and CST-100. This is perhaps half the reason to develop such a vehicle in the first place. I can see plenty of good aspects of DC, but absolutely can not see how one can claim it's better "across the board."
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 03/11/2013 09:50 pm
That is still much different from "better across the board." The hybrid propulsion is likely to be, in practice, much lower performance than other options, even if they can get it to work reliably (their bid would be significantly improved if they switched to something else, say ethanol and nitrous). They're also unlikely to be usable for deep space (though it's not /impossible/), unlike both Dragon and CST-100. This is perhaps half the reason to develop such a vehicle in the first place. I can see plenty of good aspects of DC, but absolutely can not see how one can claim it's better "across the board."

So far only Spacex has made any big claims of beyond LEO capability though mostly about their existing heat shield.


The truth is a BLEO version of any of the vehicles may be best described as derived from the LEO version due to the number of changes likely needed.
Well unless they decide to design in some of the requirements in from the start.

I give Spacex credit here as they seem to be able make quick changes to their designs.
Even a major OML change may not be a show stopper for them.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/11/2013 11:03 pm
Boeing engineers have also said the CST-100 could be used for BLEO.

Look, the biggest advantage of capsules over more complicated shapes is that they can relatively easily be used for higher reentry speeds. CST-100's shape is derived from Apollo's, for goodness sake.

Also, both CST-100 and Dragon can use the /same/ TPS technology for BLEO flights. There really aren't that many changes needed. It's even possible both could be used for BLEO reentries with just a flight software change*! ...if they both have enough margin in their TPS designs, which it appears at least Dragon has. Honestly, someone would have to come up with a good reason they /couldn't/ be used BLEO before saying "major changes" would be needed (for it really depends on internal design choices Boeing and SpaceX have made).



*and obviously an appropriate booster or LEO rendezvous with a stage or something
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 03/11/2013 11:53 pm

The decent and landing method is the most tested and proven of all decent and landing modes used on spacecraft.
If STS proved anything it proved that a runway landing is by far the safest mode of recovery you can't really argue too much with the statistics.
The failure that did occur with STS were launch stack interaction induced.


Most tested and proved???  I think if you were to add up the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, chinese and Soviet/Russian capsules you will find far more than the shuttle.  And they have shown where even failures (e.g., Soyuz 14S ballistic entry) can be recovered safely.   I think statistically you would find the capsules are safer and by far, BY FAR, cheaper to operate.  The shuttle was as safe as it was due to a tremendous amount of ground support, training, redudancy...  Your statement just doesn't fly.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/11/2013 11:54 pm
fix quotes
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spectre9 on 03/12/2013 04:51 am
I like CST-100.

It lands on land. Good for live coverage of egress.

Good internal volume for the diameter.

Service module propellant is used for abort. Solid abort tractor tower I find icky in comparison.

Shape can handle BEO reentry.

It's light enough to launch on existing rockets.

Compared to Orion it's a hot rod dream machine.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 03/12/2013 03:14 pm
I like CST-100.

It lands on land. Good for live coverage of egress.

Good internal volume for the diameter.

Service module propellant is used for abort. Solid abort tractor tower I find icky in comparison.

Shape can handle BEO reentry.

It's light enough to launch on existing rockets.

Compared to Orion it's a hot rod dream machine.

You could launch Orion on existing Atlas Variants if it had a LEO SM that didn't have a load of propellant to get it home from LLO.  The Capsule isn't -that- heavy, about 9mt I think.  it's the SM with it's prop load and LAS tower.  Apollo was about 6mt and had about half the pressurized volume (total). 
The Orion CSM is almost 10mt lighter than the Apollo CSM fully loaded, despite being so much larger (capsule). 

So if Orion were going to service the ISS, and there was no commercial crew program, they could certainly launch it with a partial prop load on an Atlas-552, and perhaps some of the smaller variants if they had a SM more like CST-100 (less the LAS system) or Dragon's trunk. 

The reason Ares 1 needed to be so big, and they couldn't launch it on Atlas-552 or similar, was because they needed that crew LV to be able to launch the full  prop and full sized SM for EOR for a lunar mission primarily.  And it probably didn't make much sense to man-rate an Atlas when they needed to develop another launcher for Orion's lunar missions anyway.  Dragon or CST-100 would need a significantly larger and heavier SM to go to the Moon and back, like the smaller Apollo capsule did.  In the case of DRagon, it would need a real service module with a SMME in order to do the TEI burn and perhaps a LOI burn depending on the architecture. (Assuming a mission profile similar to what the Orion SM was designed for). 
Also, the big thing to consider with CST-100, is if you need to add some mass to the capsule, and more to the SM for a BLEO mission, can the LAS system handle that extra mass?  If not, it will need a new upgraded LAS system in order to launch crews BLEO adding more expense. 
SpaceX can probably get around that since their LAS system launches the capsule only, not the capsule and SM like CST-100.  But a BLEO Draong would inevitably be heavier than the LEO version just due to the additional crew accomodations for those long durations.

Now, that said, if NASA had went with a pusher LAS system like CST-100 for Orion, they might have been able to get the mass down to where it -could- have launched on an Atlas-552 for full lunar missions, and then on a lighter variant of Atlas for an ISS servicing mission.  And during a successful launch, the LAS propellant and engines (throttleable like superdracos) would be used for the various burns during a lunar mission. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 03/14/2013 05:56 pm
Astronaut Lee Archambault will join Sierra Nevada Corp:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/releases/2013/J13-007.html

Interesting.

Like I've said before, I don't tknow how NASA really needs more than one commercial crew provider.  But each of the 3 competators has a lot of strengths and I don't know how they can cancelled either.  They don't really need all three...or even two really...just one, and even that one is probably only launching twice a year. 
SpaceX already has a spacecraft flying, and have their own LV that is basically designed to be man-rated anyway. 
Boeing has a lot of clout and political connections.  THey also seem to have a pretty good design, and seem to be proceeding like they are fully expecting to get a contract, rather than just hoping to in a still active competition.
SNC has a spacecraft that promises good "visuals" for NASA, landing at KSC, and looking like a mini shuttle.  Space Planes just have good visuals even if they aren't really any better in reality than capsules.  And they seem to be ramping up as if fully expecting to get the contract.

I don't see how all 3 are chosen, but I don't see how any of them are -not- chosen...for various reasons. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/15/2013 11:44 am
I think they should have at least 2 and simply expand the mission.
That way US astronauts wont be grounded if something (heaven forbid) was to happen to one of the operators. Personally, I would even prefer 3.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 03/16/2013 11:10 am
I think they should have at least 2 and simply expand the mission.
That way US astronauts wont be grounded if something (heaven forbid) was to happen to one of the operators. Personally, I would even prefer 3.


I don't see how they can have more than one. There are just two flights per year unless and until additional private Space Stations come into service. That's barely enough for one. The spare system can be Soyus as before.

A capsule system is not as likely to get out of service as the Shuttle was, so I don't see a reason for having two systems.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/16/2013 05:24 pm
It's all a problem of market for yearly persons to orbit. Current market is 8 persons per year to the ISS. With a Bigelow Alpha station that rises to a market of 48 persons per year. That’s quite a growth of 2 flights to 7 + flights per year.

At the end of CCiCAP SpaceX, Boeing and SNC will have a vehicle ready to move into the test phase requiring a pad abort, max Q abort, on orbit un-manned test followed by on orbit manned test. At $20-30M per seat the 48 person/year market is a yearly value of $960m-$1,440M. Over 5 years that’s $4.8-7.2B. This would be an incentive for some like SNC, Blue Origin and others to push forward on their own dime to produce a vehicle that can offer a competitive price or additional features for new customers such as those not willing to ride a capsule. The revenue return would quickly outstrip the additional investments made. Even if three operators were flying an average of 2-3 flights per year initially just breaking even in a market that is expanding, most business investors look for that type of situation.

SNC for example would probably need $500-1,000M additional funds to complete the testing phase, most of that cost being the Atlas V launch costs for 3 of the tests at about $350-$400M total. If they switched to an F9 there would be at least $100M in new integration costs (wind tunnel testing, etc) that would have to be funded as well as the cost of launch on 3 F9's of $180-250M, a total LV cost of $280-350M. It may not make sense to change vehicles depending on the magnitude of the integration expense plus the added integration effort would delay initial operations. A switch to F9 after initial operations would cost approximately $220-250M for the integration cost plus 2 test flights, max-Q abort and the unmanned orbital to demonstrate that the configuration would be safe to fly humans. With an operation cost reduction of ~$40M per flight at 3 flights per year where price per launch is reduced by $20M, it would take 4 years of operations to recover the cost of switching boosters. There would be added advantage here in that the system would become booster independent. DC could become the preferred ride to orbit even if it is a little more expensive.

BTW the yearly CC market size of 48 to orbit seats/yr (for ISS + the Alpha station) has a yearly value equal to the SLS operations launch contract values currently projected. SLS has limited expansion due to budget constraints, but the Commercial Crew market could grow rapidly and significantly beyond the 48 seats/yr plus it's not completely dependent on a government budget.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 03/16/2013 06:00 pm
I think they should have at least 2 and simply expand the mission.
That way US astronauts wont be grounded if something (heaven forbid) was to happen to one of the operators. Personally, I would even prefer 3.


I don't see how they can have more than one. There are just two flights per year unless and until additional private Space Stations come into service. That's barely enough for one. The spare system can be Soyus as before.

A capsule system is not as likely to get out of service as the Shuttle was, so I don't see a reason for having two systems.



Back when I was a naive optimist, I thought the idea was to make spaceflight more routine and allow more frequent visits to the station than our current 3 up, 3 down every few months.  But yeah, as long as current ISS expeditions represent the extent of our manned space program, the whole "commercial crew" thing really makes no sense.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/16/2013 09:25 pm

Back when I was a naive optimist, I thought the idea was to make spaceflight more routine and allow more frequent visits to the station than our current 3 up, 3 down every few months.
That is what I thought as well. But I guess there is no money to extent space station operations because it all goes to the SLS...
I still think commercial crew makes sense (much cheaper than anything else). It is the rest of the politics that dont make sense (the original plan of the administration was much better, btw).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 03/17/2013 06:16 am
Back when I was a naive optimist, I thought the idea was to make spaceflight more routine and allow more frequent visits to the station than our current 3 up, 3 down every few months.  But yeah, as long as current ISS expeditions represent the extent of our manned space program, the whole "commercial crew" thing really makes no sense.

Naive? Probably. But I will always try be be an optimist. Have seven crew on the ISS would enable a lot more science done and all it takes is two Dragon or CST-100 flights a year. Plus more supply cargo.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/18/2013 01:31 am
Combine crew and cargo contracts, then having two suppliers is entirely feasible.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 03/18/2013 04:50 pm
Combine crew and cargo contracts, then having two suppliers is entirely feasible.

None of the prospective crew vehicles are optimized for cargo. Also, I thought we didn't want crew and cargo delivered on the same launch.

When the cargo contract comes up for renewal, everyone is free to compete. I still think the Cygnus makes the best pure cargo ship, although I would like to see a full size CBM hatch. Of course, a second provider that is able to supply some down-mass is necessary, unless that down mass is provided in addition to ferrying the crew back to Earth. How much of the Dragon down mass is going to be just trash ?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 03/18/2013 05:10 pm
Combine crew and cargo contracts, then having two suppliers is entirely feasible.
NASA will have to do a second CRS bidding process. But I seriously doubt that any CCS launched with an Atlas will be able to compete on price. And Dc doesn't seems to be able to fit an CBM, either. And I'm not sure CST-100 can retrofit an unpressurized compartment given where they've put their OMS. Ironically, the most likely candidate to make a good offer there would be... Liberty II.  :o
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 03/18/2013 05:27 pm
Combine crew and cargo contracts, then having two suppliers is entirely feasible.

<like>  This.

That creates a bit of a problem for DC fans though.  At least the first version of DC won't be a very good cargo carrier I don't think.  Or at least I've heard.  I think the docking port is of limited width compared to the CBM, and it's internal volume isn't very efficient for cargo.  But maybe a cargo variant of DC with a expendable CBM fixture on the aft rather than a docking port, and stripping out everything in the pressurized volume...who knows, maybe it could work adequately.  Or a cargo bay instead of a pressurized interior for unpressurized cargo?  I believe DC will be able to fly and rendezvous with the ISS autonomously, so I would think they could do an uncrewed cargo variant of it.

Also makes it tough for OSC, as they'd need a brand new space ship for crews. 

That leaves SpaceX and Boeing as the two most likely dual-supply service providers. 
Although, an interesting thing would be a team-up between Boeing and OSC for that combo contract.  Or SNC and OSC for a combo contract.  One gets the contract, and subcontracts the other to provide the service which they can't, rather than developing that capability on their own.  Especially since OSC's cargo capabilities will already exist.  Not sure how cost-efficient that would be though.  Might be cheaper for Boeing to make a cargo version of the CST-100 CSM, or SNC to try to make a cargo variant of DC.  If SNC could, then they'd just have like two crew DC's, and two cargo DC's in their fleet, and they would be fully reusable OV's with supposedly not much required in processing between flights.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 03/18/2013 05:42 pm
Nasa can't combine. They can offer the option of making dual offers. But they simply can't force a dual solution. Both because they have different requirements and because they don't have the budget to ask for such a wastage. I believe OSC has a very good solution for cargo.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 03/18/2013 06:45 pm
Nasa can't combine. They can offer the option of making dual offers. But they simply can't force a dual solution. Both because they have different requirements and because they don't have the budget to ask for such a wastage. I believe OSC has a very good solution for cargo.

Once current contracts expire, what's to keep NASA from issuing new RFQ's, with the requirement that the bidder can supply both X-Crew capability and Y-cargo capability?  They can't cancel existing contracts, but they could change future contract requirements, couldn't they?
Issue two combined contracts in maybe 2015 or 2016 when the first commercial crew contracts will meed to be issued, and I believe that's the end of these first commercial cargo contracts.  I think they expire in 2015 and will need to be replaced with a Commercial Cargo-2 contract for 3-4 more years.
Or push it off further, and make the commercial cargo-2 contracts and commercial crew-1 contracts expire at the same time, in which case all will be replaced with issuance of two "Combined Commercial Cargo and Crew-1" RFB's.  And they'd probably be designed around two specific providers NASA would have in mind and indend to get the contracts, although it's technically an "open" bid.  And they'd have probably already been in talks with the two intended suppliers to write the RFB in such a way that they can bid it, and make a reasonable profit margin at the same time. 

In that same vein, anyone have an idea of what DC's total upmass and downmass capabilities are with the initial OV, or might be with a variant optimized for cargo work?  I've had a hard time finding specifics on that.  If it can deliver 6 crew with some associated mass (pressure suits, personal effects), than I'll think it's upmass would be about 1mt at least??

That's not much, but a variant which had all the ECLSS systems removed, along with the Human-machine-interface (HMI) controls, seats, etc removed.  Maybe even the windows and other things I can't think of right now, maybe they could get that up some?  Especially if they put a few Atlas SRB's on the Atlas V that was launching that cargo DC?  Why not?  Maybe DC could be made into an effective cargo carrier?  Have the cargo rack straps arranged around the inside of the pressurized chamber in DC and just load it from the front to back, and unload it in the reverse at the ISS.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/18/2013 07:25 pm
Nasa can't combine. They can offer the option of making dual offers. But they simply can't force a dual solution. Both because they have different requirements and because they don't have the budget to ask for such a wastage. I believe OSC has a very good solution for cargo.
If that's the only feasible way to get two crew providers, why the heck can't they combine? (And I agree OSC's solution is good for cargo.)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 03/18/2013 08:54 pm
Nasa can't combine. They can offer the option of making dual offers. But they simply can't force a dual solution. Both because they have different requirements and because they don't have the budget to ask for such a wastage. I believe OSC has a very good solution for cargo.
If that's the only feasible way to get two crew providers, why the heck can't they combine? (And I agree OSC's solution is good for cargo.)
Because they already have made the specs for crew with CCiCAP. If you where to change the rules of the contest they won't be ready for 2016, probably only to 2019. And as stated above, the contestants have made technical decisions that might need a different approach for cargo. Boeing might have designed the RCS system differently, DC might have chosen a different LV, etc.
The specs are different and the needs are different. And in any case, you only care about total cost. They might allow mixed proposals for crew and cargo. But if somebody offers a cheaper cargo services, how do you justify to pay more for a service? What if A offers cheaper cargo than C, B cheaper Crew than C and A+B is less than C+C?
Let's not forget that there's a real need for pressurized cargo athmospheric disposal. Who's going to offer that? Currently only HTV and Cygnus can do it, and none of the current CCiCAP can do it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 03/18/2013 09:31 pm
Perhaps I overlooked the initial reasoning, but why exactly should we want Cargo and Crew under one contract?

Each service has different system and mission requirements. Crew and/or Cargo should be selected on the best available service providers.

If a service provider happened to construct their systems in such a way that they can effectively leverage their cargo service for future crew service resulting in a very competitively priced crew capability... then, to the victor go the spoils.

I know it's fun to play legos and redesign systems as we wish but the reality is:

NASA is not going to pay for the DC to be a cargo hauler.
CST-100 was not designed to compete for Cargo re-supply, nor will NASA pay for it to do so.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 03/18/2013 09:55 pm
Nasa can't combine. They can offer the option of making dual offers. But they simply can't force a dual solution. Both because they have different requirements and because they don't have the budget to ask for such a wastage. I believe OSC has a very good solution for cargo.
If that's the only feasible way to get two crew providers, why the heck can't they combine? (And I agree OSC's solution is good for cargo.)
Because they already have made the specs for crew with CCiCAP. If you where to change the rules of the contest they won't be ready for 2016, probably only to 2019. And as stated above, the contestants have made technical decisions that might need a different approach for cargo. Boeing might have designed the RCS system differently, DC might have chosen a different LV, etc.
The specs are different and the needs are different. And in any case, you only care about total cost. They might allow mixed proposals for crew and cargo. But if somebody offers a cheaper cargo services, how do you justify to pay more for a service? What if A offers cheaper cargo than C, B cheaper Crew than C and A+B is less than C+C?
Let's not forget that there's a real need for pressurized cargo athmospheric disposal. Who's going to offer that? Currently only HTV and Cygnus can do it, and none of the current CCiCAP can do it.

Isn’t CCiCAP only liable for the initial crew contract?  Like CRS was?  And when CRS-1 is over, NASA could opt to issue no more contracts for commercial cargo?  (not that that would make much sense).  I think CRS-1 only goes through 2016. 
If so inclined, couldn’t they offer a 2 or 3 year Commercial contract to the winner(s) of CCiCAP, and then a similar CRS-2 contract, which would expire about the time of the first commercial crew contract, and then issue RFB for combines contracts?

Maybe they could offer an option RFB for suppliers that can provide it, for some price less than a commercial crew and commercial cargo cost separately?  And if someone can meet it, they actually get both contracts?  It’s a win for NASA, because they can save some money by the fact of offering the RFB if they get some combined discount.  The Supplier wins because they get both contracts, rather than having to bid both separately and maybe only get one.  Not quite as much margin, but more volume.

Maybe it wouldn’t gain as much as it seems, just seems if there are two or three crew and two cargo contracts, that’s 4 to 5 different suppliers all launching like one or two launches per year.  Seems about the most inefficient way to do it.  We want fewer LV’s and spacecraft launching more often to get costs down.

And as cool as commercial crew and cargo is (and it is), it’s a little frustrating to think about a scenario where a Block 1 LEO Orion CSM that can launch on an Atlas single stick LV is launching right after Shuttle is retired to supply both crew and cargo services to ISS.  Would have been nice to see a robust flight rate for NASA’s new flagship spacecraft overall.   The Orion service module on a disposable MPLM launched on the Atlas-5xx variants could supply both volumous cargo capability and pressurized atmospheric disposal, like a larger version of Cygnus.  And an unmanned Orion for pressurized cargo downmass.
And that same single stick Atlas-55x with a  new WBC upper stage could loft the full BLEO Orion to LEO for a 1.5 architecture of some kind if that was still determined to be the path forward after Shuttle was retired. 
How much wasted 5-seg and J2X development could have been saved just going that route, not to mention the time lost….
This was all the original plan in ESAS by the way for ISS support, just they chose Ares 1 instead of EELV.  But they chose an LV starting from scratch rather than one already flying.

But I degress…

The commercial crew and cargo is interesting to see, but it just seems like it stems from a serious of bad decisions, rather than being a “good” decision in un itself.  The best way to handle the situation derived from bad decisions and bad politics maybe’s a better way to say it. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/18/2013 10:42 pm
So nobody thinks the commercial crew folks have considered cargo requirements? Dragon, a vehicle whose purpose for coming into existence was to eventually bring humans to orbit, seems to be doing a pretty good job at cargo service. Progress (which is based on Soyuz) served for several decades (and still does!) as a cargo vehicle, uses a docking system which is more cumbersome to get stuff through than NDSS. And the mini-CBM on Cygnus (significantly smaller than the one on Dragon, by the way) isn't too different in diameter from NDSS.

I guarantee you that /every/ commercial crew contender has given serious thought to cargo logistics as well.

EDIT: NDS is indeed significantly bigger than the probe-and-drogue system that Progress has used for logistics since the 1970s.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/18/2013 11:08 pm
So nobody thinks the commercial crew folks have considered cargo requirements? Dragon, a vehicle whose purpose for coming into existence was to eventually bring humans to orbit, seems to be doing a pretty good job at cargo service. Progress (which is based on Soyuz) served for several decades (and still does!) as a cargo vehicle, uses a docking system which is more cumbersome to get stuff through than NDSS. And the mini-CBM on Cygnus (significantly smaller than the one on Dragon, by the way) isn't too different in diameter from NDSS.

I guarantee you that /every/ commercial crew contender has given serious thought to cargo logistics as well.

EDIT: NDS is indeed significantly bigger than the probe-and-drogue system that Progress has used for logistics since the 1970s.
I agree!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 03/19/2013 12:19 am

Isn’t CCiCAP only liable for the initial crew contract?  Like CRS was?  And when CRS-1 is over, NASA could opt to issue no more contracts for commercial cargo?  (not that that would make much sense).  I think CRS-1 only goes through 2016. 
If so inclined, couldn’t they offer a 2 or 3 year Commercial contract to the winner(s) of CCiCAP, and then a similar CRS-2 contract, which would expire about the time of the first commercial crew contract, and then issue RFB for combines contracts?

----------------------

CCiCAP is not liable for any crew contract.  iCAP just gets them thru CDR.  Optional milestones, which may never get selected, might get you to a crewed test flight.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 03/19/2013 02:06 am
To add to what erioladastra said...

A. For CRS:

1. If NASA places the order before the end of 2015 for delivery before the end of 2016, then providers must (subject to contract minimums, maximums, etc.) honor the order.

2. If NASA places the order before the end of 2015 for delivery after the end of 2016, then providers may, subject to mutual agreement with NASA (subject to contract minimums, maximums, etc.) honor the order.

3. There is an on-ramp provision "... to provide NASA with a mechanism to recompete due to the loss of an existing ISS Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) supplier or to procure a vehicle service that is not currently being provided within the scope of this contract during the period of performance ...", existing providers are allowed to submit new proposals.

B. For CTS:

1. NASA stated that "... any commercial provider who is successful in achieving CTS Certification, the Phase 2 contract will include, as options, a nominal number of crewed missions to the ISS following successful CTS Certification.".  We'll have to wait and see what "nominal" means.

C. In short:

1. For the foreseeable future--at least through start of crew services to ISS in 2017 and probably for 1-2 years beyond--assuming everything goes well, CRS and CTS are likely to remain separate.

2. The exception may be a nominal reduction in the need for CRS to provide pressurized up- and down-mass.  The old CCT/IDC requirements state a minimum requirement of 100kg of cargo, a Glacier, and 100kg for each empty seat.  If the spacecraft is capable of 7 crew and NASA uses 4, that's ~400kg of pressurized cargo/flight.

3. Attempting to push CRS and CTS together any time in the foreseeable future IMHO would put both programs at unacceptable risk.  This is new territory for the providers and NASA; give it a few years.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 03/19/2013 08:20 am
<snip>
And the mini-CBM on Cygnus (significantly smaller than the one on Dragon, by the way)...
<snip>

Minor nit: There is no such thing a mini-CBM. The CBM (Common Berthing Mechanism) on both Cygnus and Dragon are exactly the same size. However, it is the CBM hatch that is smaller on Cygnus.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 03/19/2013 12:36 pm
Crew Dragon will still have a trunk, right? Any technical restrictions on using some of the trunk volume for unpressurized cargo? Does the added weight of ECLSS mean the trunk has no mass available for cargo?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Borklund on 03/19/2013 01:46 pm
I believe Elon said at a talk or during an interview not too long ago that crew Dragon would not have a trunk and solar panels but instead just have way bigger batteries.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 03/19/2013 02:20 pm
So nobody thinks the commercial crew folks have considered cargo requirements?
They might have, but now they are quite focused on providing crew services. And even NASA had to think a lot about what they meant by man rating. All this has generated a very specific and custom designs.
CST-100 could probably work just as good as a Dragon, with a CBM, and a new service module. In fact, they seem to have almost all their RCS save the pusher escape system on the sides, so they might have thought about it.
Dream Chaser, seems more designed for Crew. A CBM doesn't seems to fit there, and the length and width might pose quite an interference problem if it were modified for being handled. And I can't see how to add unpressurized module. I mean, they could add a whole MLPM besides the DC, but it would block the propulsion modules. I ignore about Blue Origin's New Space Vehicle, but it doesn't seems to have a a way to put a CBM, since the NDS was on the side. Ironically, ATK's Liberty had the best proposal for cargo. Although I doubt it's cost and maturity.
But all of them have been designed and optimized for crew at this stage. That means having a pilot do the approach and docking. It's also the reason you have to put a CBM. I don't think NASA would allow automatic docking to the APAS-like on the USOS side. So now they would have to design all the new avionics and approaching software, plus the ISS interaction to get in the grapple box. And now there's no COTS money.
But the true issue is the LV. You don't use Atlas V because it's cheap, you use it because it's as reliably a LV as they come (which is important way more important for crew than for cargo). The New World Observatory papers stated that an Atlas V 501 cost 140M. Take in consideration that costs have gone up dramatically, and those where 2007 prices. What's more, these vehicles use the Centaur x 2, which uses two of the most expensive item on the Atlas V, the RL10. I would not be surprised if the 402 is about 170M today. Which is more than the whole Dragon mission. And each Cygnus mission costs 190M. There's one way to compete with them. But that would require to use a 431, or find a way to use a 551 (which would need a custom "fairing" upto the capsule adapter). Then you make a big craft that can double the payload of either Cygnus or Dragon. So you can compete on USD/kg. But that would mean half the missions and bigger spacecraft, too.
The other issue of optimizing for cargo (launching on Atlas V) is that you have to put a lot of volume, while optimizing for crew you worry about evacuation, ECLSS, etc. After they did a low of optimizing for crew, retrofitting cargo gets more difficult.

Quote
Dragon, a vehicle whose purpose for coming into existence was to eventually bring humans to orbit, seems to be doing a pretty good job at cargo service. Progress (which is based on Soyuz) served for several decades (and still does!) as a cargo vehicle, uses a docking system which is more cumbersome to get stuff through than NDS.
USOS and ROS are two different worlds. The Russian side is designed and optimized for the cone and probe. The USOS is designed and optimized for the CBM. They might work, but the whole approach system is the NASA requirement for Cargo.
What's more, Progess has a flight history that allows it to be grandfathered on a lot of issues. The commercial companies now only lack that history and track record, but the whole point of commercial is a hands off approach that goes totally against the sort of insight that every partner would ask to allow that type of docking. Think more in ATV's terms.

Quote
And the mini-CBM on Cygnus (significantly smaller than the one on Dragon, by the way) isn't too different in diameter from NDS.
Again, the CBM diameter is the same, is a smaller hatch. The true issue of CBM vs NDS is the approach (berthing vs docking).

Quote
I guarantee you that /every/ commercial crew contender has given serious thought to cargo logistics as well.
Of course they have given it thought. But they are trying to get a contract under the CCiCAP rules, and those rules, as stated above, makes you optimize differently.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 03/19/2013 02:30 pm
BTW, if they had decided to start with COTS-D, as HMXHMX has stated, it could have been a whole different game. If they had started with proposals to do crew and cargo, then we might have seen some very different designs and proposals. Personally, I would have loved an HL-42 on an Atlas Heavy (do the numbers, it's not that ridiculous).
But I guess they thought it was a danger to the CxP, and the ISS was going to be ditched by 2017 anyways ( ::)). So that's where we are today.
The nice thing is that once commercial companies offer cargo and crew services to the ISS, they will have "proven" the method. NASA won't be able to get back to the monolithic model. What's more, they are correcting for what I see as a cultural problem of NASA, where they like to do bet-the-farm programs and stop developing systems by 30years.
COTS and CCDev/CCiCAP has changed a bit that logic. They did "small" investments and actually invested first on subsystems, then on whole systems, while the rest of the Directorate kept doing what it's supposed to do.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/19/2013 03:09 pm

USOS and ROS are two different worlds. The Russian side is designed and optimized for the cone and probe.

What would prevent SpaceX from buying a Russian docking system and swap out the current CBM system on the Dragon with it. Thus able to docked on the ROS. Provide the Russians are willing to sale.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/19/2013 03:58 pm
If it's the difference between only having one crew provider and having two, it makes far more sense to combine crew and cargo. Not only does it share costs, but it also greatly increases safety, since a randomly introduced design/process problem is more likely to be caught on a non-life-critical cargo flight than a crew flight.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 03/19/2013 04:31 pm
If it's the difference between only having one crew provider and having two, it makes far more sense to combine crew and cargo. Not only does it share costs, but it also greatly increases safety, since a randomly introduced design/process problem is more likely to be caught on a non-life-critical cargo flight than a crew flight.

Not true. A manufacturing defect could occur on either the crew or cargo mission, which would shut down both crew and cargo flights from that provider until it was resolved. Since the frequency of the CRS flights isn't that much greater than the manned missions, the problem could occur on either mission. Just go back to the problem with the Russian upper stages if you need an example of why 2 different providers are needed.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 03/19/2013 05:11 pm
I believe Elon said at a talk or during an interview not too long ago that crew Dragon would not have a trunk and solar panels but instead just have way bigger batteries.

You got it part right. No solar panels, yes, but the trunk will likely remain, even if it is in a shortened form.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 03/19/2013 05:15 pm
CST-100 could probably work just as good as a Dragon, with a CBM, and a new service module.

No, there is no space for the larger CBM hatch on the CST-100. The area around the hatch is where all the parachutes are packed (just like Orion and Apollo) - There just isn't room without a significant re-design.

The large hatch is part of the reason for the lower parachute placement of Dragon.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 03/19/2013 05:17 pm
I believe Elon said at a talk or during an interview not too long ago that crew Dragon would not have a trunk and solar panels but instead just have way bigger batteries.

You got it part right. No solar panels, yes, but the trunk will likely remain, even if it is in a shortened form.

Partly right again. The solar panels are gone yes, but it was _unspecified_ what will happen to the trunk. Everything beyond that is guess work.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 03/19/2013 05:20 pm
I believe Elon said at a talk or during an interview not too long ago that crew Dragon would not have a trunk and solar panels but instead just have way bigger batteries.

You got it part right. No solar panels, yes, but the trunk will likely remain, even if it is in a shortened form.

Partly right again. The solar panels are gone yes, but it was _unspecified_ what will happen to the trunk. Everything beyond that is guess work.

They didn't talk about warp drive either, so it remains an option? If it is unspecified, one should assume no change - until new evidence is brought forward.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 03/19/2013 06:34 pm
They might have, but now they are quite focused on providing crew services. And even NASA had to think a lot about what they meant by man rating. All this has generated a very specific and custom designs.
CST-100 could probably work just as good as a Dragon, with a CBM, and a new service module. In fact, they seem to have almost all their RCS save the pusher escape system on the sides, so they might have thought about it.
Dream Chaser, seems more designed for Crew. A CBM doesn't seems to fit there, and the length and width might pose quite an interference problem if it were modified for being handled. And I can't see how to add unpressurized module. I mean, they could add a whole MLPM besides the DC, but it would block the propulsion modules. I ignore about Blue Origin's New Space Vehicle, but it doesn't seems to have a a way to put a CBM, since the NDS was on the side. Ironically, ATK's Liberty had the best proposal for cargo. Although I doubt it's cost and maturity.
But all of them have been designed and optimized for crew at this stage. That means having a pilot do the approach and docking. It's also the reason you have to put a CBM. I don't think NASA would allow automatic docking to the APAS-like on the USOS side. So now they would have to design all the new avionics and approaching software, plus the ISS interaction to get in the grapple box. And now there's no COTS money.
But the true issue is the LV. You don't use Atlas V because it's cheap, you use it because it's as reliably a LV as they come (which is important way more important for crew than for cargo). The New World Observatory papers stated that an Atlas V 501 cost 140M. Take in consideration that costs have gone up dramatically, and those where 2007 prices. What's more, these vehicles use the Centaur x 2, which uses two of the most expensive item on the Atlas V, the RL10. I would not be surprised if the 402 is about 170M today. Which is more than the whole Dragon mission. And each Cygnus mission costs 190M. There's one way to compete with them. But that would require to use a 431, or find a way to use a 551 (which would need a custom "fairing" upto the capsule adapter). Then you make a big craft that can double the payload of either Cygnus or Dragon. So you can compete on USD/kg. But that would mean half the missions and bigger spacecraft, too.
The other issue of optimizing for cargo (launching on Atlas V) is that you have to put a lot of volume, while optimizing for crew you worry about evacuation, ECLSS, etc. After they did a low of optimizing for crew, retrofitting cargo gets more difficult.

 

Yea, I think CST-100 would be similar to Dragon in being able to provide crew and pressurized cargo service.  Put a CBM in place of the docking hatch.   Put a trunk on it in place of the LAS and you have unpressurized cargo too.
And yea, DC is probably more problematic to make cargo as it’s more optimized for crew.  But it might not be as bad as one might think with a little creative thinking.  As far as a CBM, you might be able to have one that can be jettisoned affixed to the aft, with an adaptor that allows DC to be berthed like Dragon is.  So that it doesn’t need to be docked by a pilot.  After the mission, that fixture is jettisoned and DC returns to Earth remotely. 
This could be a whole aft “trunk” fixture that attaches to the aft of a cargo DC (so it’s design would be a little different than the crew DC).  This trunk has the CBM on it.  Sort of like the concepts  for the HL-42.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8079.0;attach=179947;image

Except that would have a CBM on it.
Now, the obvious issue would be DC’s hybrid rocket engines.  Something like that would interfere with them.   However, there are ways possibly around that.  First, maybe cargo DC gets rid of them?  It instead launches on an Atlas with a single engine Centaur, but with several SRB’s.  Basically Centaur does the full orbital insertion then without requiring DC to do it.  Like the Falcon upper stage does for Dragon and like Centaur will do for CST-100.  Why not?  Can DC’s RCS system deorbit it without requiring a powerful retro burn?  Dragon and CST-100 will deorbit themselves with the RCS system won’t they?   Can DC do that?  IF not, perhaps this trunk fixture can have a retro pack of some kind.  Just something simple that does the retro burn that is jettisoned with the trunk/CBM.  Add more SRB’s on the Atlas for more upmass on DC-cargo if needed.

So I think there’s ways to do it.  It would require a DC modified for it, but SNC could just build a Cargo-only variant of DC, and reuse it with a new trunk each time for cargo missions…which they’d probably want to do anyway because it wouldn’t need the ECLSS and HMI and other crew provisions, to free up cargo room and mass.
Would that be any more problematic than the CST-100 SM or Dragon trunk that are jettisoned each mission?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 03/19/2013 06:36 pm
I believe Elon said at a talk or during an interview not too long ago that crew Dragon would not have a trunk and solar panels but instead just have way bigger batteries.
I remember hearing that, oops.

But maybe I'm not totally convinced that is how things will end up. He may have been misquoted or they may change their mind. But if that's how it comes out then ya :)

Nevertheless IF a trunk remains, and IF there is mass available, it might be a possibility. But probably not one to design for I guess.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/19/2013 06:46 pm
If it's the difference between only having one crew provider and having two, it makes far more sense to combine crew and cargo. Not only does it share costs, but it also greatly increases safety, since a randomly introduced design/process problem is more likely to be caught on a non-life-critical cargo flight than a crew flight.

Not true. A manufacturing defect could occur on either the crew or cargo mission, which would shut down both crew and cargo flights from that provider until it was resolved. Since the frequency of the CRS flights isn't that much greater than the manned missions, the problem could occur on either mission. Just go back to the problem with the Russian upper stages if you need an example of why 2 different providers are needed.
I was referring to safety, not schedule impact. You only addressed schedule impact, as if knowing about a safety problem (and thus having to stop flights until it is fixed) is worse than not knowing about it... For /real/ levels of safety, it's much better to find out about the problem. CRS flights should be about 3 times more frequent than crew flights, so if the vehicles are largely the same, you have just one fourth as great of a chance of the problem first rearing its head on the crewed flight. That's a pretty good improvement!

And as far as schedule impact... That's a good reason to have two crew providers!!!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 03/19/2013 06:49 pm
And as far as schedule impact... That's a good reason to have two crew providers!!!
... who don't use the same launch vehicle. As cool as it might be to put DC on F9 instead of Atlas (might be cheaper too) It's probably not a good idea from that aspect.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/19/2013 06:50 pm
And as far as schedule impact... That's a good reason to have two crew providers!!!
... who don't use the same launch vehicle. As cool as it might be to put DC on F9 instead of Atlas (might be cheaper too) It's probably not a good idea from that aspect.
Agreed.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: tnphysics on 03/20/2013 02:44 am
And as far as schedule impact... That's a good reason to have two crew providers!!!
... who don't use the same launch vehicle. As cool as it might be to put DC on F9 instead of Atlas (might be cheaper too) It's probably not a good idea from that aspect.

Unless DC can be made LV agnostic. Then it could fly on either.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/20/2013 03:03 am
And as far as schedule impact... That's a good reason to have two crew providers!!!
... who don't use the same launch vehicle. As cool as it might be to put DC on F9 instead of Atlas (might be cheaper too) It's probably not a good idea from that aspect.

Unless DC can be made LV agnostic. Then it could fly on either.
Or perhaps nominally on F9 but optionally on man-rated Delta IV...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 03/20/2013 03:38 am
And as far as schedule impact... That's a good reason to have two crew providers!!!
... who don't use the same launch vehicle. As cool as it might be to put DC on F9 instead of Atlas (might be cheaper too) It's probably not a good idea from that aspect.
Unless DC can be made LV agnostic. Then it could fly on either.

Nothing inextricably binding DC to Atlas, unless you discount the time and money for integration and test, which would be a do-over for another LV (emphasis added)...
Quote from: Mark Sirangelo NewSpace 2011
Our launch system is the Atlas V, although we're agnostic, we can launch on anything that can lift our mass ... we chose the Atlas because it has the capacity to do what we do, but mainly because it has a long history...

Also, remember that NASA is funding an integrated capability, not piece parts.  If DC loses in the next rounds, it's highly unlikely there will be money for them to complete development, let alone qualify on a different LV.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: dcporter on 03/20/2013 03:56 pm
If DC loses in the next rounds, it's highly unlikely there will be money for them to complete development, let alone qualify on a different LV.

I recall SN saying that they intended to continue pursuing it, albeit more slowly?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/20/2013 06:00 pm
Wonder if SpaceX and Boeing might each do a test launch of the other's capsule on their respective LVs?

Then any future hiccups with the LVs and capsules with not halt access to space.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 03/20/2013 06:32 pm
Wonder if SpaceX and Boeing might each do a test launch of the other's capsule on their respective LVs?

Then any future hiccups with the LVs and capsules with not halt access to space.

Why? Not unless NASA pays for it. While it can be done, it will cost $$$ to develop the adapter, and do the wind tunnel work to verify the configuration. It isn't just plug-n-play.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 03/21/2013 06:31 pm
"Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) continues to work with NASA on plans for a Dragon pad abort test at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's Space Launch Complex 40. The test will help the company assess the spacecraft's integrated launch abort system, parachutes and supporting avionics. Throughout NASA's human spaceflight endeavors, pad abort tests have played an important role in evaluating the ability of a spacecraft's launch abort system to get an astronaut crew to safety in the event of an emergency on the launch pad".

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/index.html
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 03/21/2013 07:02 pm
While it still is TBD, Glad to see it coming up on the launch calendar.

(2015) "4th quarter - TBD, ABS 2A - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
yearend - Dragon  (manned flight to ISS) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40"

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1025272#msg1025272
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jason1701 on 03/21/2013 11:32 pm
While it still is TBD, Glad to see it coming up on the launch calendar.

(2015) "4th quarter - TBD, ABS 2A - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
yearend - Dragon  (manned flight to ISS) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40"

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1025272#msg1025272

That would probably be the second manned Dragon flight, right? The first would have SpaceX crew and not be on NASA's launch schedule.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 03/22/2013 12:44 am
Wonder if SpaceX and Boeing might each do a test launch of the other's capsule on their respective LVs?

Then any future hiccups with the LVs and capsules with not halt access to space.

CST-100 is being designed to work on Atlas or F9.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 03/22/2013 12:58 am
While it still is TBD, Glad to see it coming up on the launch calendar.
(2015) "4th quarter - TBD, ABS 2A - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
yearend - Dragon  (manned flight to ISS) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40"
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1025272#msg1025272
That would probably be the second manned Dragon flight, right? The first would have SpaceX crew and not be on NASA's launch schedule.

Interesting, but don't see how that could be as NASA has stated no crewed flights under CCiCap SAA's, and notional certification contract timeline shows first mission no earlier than 2017.  Unless SpaceX has committed to a crew test flight with their own $ (no SAA funds), and separate from and in advance of award of a certification contract, and prior to completion of certification?  That would be Big Time News.  Even then, given NASA's stated position, it's doubtful they would OK a crewed flight to ISS before certification is complete.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 03/22/2013 01:26 am
Wonder if SpaceX and Boeing might each do a test launch of the other's capsule on their respective LVs?

Undoubtedly they could, but the probability is nil.  NASA has asked for and wants in integrated capability, not a mix-and-match solution.  Given that NASA wouldn't fund such, who would?  SpaceX, Boeing and SNC have placed their bets, and in the absence of funds and motivation to move those bets, the table is set.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/22/2013 06:09 am
Wonder if SpaceX and Boeing might each do a test launch of the other's capsule on their respective LVs?

Undoubtedly they could, but the probability is nil.  NASA has asked for and wants in integrated capability, not a mix-and-match solution.  Given that NASA wouldn't fund such, who would?  SpaceX, Boeing and SNC have placed their bets, and in the absence of funds and motivation to move those bets, the table is set.

Maybe Bigelow. Remember reading that Bigelow might offer CST-100 flights on the Falcon. I guess the Atlas V is a bit pricey for regular use to the  Bigelow Station Alpha.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 03/22/2013 11:15 am


Maybe Bigelow. Remember reading that Bigelow might offer CST-100 flights on the Falcon.

No, that would have to be Boeing to offer it to Bigelow.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 03/22/2013 12:41 pm
While it still is TBD, Glad to see it coming up on the launch calendar.

(2015) "4th quarter - TBD, ABS 2A - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
yearend - Dragon  (manned flight to ISS) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40"

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1025272#msg1025272

That would probably be the second manned Dragon flight, right? The first would have SpaceX crew and not be on NASA's launch schedule.

Every launch has to be on the schedule, even if it's just a commerical payload, which this flight technically qualifies as.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Soralin on 03/23/2013 09:55 am
While it still is TBD, Glad to see it coming up on the launch calendar.

(2015) "4th quarter - TBD, ABS 2A - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
yearend - Dragon  (manned flight to ISS) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40"

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1025272#msg1025272

That would probably be the second manned Dragon flight, right? The first would have SpaceX crew and not be on NASA's launch schedule.

Every launch has to be on the schedule, even if it's just a commerical payload, which this flight technically qualifies as.
Could they be launching SpaceX crew to the ISS for their crew qualification/demonstration/whatever flight then?  Demonstrate a complete trip to the ISS and back?

It doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of intermediate steps to test there, going from cargo to crew, that would prevent them from just doing a quick full run, there and back, once they're ready to put people into it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/31/2013 10:22 pm
Latest Commercial Spaceflight 60-Day Report (May 2013) has just been posted:


Here is the link to the 60-day report:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/752771main_May_2013_60_Day_Report_508.pdf
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: corrodedNut on 06/06/2013 01:39 pm
Latest Commercial Spaceflight 60-Day Report (May 2013) has just been posted:


Here is the link to the 60-day report:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/752771main_May_2013_60_Day_Report_508.pdf

"The pad abort test article consists of a Dragon test capsule sitting on top of a trunk structure in the center of the pad. A successful abort test will carry the Dragon capsule away from the launch pad and towards the ocean. The main parachutes will deploy once the capsule is stabilized."

Sounds like the mobile transporter and launch mount will be in the hangar for this test, and the "trunk structure" will probably not be flight-like.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 07/01/2013 05:02 pm
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_01_2013_p26-589690.xml&p=1
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: GBpatsfan on 07/01/2013 07:16 pm
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_01_2013_p26-589690.xml&p=1
Man that has a lot of good info on both Boeing and SpaceX and their respective capsules.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 07/01/2013 07:33 pm
"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”

News of the day (at least to me)... Boeing to meet with SpaceX soon to discuss launching CST-100 on Falcon 9. Up until now it was just rumors looks like it may be heading in that direction.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/01/2013 07:39 pm
"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”

News of the day (at least to me)... Boeing to meet with SpaceX soon to discuss launching CST-100 on Falcon 9. Up until now it was just rumors looks like it may be heading in that direction.

No, it was not rumors, they have be stating that all along.  This is no indication that they are selecting F9 over Atlas.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 07/01/2013 08:19 pm
"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”

News of the day (at least to me)... Boeing to meet with SpaceX soon to discuss launching CST-100 on Falcon 9. Up until now it was just rumors looks like it may be heading in that direction.


No, it was not rumors, they have be stating that all along.  This is no indication that they are selecting F9 over Atlas.

Always a good idea to keep you're options open.  Might be a time where there's a need for a fast turn around and SpaceX has a rocket ready but no Dragon, while Boing might have a CST-100 ready but no rocket.  This would save time and headaches, as well as potentilaly 'right sizing' a payload to the launcher.

Jason
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 07/01/2013 08:46 pm
"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”

News of the day (at least to me)... Boeing to meet with SpaceX soon to discuss launching CST-100 on Falcon 9. Up until now it was just rumors looks like it may be heading in that direction.


No, it was not rumors, they have be stating that all along.  This is no indication that they are selecting F9 over Atlas.

Always a good idea to keep you're options open.  Might be a time where there's a need for a fast turn around and SpaceX has a rocket ready but no Dragon, while Boing might have a CST-100 ready but no rocket.  This would save time and headaches, as well as potentilaly 'right sizing' a payload to the launcher.

Jason


I believe they will need to have the LV ordered well in advance. There is no last-minute scramble to find a LV.

In addition, since NASA would be ordering an "integrated" system, Boeing and SpaceX would need to go thru another round of certification tests to validate the complete system. Since there is no "standard" for this stuff, they would need to integrate the CST-100's LAS with the fault-detection logic on F9. Also, another round of wind-tunnel tests, etc. How many launches on F9 are necessary to make this worthwhile ?

I assume there is no way this would have been possible on a F9 V1.0, since it already requires a Atlas V 412. If V1.1 loses too much performance due to the added weight for re-usability, it might not be suitable either.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/01/2013 08:57 pm

Always a good idea to keep you're options open.  Might be a time where there's a need for a fast turn around and SpaceX has a rocket ready but no Dragon, while Boing might have a CST-100 ready but no rocket.  This would save time and headaches, as well as potentilaly 'right sizing' a payload to the launcher.

They aren't that interchangable.  That would require advanced planning and money.  Boeing and Spacex would have to be ready as though either Dragon or CST-100 were going to fly, it can't be done as an afterthought.  Also, Spacex has other spacecraft in the queue that might want to go earlier.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/03/2013 03:56 am
A bit of a late update:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/cert-joint-testing.html#.UdLxf6wlI4k
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 07/03/2013 09:29 am
A bit of a late update:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/cert-joint-testing.html#.UdLxf6wlI4k (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/cert-joint-testing.html#.UdLxf6wlI4k)

I noticed we have yet another acronym to learn!

"The newest certification phase expected to kick off next summer will be  called the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap). The  program manager said CCtCap will include at least one crewed  demonstration mission to the orbiting laboratory."
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 07/03/2013 03:36 pm
I can't help but look at this program and think, what a disaster in the making.  So, it's pretty much assured that two out of the three contenders are going to be dead-ends and pretty much just money down the drain for nothing?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ClaytonBirchenough on 07/03/2013 04:12 pm
I noticed we have yet another acronym to learn!

"The newest certification phase expected to kick off next summer will be  called the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap). The  program manager said CCtCap will include at least one crewed  demonstration mission to the orbiting laboratory."

 ::) They're killing me with these acronyms!!!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ClaytonBirchenough on 07/03/2013 04:13 pm
I can't help but look at this program and think, what a disaster in the making.  So, it's pretty much assured that two out of the three contenders are going to be dead-ends and pretty much just money down the drain for nothing?

Sounds pretty bad when you put it that way...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 07/03/2013 04:29 pm
All things said, especially compared to the overall budget, not that much is being spent on Commercial Crew development.

I don't see it is money down the drain, unless of course you consider stimulating private spaceflight and our industry a waste. All 3 providers won't get an ISS contract, but that doesn't mean they won't find customers for their vehicles.

Guess it comes down to opinion.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 07/03/2013 05:01 pm
I can't help but look at this program and think, what a disaster in the making.  So, it's pretty much assured that two out of the three contenders are going to be dead-ends and pretty much just money down the drain for nothing?
How much do you think this would have cost if it had been done under a single contractor and NASA could change and add features and requirements at will? It would have been a second Ares I. Or you'd have ended with SLS/Orion for ISS crew.
This was not the cheapest way, but it was the cheapest way as long as you have MSFC doing launch systems. BTW, this will probably also be the safest. Purely commercial might not have been as safe as if NASA is calling the risk levels.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 07/03/2013 06:52 pm
I can't help but look at this program and think, what a disaster in the making.  So, it's pretty much assured that two out of the three contenders are going to be dead-ends and pretty much just money down the drain for nothing?
How much do you think this would have cost if it had been done under a single contractor and NASA could change and add features and requirements at will? It would have been a second Ares I. Or you'd have ended with SLS/Orion for ISS crew.
This was not the cheapest way, but it was the cheapest way as long as you have MSFC doing launch systems. BTW, this will probably also be the safest. Purely commercial might not have been as safe as if NASA is calling the risk levels.
If we recall - the NASA/congress HL-20 had a lot of funds expended on the program with little flight hardware (maybe something like 1 billion spent on studies -citation needed??). The SAA method has reduced risk and produced three potential options, all of which are workable.  If things go reasonably well (one can still hope) we will get both the highest reliability and lowest cost method to LEO for the next two or three decades.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: wronkiew on 07/03/2013 10:09 pm
I can't help but look at this program and think, what a disaster in the making.  So, it's pretty much assured that two out of the three contenders are going to be dead-ends and pretty much just money down the drain for nothing?

You're trying to argue that fly-offs are a waste of money. Historically this has not been the case.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 07/03/2013 10:44 pm
I think it sucks that they are essentially killing one of the biggest advantages of commercial crew, which was redundancy. With more than one provider, american crews would not end up being grounded for years in case of a problem (and the following investigation). Instead more money will go to the Russians. Well, I guess it depends on where your political priorities are...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 07/03/2013 11:34 pm
I think it sucks that they are essentially killing one of the biggest advantages of commercial crew, which was redundancy. With more than one provider, american crews would not end up being grounded for years in case of a problem (and the following investigation). Instead more money will go to the Russians. Well, I guess it depends on where your political priorities are...

Agree that redundant (and in particular competitive) domestic commercial crew providers would be good.  However, let's not try to rewrite history and the goals of the program.  U.S. Domestic provider redundancy has never been a goal of commercial crew or a criteria for selection (you won't find it mentioned in any of the solicitations).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 07/04/2013 01:07 am
U.S. Domestic provider redundancy has never been a goal of commercial crew or a criteria for selection (you won't find it mentioned in any of the solicitations).
Hmmm, so maybe I am misunderstanding this (and other simillar quotes by NASA representatives on the topic):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/752771main_May_2013_60_Day_Report_508_2.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,0,397

Quote
This same philosophy of dissimilar redundancy is critical to cargo transportation to space station, and will be critical to the development of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 07/04/2013 01:27 am
Hmmm, so maybe I am misunderstanding this (and other simillar quotes by NASA representatives on the topic):
You are conflating commercial cargo and crew.  For cargo two domestic providers have been stated as a need; the same has not been stated for crew.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 07/04/2013 01:29 am
The CST-100 and Bigelow? How about the last press conference they had (on the NASA SAA) which depicted it docked to Space Station Alpha (the two BA-330's together)... Of course at this point they will admit the vehicle is notional but let's be serious, would you use a graphic of something not under consideration?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 07/04/2013 01:31 am
Apologies to Funchucks, my eyes were reading what wasn't there!  :(
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 07/04/2013 04:13 am
Hmmm, so maybe I am misunderstanding this (and other simillar quotes by NASA representatives on the topic):
You are conflating commercial cargo and crew.  For cargo two domestic providers have been stated as a need; the same has not been stated for crew.


Quote
and will be critical to the development of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.
I read crew here...? Scratches head.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 07/04/2013 06:11 am
Quote
and will be critical to the development of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.
I read crew here...? Scratches head.

Parse carefully, and in context...
Quote
This same philosophy of dissimilar redundancy is critical to cargo transportation to space station, and will be critical to the development of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. The successful completion of the Antares demonstration flight to space station will restore full U.S. redundancy to cargo transportation, along with NASA’s Commercial Resupply Service partner SpaceX. The Interantional Space Station Program’s cargo redundancy—rounded out by the European Automated Transfer Vehicle, the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle; and the Russian Progress—is such that space station can absorb a failure of any one of these systems without a major impact to on-orbit operations. Dissimilar redundancy is a sound engineering philosophy to which the space station program, along with its international and commercial partners, continues to adhere today.

According to Sam Scimemi, director of the International Space Station program at NASA Headquarters, “The long term viability and utilization of space station is dependent on two operational domestic cargo providers. Though currently there are multiple cargo providers across the partnership, there will be reductions in the availability in the future especially the ATV and HTV. Furthermore, spaceflight is inherently a challenging endeavor and no system is immune to significant anomalies or failures. Having two domestic cargo providers ensures that NASA’s mission in low-Earth orbit and on station is achievable.”

... which translates to: (a) a need for dissimilar redundancy for cargo and crew; (b) a call for two domestic cargo providers to ensure "viability and utilization" (note conjunction); and (c) a need for dissimilar redundancy for crew, but no statement of a need for multiple domestic providers for crew.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 07/04/2013 10:19 am
Latest Commercial Spaceflight 60-Day Report (May 2013) has just been posted:


Here is the link to the 60-day report:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/752771main_May_2013_60_Day_Report_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/752771main_May_2013_60_Day_Report_508.pdf)

The file at the above link seems to be corrupt now.  For the record here's a link to a good version:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/752771main_May_2013_60_Day_Report_508_2.pdf
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 07/04/2013 02:13 pm

Parse carefully, and in context...
Quote
This same philosophy of dissimilar redundancy is critical to cargo transportation to space station, and will be critical to the development of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. The successful completion of the Antares demonstration flight to space station will restore full U.S. redundancy to cargo transportation, along with NASA’s Commercial Resupply Service partner SpaceX. The Interantional Space Station Program’s cargo redundancy—rounded out by the European Automated Transfer Vehicle, the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle; and the Russian Progress—is such that space station can absorb a failure of any one of these systems without a major impact to on-orbit operations. Dissimilar redundancy is a sound engineering philosophy to which the space station program, along with its international and commercial partners, continues to adhere today.

According to Sam Scimemi, director of the International Space Station program at NASA Headquarters, “The long term viability and utilization of space station is dependent on two operational domestic cargo providers. Though currently there are multiple cargo providers across the partnership, there will be reductions in the availability in the future especially the ATV and HTV. Furthermore, spaceflight is inherently a challenging endeavor and no system is immune to significant anomalies or failures. Having two domestic cargo providers ensures that NASA’s mission in low-Earth orbit and on station is achievable.”

... which translates to: (a) a need for dissimilar redundancy for cargo and crew; (b) a call for two domestic cargo providers to ensure "viability and utilization" (note conjunction); and (c) a need for dissimilar redundancy for crew, but no statement of a need for multiple domestic providers for crew.

Hmmm, see when I read it in the context of the commercial crew program, I DO read it as the need for multiple domestic commercial providers and I think that it was intended to mean that.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/06/2013 04:29 am
Hmmm, so maybe I am misunderstanding this (and other simillar quotes by NASA representatives on the topic):
You are conflating commercial cargo and crew.  For cargo two domestic providers have been stated as a need; the same has not been stated for crew.

Um, yes it has been. It has repeatedly been stated. You're the one trying to rewrite history.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lobo on 07/07/2013 05:25 am

... which translates to: (a) a need for dissimilar redundancy for cargo and crew; (b) a call for two domestic cargo providers to ensure "viability and utilization" (note conjunction); and (c) a need for dissimilar redundancy for crew, but no statement of a need for multiple domestic providers for crew.


So one domestic commercial crew provider, along with the Russian Soyuz, and Orion/SLS backup, could provide that "dissimilar redundancy"?

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 07/07/2013 06:20 am
NASA crew to fly ISS test flights

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36098nasa-astronauts-to-fly-on-space-taxi-test-flights-to-station#.UdkCFL-9LTo
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 07/07/2013 12:30 pm
NASA crew to fly ISS test flights

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36098nasa-astronauts-to-fly-on-space-taxi-test-flights-to-station#.UdkCFL-9LTo

So at least one will be cut.

With or without NASA, Crewed Dragon will be deployed, so even though I am a Dragon enthusiast, I would advocate to cut SpaceX, for the pure purpose of allowing CST-100 and Dreamchaser to be matured and deployed long enough to allow a commercial market to develop that could support at least one of them, with or without NASA. Crewed Dragon will fly anyway, so why needlessly cut either of the other two? And if two must be cut I would cut Dragon and CST-100 in order to keep the lifting body spacecraft alive. Dreamchaser offers the most cross range, the largest launch and recovery windows, earth-wide landing capability and the gentlest return flight for delicate payload and/or injured personnel. It's landing opportunities and cross range exceed even Shuttle's because it can utilized much shorter runways than Shuttle for emergency returns.

Cutting SpaceX will not stop Crewed Dragon from flying, but cutting either of the other 2 would, imo, be a death blow to that spacecraft.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 07/07/2013 03:04 pm
I can't help but think that Dream Chaser is being used as eye candy for the CCDev program while already being doomed to cancellation (its image tends to get used in a lot of media coverage because, let's face it, it's sexier looking than capsules).  It's already at half-funding relative to the other two designs (so when it comes time to cut losses, hard to see how it survives).  I hope I'm wrong.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 07/07/2013 03:27 pm
I agree 100%.

With or without NASA, Crewed Dragon will be deployed, so even though I am a Dragon enthusiast, I would advocate to cut SpaceX, for the pure purpose of allowing CST-100 and Dreamchaser to be matured and deployed long enough to allow a commercial market to develop that could support at least one of them, with or without NASA. Crewed Dragon will fly anyway, so why needlessly cut either of the other two? And if two must be cut I would cut Dragon and CST-100 in order to keep the lifting body spacecraft alive. Dreamchaser offers the most cross range, the largest launch and recovery windows, earth-wide landing capability and the gentlest return flight for delicate payload and/or injured personnel. It's landing opportunities and cross range exceed even Shuttle's because it can utilized much shorter runways than Shuttle for emergency returns.

Cutting SpaceX will not stop Crewed Dragon from flying, but cutting either of the other 2 would, imo, be a death blow to that spacecraft.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 07/07/2013 03:31 pm
Quote from: clongton
With or without NASA, Crewed Dragon will be deployed

And why is that? Is there a market for orbital human spaceflight that would support a commercial crew program?

If any of those programs is not supported by NASA anymore it will simply cease to exist.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 07/07/2013 05:30 pm
Quote from: clongton
With or without NASA, Crewed Dragon will be deployed

And why is that? Is there a market for orbital human spaceflight that would support a commercial crew program?

If any of those programs is not supported by NASA anymore it will simply cease to exist.

Because Commercial Crew is not necessary to justify crewed Dragon. Elon started SpaceX for the very specific purpose of going to Mars, with or without NASA. His original plans specifically excluded NASA. He signed on to NASA's commercial program because federal dollars, though not required at all, does speed things up. A commercial market for crewed Dragon is not required at all. It is Elon's spaceship, not NASA's or ours. It will fly with crew - with or without NASA.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 07/07/2013 05:31 pm
Cutting SpaceX will not stop Crewed Dragon from flying, but cutting either of the other 2 would, imo, be a death blow to that spacecraft.

So why should we support players who are unwilling to invest enough skin in the game? No, that's a recipe for repeating past failures. SpaceX is willing to do it, and should be rewarded for that.

A manned Dragon is no certainty - nor is it certain that it would happen on a schedule that would be helpful to ISS and NASA.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 07/07/2013 05:35 pm
A manned Dragon is no certainty -

Unless SpaceX shuts down, yes it is - absolutely. It is the entire reason that SpaceX exists. Crewed Dragon was conceptually designed first, and the Falcon 9 was subsequently designed to lift it to orbit.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 07/07/2013 05:47 pm
A manned Dragon is no certainty -

Unless SpaceX shuts down, yes it is - absolutely. It is the entire reason that SpaceX exists. Crewed Dragon was conceptually designed first, and the Falcon 9 was subsequently designed to lift it to orbit.

Citation? And it still means squat to ISS/NASA and the commercial crew program (the topic of this thread) if it takes too long. NASA can invest well, or throw more money after bad money.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/07/2013 05:48 pm
A manned Dragon is no certainty -

Unless SpaceX shuts down, yes it is - absolutely. It is the entire reason that SpaceX exists. Crewed Dragon was conceptually designed first, and the Falcon 9 was subsequently designed to lift it to orbit.

A manned Dragon could be developed using SpaceX's own money.  However it may not be compatible with the ISS.  For instance it could berth with the Mars spaceship rather than dock.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 07/07/2013 05:51 pm
Quote from: clongton
Elon started SpaceX for the very specific purpose of going to Mars, with or without NASA.

You vastly overestimate Musk's fortune.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chalmer on 07/07/2013 05:57 pm
In a cut down to 2 in CCtCap i think Dreamchaser will be cut. It only limped along with half funding, and i think NASA did that as appose to cutting it entirely last round was that they hoped for more money for next round, and have all three bids going all the way.

CST-100 on Atlas V, and Dragon on Falcon 9 will give NASA price competition and room for price negotiation, it will give two spacecraft on two different launch vehicles and will deliver an "Old" and "New" contractor.

I like Dreamchaser and would like to see it stay, but it feels like the obvious one to get cut. Nothing is certain though.

About SpaceX, and that they will develop Dragon anyway, I am not 100% convinced, like some of you are. At least not at the same speed of development as now. And i don't think it should be part of NASA's motivation for choosing anyway, so i consider the point moot.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 07/07/2013 06:10 pm

You vastly overestimate Musk's fortune.
Which is why his launch vehicles also serve a commercial market.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 07/07/2013 06:23 pm
^

Its about crewed dragon. I'm not convinced that $20m/seat will trigger big enough commercial demand to make its development worthwhile.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 07/07/2013 06:40 pm
^

Its about crewed dragon. I'm not convinced that $20m/seat will trigger big enough commercial demand to make its development worthwhile.
You are missing my point. Musk needs the crewed Dragon for his own goals as well. Because of that he would build it with our without NASA. He would finance that by launching commercial payloads of all kinds.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 07/07/2013 06:55 pm
Quote from: clongton
Elon started SpaceX for the very specific purpose of going to Mars, with or without NASA.

You vastly overestimate Musk's fortune.

And you vastly underestimate the man and have obviously never bothered to actually listen to what he has to say.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 07/07/2013 07:02 pm
A manned Dragon is no certainty -

Unless SpaceX shuts down, yes it is - absolutely. It is the entire reason that SpaceX exists. Crewed Dragon was conceptually designed first, and the Falcon 9 was subsequently designed to lift it to orbit.

Citation?

Elon's own statements, too many different times to try to list them. Go look them up.

Quote
And it still means squat to ISS/NASA

He never originally intended to include ISS or NASA. Again don't bother asking for citation. They are too numerous to list

Quote
and the commercial crew program

He doesn't care about the commercial crew program except to the extent that the additional funding helps the SpaceX Space Program.

Don't get me wrong, he is appreciative of the opportunity, but not because it serves commercial crew or NASA, but because it serves his own interests.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 07/07/2013 07:06 pm
^

Its about crewed dragon. I'm not convinced that $20m/seat will trigger big enough commercial demand to make its development worthwhile.
You are missing my point. Musk needs the crewed Dragon for his own goals as well. Because of that he would build it with our without NASA. He would finance that by launching commercial payloads of all kinds.

Completely correct. Commercial crew is "found money" along the way, nothing more.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 07/07/2013 07:10 pm
^

Its about crewed dragon. I'm not convinced that $20m/seat will trigger big enough commercial demand to make its development worthwhile.

It probably won't. But then he never needed it to begin with.
AFAIK, he isn't the one who initiated SpaceX participation in Commercial Cargo/Crew. NASA approached him and requested that he submit a bid. Elon has always had other plans for Dragon that didn't include NASA.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: IRobot on 07/07/2013 07:23 pm
What bugs me is that Elon does not have enough personal fortune to go all the way to Mars but space enthusiasts like Paul Allen do. And despite Paul's investment in Stratolauncher, he is not putting much percentage of his fortune in it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chalmer on 07/07/2013 07:26 pm
Yes Musk want to go to Mars. But he also want to do it as cheaply and easy as possible, so when he can shift some of the cost of development, to NASA and even get a costumer out of it he will of cause do that.

If SpaceX get cut from the next round (which i don't think), i think that some of the progress made on crewed Dragon will be implemented on Cargo Dragon. But I'm skeptic about them continuing development of crewed Dragon.

Clongton, you seem sure they will because Musk want to go to Mars and he need crew transport for that. However they wont need that transport for a long while. They aren't quite ready to go there yet.

I think it is more likely that most, if not all, of the internal funds now used for development of crewed Dragon will go to other development efforts such as reusable F9, Raptor, MCT etc. In my mind at least, these efforts will bring him closer to Mars, then a crewed Dragon with no costumers sitting in the SpaceX hangar. Then later on, crewed Dragon development may start again. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 07/07/2013 07:46 pm
But I'm skeptic about them continuing development of crewed Dragon.

Clongton, you seem sure they will

Yup
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 07/07/2013 08:08 pm
Quote from: clongton
And you vastly underestimate the man and have obviously never bothered to actually listen to what he has to say.

Actually you underestimate the man. I expect him to go to mars or whatever when there's a business case for it, not for his personal satisfaction. Also Musk is a marketing genius and all the delusional talk about Mars colonies etc. obviously serves a purpose. It certainly has its effect on you ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chalmer on 07/07/2013 08:10 pm
But I'm skeptic about them continuing development of crewed Dragon.

Clongton, you seem sure they will

Yup

I see my points pales in comparison with your self confidence   ;D
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/07/2013 08:27 pm
What a wonderful way to reward success. Cutting the best chance NASA has at getting near-term domestic crew capability. Why, it's a wonder everyone in the investment world doesn't jump into human spaceflight.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spectre9 on 07/07/2013 10:41 pm
SpaceX deserves to be cut because the rocket they want to use hasn't flown 3 times.

It would be irresponsible for lawmakers to select SpaceX as the primary provider if forced to down select very soon.

Falcon 9 v1.1 isn't proven reliable. They retired the rocket that was.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 07/07/2013 10:53 pm
By that logic the SLS would deserve to be cut too. It has not flown yet either and it probably wont fly for a very long time.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Silmfeanor on 07/07/2013 10:55 pm
SpaceX deserves to be cut because the rocket they want to use hasn't flown 3 times.

It would be irresponsible for lawmakers to select SpaceX as the primary provider if forced to down select very soon.

Falcon 9 v1.1 isn't proven reliable. They retired the rocket that was.

Oh please. Dual engine centaur?
Also, by the time CCiCAP flies falcon 9 v1.1 will have flown 3 times.
Short-sighted black and white reasoning.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/07/2013 10:56 pm
SpaceX deserves to be cut because the rocket they want to use hasn't flown 3 times.

It would be irresponsible for lawmakers to select SpaceX as the primary provider if forced to down select very soon.

Falcon 9 v1.1 isn't proven reliable. They retired the rocket that was.

SpaceX will just have to fly Falcon 9 v1.1 at least 3 times before they put people in it.  Given their backlog that may be easy.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 07/07/2013 11:26 pm
The situation sucks no matter how you slice it.  The further we get the more wasted money and effort there is on two out of these three programs, whichever two end up getting the axe.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 07/07/2013 11:29 pm
The situation sucks no matter how you slice it.  The further we get the more wasted money and effort there is on two out of these three programs, whichever two end up getting the axe.

That implies the remaining provider could or would have produced the same if the other two hadn't been competing.

When you think about it that way, the absolute worst thing NASA could do is say they'd prefer to keep all three.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 07/07/2013 11:31 pm
The situation sucks no matter how you slice it.  The further we get the more wasted money and effort there is on two out of these three programs, whichever two end up getting the axe.

That implies the remaining provider could or would have produced the same if the other two hadn't been competing.
True, also, they might find use for their technology elsewhere. I still think that a downselect is a bad idea. Diversity is a good thing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chalmer on 07/07/2013 11:39 pm
The situation sucks no matter how you slice it.  The further we get the more wasted money and effort there is on two out of these three programs, whichever two end up getting the axe.

That implies the remaining provider could or would have produced the same if the other two hadn't been competing.

When you think about it that way, the absolute worst thing NASA could do is say they'd prefer to keep all three.

True. It is not a competition if everybody wins. Openly saying that they will down select to 1 or 2 puts pressure on the teams to perform.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 07/07/2013 11:55 pm
Well technically, even the currently unfunded projects still have a chance, from what I understand. So, there has not been any downselection at all, yet and anyone could still re- enter the competition. So if ATK or BO suddenly pulled something out of their sleeves they might still end up getting selected (unlikely as it is). Didnt ATK claim they would continue development on their own?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 07/08/2013 12:25 am
This is about cost and savings for NASA. Everything else is gravy. It is frankly counterintuitive and borderline absurd to suggest that because SpaceX will develop Crewed Dragon regardless of selection that it means they won't be selected.

The fact that F9 V1.1 has not flown 3 times and therefore should not be selected to launch a crewed Dragon 2-3 years from now is equally absurd. They'll have more then proven out the launcher before then.

SpaceX will offer a crewed service that is both value and capabilities oriented, grounded in and leveraged from a successful and extremely cost competitive commercial business of Sat and CRS launches.

They have and will continue to gain valuable experience on ISS ops and continue to prove out Dragon and F9V1.1. With budgets being what they are, the services they are already providing and the milestones already achieved, do you really think they will not be in the final selection? Do you really think they will not be able to provide the best service for the best price? And do you really expect NASA and Congress to walk away from that scenario?
 
This is a zero sum game. SpaceX will offer the greatest capability for the best price. And that my friends is what this is all about. Period. There is not a chance in hell they will not be selected.




Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 07/08/2013 12:28 am
Do you really think they will not be able to provide the best service for the best price? And do you really expect NASA and Congress to walk away from that scenario?
 

On the contrary I see SpaceX way in the lead which makes CST-100 and especially Dream Chaser extreme long shots and likely wasted efforts, sadly.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/08/2013 12:54 am
I still believe that a good outcome would be SpaceX for cargo missions and DC on Atlas V for Commercial Crew. SpaceX is going to continue ahead with their crewed Dragon regardless. We would get two different spacecraft on two different launchers and a potential human rated spacecraft just in case...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 07/08/2013 01:11 am
Do you really think they will not be able to provide the best service for the best price? And do you really expect NASA and Congress to walk away from that scenario?
On the contrary I see SpaceX way in the lead which makes CST-100 and especially Dream Chaser extreme long shots and likely wasted efforts, sadly.

So what would you have done?  Award a non-compete single-source contract to SpaceX or whoever?  NASA tried to fast-forward with CCiDC but it didn't fly.  So we have competition between the remaining contenders.  Yes, it involves some "wasted effort", but competition always does.

The operative question is: Will that competition ultimately pay off in lower cost to the customer in the end?  The jury is still out, but let's cut NASA some slack as this is (for them) a new way of doing business.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 07/08/2013 01:19 am
By that logic the SLS would deserve to be cut too. It has not flown yet either and it probably wont fly for a very long time.

4 years is a blink of an eye in this business, but what does SLS have to do with Commercial Crew whatsoever?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 07/08/2013 01:27 am
A down-select to two is reasonable and should be done ASAP, IMO. But since the program is relatively low cost (and to ensure that it stays low cost), two providers should be in the running for as long as possible, to prevent a situation where a contractor starts acting like the only game in town - and to guard against schedule problems. A proper fly-off would be great to see if it is possible within the budget.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 07/08/2013 01:35 am
At this point this is pure speculation and blind homage to SpaceX without considering reality.

From my seat Dragon offers the least and Dreamchaser offers the most capability. EVA capable, ability to land anywhere, ability to handle larger down mass for sensitive equipment, (which most likely would make up the bulk of cargo on a crewed return), more proven lift vehicle, etc.

The only advantage of Dragon I see at this point might be price, and in the end, NASA may not care as long as the vehicle is launched from US soil and the seat is cheaper than a Soyuz.



 
This is a zero sum game. SpaceX will offer the greatest capability for the best price. And that my friends is what this is all about. Period. There is not a chance in hell they will not be selected.





Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 07/08/2013 01:39 am
By what metric do you base this conclusion on? The CST-100 is currently in the lead for the number of CCiCap milestones completed. Is SpaceX in the lead just because they are SpaceX?




On the contrary I see SpaceX way in the lead which makes CST-100 and especially Dream Chaser extreme long shots and likely wasted efforts, sadly.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/08/2013 01:41 am
This is about cost and savings for NASA.*
 Everything else is gravy.*
 It is frankly counterintuitive and borderline absurd to suggest that because SpaceX will develop Crewed Dragon regardless of selection that it means they won't be selected.*

The fact that F9 V1.1 has not flown 3 times and therefore should not be selected to launch a crewed Dragon 2-3 years from now is equally absurd. They'll have more then proven out the launcher before then.

SpaceX will offer a crewed service that is both value and capabilities oriented, grounded in and leveraged from a successful and extremely cost competitive commercial business of Sat and CRS launches. *

They have and will continue to gain valuable experience on ISS ops and continue to prove out Dragon and F9V1.1. With budgets being what they are, the services they are already providing and the milestones already achieved, do you really think they will not be in the final selection? Do you really think they will not be able to provide the best service for the best price?*
 And do you really expect NASA and Congress to walk away from that scenario?*
 
This is a zero sum game. SpaceX will offer the greatest capability for the best price.* And that my friends is what this is all about. Period. There is not a chance in hell they will not be selected.*


Unsubstantiated conjecture at every place with an *
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 07/08/2013 02:21 am
NASA crew to fly ISS test flights

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36098nasa-astronauts-to-fly-on-space-taxi-test-flights-to-station#.UdkCFL-9LTo

So at least one will be cut.

With or without NASA, Crewed Dragon will be deployed, so even though I am a Dragon enthusiast, I would advocate to cut SpaceX, for the pure purpose of allowing CST-100 and Dreamchaser to be matured and deployed long enough to allow a commercial market to develop that could support at least one of them, with or without NASA. Crewed Dragon will fly anyway, so why needlessly cut either of the other two? And if two must be cut I would cut Dragon and CST-100 in order to keep the lifting body spacecraft alive. Dreamchaser offers the most cross range, the largest launch and recovery windows, earth-wide landing capability and the gentlest return flight for delicate payload and/or injured personnel. It's landing opportunities and cross range exceed even Shuttle's because it can utilized much shorter runways than Shuttle for emergency returns.

Cutting SpaceX will not stop Crewed Dragon from flying, but cutting either of the other 2 would, imo, be a death blow to that spacecraft.
Funny, I thought FAR didn't allowed for leaving out the best bid out because it will "happen anyways". But of course I haven't read it all.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 07/08/2013 03:50 am
This is about cost and savings for NASA.*
 Everything else is gravy.*
 It is frankly counterintuitive and borderline absurd to suggest that because SpaceX will develop Crewed Dragon regardless of selection that it means they won't be selected.*

The fact that F9 V1.1 has not flown 3 times and therefore should not be selected to launch a crewed Dragon 2-3 years from now is equally absurd. They'll have more then proven out the launcher before then.

SpaceX will offer a crewed service that is both value and capabilities oriented, grounded in and leveraged from a successful and extremely cost competitive commercial business of Sat and CRS launches. *

They have and will continue to gain valuable experience on ISS ops and continue to prove out Dragon and F9V1.1. With budgets being what they are, the services they are already providing and the milestones already achieved, do you really think they will not be in the final selection? Do you really think they will not be able to provide the best service for the best price?*
 And do you really expect NASA and Congress to walk away from that scenario?*
 
This is a zero sum game. SpaceX will offer the greatest capability for the best price.* And that my friends is what this is all about. Period. There is not a chance in hell they will not be selected.*


Unsubstantiated conjecture at every place with an *
Conjecture by its' very nature is unsubstantiated. Feel free to choose one or the other, no need for both words.

We'll see where this nets out soon enough and then we'll see how unsubstantiated this is.

*For the record, I personally would love to see the DC included and supported for future crew services. My response was specific to the idea put forth that SpaceX should not or would not be chosen since they will develop Crewed Dragon regardless. Context is important in understanding the response.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 07/08/2013 03:59 am
Again, I thought there is no such thing as a downselect? After all everyone is still free to compete until the end via unfunded agreements. Right?

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spectre9 on 07/08/2013 04:08 am
The "iCap" in CCiCap means "integrated capability".

That includes the rocket.

It's not my fault that SpaceX hasn't proven their launch vehicle before the crunch from the higher ups has come.

SpaceX fans might not be happy but it is what it is.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 07/08/2013 06:53 am

As the most conservative design, and the smallest departure from an existing tried and proven spacecraft, it's the least likely to encounter some surprising reason for failure.

With the SuperDraco as the launch abort system I don't see it as the smallest departure from tried and proven. To me that's revolutionary and a risk for development at least until the Pad-abort has been done.

Even with its composite build the least departure from tried and proven would be the Boeing CST-100.

That said I see Dragon as the most promising design and it has the advantage of a flight history.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Silmfeanor on 07/08/2013 11:00 am
The "iCap" in CCiCap means "integrated capability".

That includes the rocket.

It's not my fault that SpaceX hasn't proven their launch vehicle before the crunch from the higher ups has come.

SpaceX fans might not be happy but it is what it is.

Please stop this. You have not adressed any of the points made. IE- Dual engine centaur.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spectre9 on 07/08/2013 11:11 am
DEC is proven technology using proven engines.

Maybe not this generation of Centaur but it has worked in the past.

The Atlas V first stage has a perfect record.

Merlin 1D and Merlin 1DVac have not flown.

Government procurement doesn't look at how many times a vehicle will "have flown" it can only take the record at the time of awarding the contract.

Right now it's most likely that a 1.5 down select is coming in the immediate future. I say 1.5 because that's what Bolden has been hinting. Also what was said in the recent house hearing saying they want to fly 2017 and they want the plan that shows how that can be done under all funding profiles. $820m+ simply is not on the table nor has it ever been. The hope of having 2+ providers for Commercial Crew is gone. Sequester took care of that.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Silmfeanor on 07/08/2013 11:18 am
DEC is proven technology using proven engines.

Government procurement doesn't look at how many times a vehicle will "have flown" it can only take the record at the time of awarding the contract.
The record of DEC, please? Comparable to the record of Falcon 9? The record of ISS knowledge from SpaceX?

Please stop making statements like facts when they are very questionable.
Not saying SpaceX will be or will not be chosen, but the amount of "knowledge" that gets sprayed around ( especially on the SpaceX parts of the forum ) that are just speculation, build on more speculation, build on someone saying "hey wouldn't it be a great idea if " and "hey guys my argument" while real sources are ignored or snowed under is truly amazing.

The confidence with which various statements are made is starting to really annoy me.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/08/2013 11:22 am

*For the record, I personally would love to see the DC included and supported for future crew services. My response was specific to the idea put forth that SpaceX should not or would not be chosen since they will develop Crewed Dragon regardless. Context is important in understanding the response.

That is a great reason not to select them, and most likely will be the case.  Knowing a little about the spaceflight industry is important when making responses that  include informed conjecture (which would be "substantiation").

The fact that Spacex got selected for COTS is something along this line.  NASA could have selected a spacecraft that used a ULA launch vehicle, which would have been a quicker, cheaper and less risky solutions. But instead selected solutions that require launch vehicle development, which was going beyond meeting ISS cargo delivery requirements.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spectre9 on 07/08/2013 11:51 am
DEC is proven technology using proven engines.

Government procurement doesn't look at how many times a vehicle will "have flown" it can only take the record at the time of awarding the contract.
The record of DEC, please? Comparable to the record of Falcon 9? The record of ISS knowledge from SpaceX?

Please stop making statements like facts when they are very questionable.
Not saying SpaceX will be or will not be chosen, but the amount of "knowledge" that gets sprayed around ( especially on the SpaceX parts of the forum ) that are just speculation, build on more speculation, build on someone saying "hey wouldn't it be a great idea if " and "hey guys my argument" while real sources are ignored or snowed under is truly amazing.

The confidence with which various statements are made is starting to really annoy me.


Centaur has 50 years of history.

Atlas I had a few problems with it.

The Atlas II used DEC and retired with a perfect record. Other versions of Atlas and Titan also used it.

Centaur failed on the maiden flight of Titan IIIE in 1974. There was a 1999 failure on a Titan IV. Then there was the 2007 Atlas early shut down.

I don't know the exact record.

100s of successful flights.

Putting on an extra engine of the same make hardly changes anything but that still doesn't mean it's proven.

SpaceX is using a new engine with a new nozzle trying to get a boost in ISP. It isn't yet known what the exact performance is supposed to be.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 07/08/2013 11:54 am
Quote from: Jim
That is a great reason not to select them, and most likely will be the case.

Except that the assumption that SpaceX will develop crewed dragon regardless is unsubstantiated.  ;)

Or where do you see a market? Bigelow?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/08/2013 12:34 pm
Quote from: Jim
That is a great reason not to select them, and most likely will be the case.

Except that the assumption that SpaceX will develop crewed dragon regardless is unsubstantiated.  ;)


They said they would
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 07/08/2013 12:59 pm
^

To whom? I think what SpaceX tells the general public is not of much relevance to NASA.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/08/2013 02:23 pm

*For the record, I personally would love to see the DC included and supported for future crew services. My response was specific to the idea put forth that SpaceX should not or would not be chosen since they will develop Crewed Dragon regardless. Context is important in understanding the response.

That is a great reason not to select them, and most likely will be the case.  Knowing a little about the spaceflight industry is important when making responses that  include informed conjecture (which would be "substantiation").

The fact that Spacex got selected for COTS is something along this line.  NASA could have selected a spacecraft that used a ULA launch vehicle, which would have been a quicker, cheaper and less risky solutions. But instead selected solutions that require launch vehicle development, which was going beyond meeting ISS cargo delivery requirements.

Jim,

Quicker and less risky, I agree..  However, over the life of the COTS/CRS would a ULA based alternative's total cost really have been less to NASA?

If ULA alternative was cheap, why aren't commercial Satellite operators lining up for launches on ULA rockets?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 07/08/2013 02:40 pm
Dual Engine Centaur - > 200
Falcon 9 V 1.1 - 0





The record of DEC, please? Comparable to the record of Falcon 9? The record of ISS knowledge from SpaceX?


Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Silmfeanor on 07/08/2013 03:19 pm
Dual Engine Centaur - > 200
Falcon 9 V 1.1 - 0
The record of DEC, please? Comparable to the record of Falcon 9? The record of ISS knowledge from SpaceX?
The point of course is that DEC hasn't flown yet in the current config. Neither has Falcon 9.
This all in reaction towards Spectre9 saying that the falcon launch vehicle is unproven- by that same standard, so is DEC.
And the over-arching point over all of this -

We are discussing a possible downselect from 2.5 providers to an unknown number of providers flying on hardware that is in flux and still under development while these same providers are interacting on diffirent projects with NASA aswell. Political games also play a role.
People who for the most part are not part of the industry are making statements and technical arguments that are not representative of the real discussions and professional assessments going on, where they have access to more data and look at other criteria.

Here, people are having discussions that are not grounded at all. Making statements like "They will be selected" or "this will never work" or "this is better then that" while having NO idea of what's really going on? 
Statements are often build on one-sided arguments that only look at part of the real situation. sigh.

I prefer to lurk and ask questions instead of making statements in a field where i am not a professional or very knowledgeable.  I think this thread could greatly use some of that.

I'll log off for a while, I am getting annoyed.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 07/08/2013 04:22 pm
Dual Engine Centaur Pre-Atlas V - > 200
Falcon 9 V 1.0 - 5

Dual Engine Centaur Atlas V - 0
Falcon 9 V 1.1 - 0


Better?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 07/08/2013 04:49 pm
Dragon has carried cargo to and from the ISS three times already.  Men have been inside it in space.  I'd say that puts it more than a little ahead of the others, in terms of stage of development.

As the most conservative design, and the smallest departure from an existing tried and proven spacecraft, it's the least likely to encounter some surprising reason for failure.

And beyond the basic functionality of the initial version, there is potential for development of further capabilities, such as extreme operational convenience and landing on planets other than Earth.

Dragon represents the incremental approach, it isn't just the poor man's space capsule.  More conservative doesn't always mean less ambitious, and sometimes smaller steps can take you to more places.

The real problem is the constant "evolution" of the spacecraft and launch vehicle. Have they flown the same configuration twice yet ?

Also remember that the capsule that will carry astronauts is significantly different from the capsule that has visited the ISS. Just like I said that the F9-Revised is a completely new rocket from below the ground up, I think we may find out the same thing about the crewed Dragon. New propulsion, new avionics, new docking adapter, new ECLSS, no solar panels. Name 1 thing that hasn't changed other than the SpaceX logo decal.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/08/2013 05:26 pm
  I also strongly suspect that they're going to be testing their launch abort / propulsive landing off a Grasshopper,

What does that accomplish?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mmeijeri on 07/08/2013 05:31 pm
That is a great reason not to select them, and most likely will be the case. 

Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, are you saying that SpaceX will likely not be selected and that that is a good thing?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 07/08/2013 05:45 pm
  CST-100 depends on a LOX/ethanol engine, while Dragon uses a much simpler hypergolic system.

So in this critical emergency system, the CST-100 is adding new points of failure, by depending on an ignition system, a cryogenic propellant, and one propellant which freezes solid at the temperature of the other propellant.


Last I heard CST-100 was using modified Bantam engine running NTO/MMH. Pressure fed.

Video of abort motor tests clearly shows the infamous red cloud on shutdown.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 07/08/2013 05:52 pm
As for the LASes: all previous launch aborts were solid tractors (or ejection seats).  Dragon and CST-100 are both liquid-fuelled pushers.  CST-100 depends on a LOX/ethanol engine, while Dragon uses a much simpler hypergolic system.
You're confusing the DreamChaser RCS to the CST-100 abort motor (which are already qualified and are hypergolic). BTW, DC abort motors are hybrid. And both Dragon and CST-100 use multiple abort motors exactly to have redundancy. I've never heard of multiple solids for abort. BTW, the requirement is only 90% of success rate for aborts.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 07/08/2013 05:59 pm
As an astronaut I would certainly prefer the CST-100 parachute and airbag landing to hypergolic thruster landing. The Dragon may be able to make more precise landings though.

By the way, what is the Dreamchaser's solution to launch abort over the ocean, deploying floats?  ;D
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/08/2013 06:03 pm
People here seem to take it for granted that SpaceX will be around in five years. I sure hope they are, but there are no guarantees in this business.

This shoots both ways: Disqualifying SpaceX simply because they are furthest along in some ways risks losing what has been accomplished. Secondly, there shouldn't be a premature down-select to just SpaceX.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/08/2013 06:28 pm

Testing at a variety of altitudes and air speeds, after experiencing the acceleration and vibration of suborbital launch.


And what is that going to accomplish?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 07/08/2013 07:02 pm
  I also strongly suspect that they're going to be testing their launch abort / propulsive landing off a Grasshopper,

What does that accomplish?
Testing at a variety of altitudes and air speeds, after experiencing the acceleration and vibration of suborbital launch.

As they get past the hovering tests and want to go supersonic and suborbital, they'll probably want some kind of aerodynamic cap.  If that cap is a DragonFly, each Grasshopper flight can also be a Dragon test flight.

There are only two LAS tests that matter: abort from pad, and abort in flight at worst-case conditions (max g's or max Q). All other environments will be bracketed by those two extremes.

Abort from pad will be done without grasshopper, obviously. Abort in flight at worst-case conditions can only be done from F9.

Abort from GH would be pretty much pointless.

Edit: In your reply above, which you posted simultaneously to mine, you seem to conflate LAS testing with testing Dragon's propulsive landing system. Obviously there's some overlap, but topic was specifically LAS, and as Jim has said, there's no point doing LAS tests off GH.

Maybe SpaceX will want to practice more Dragon propulsive landings later, at which time it might make sense to fly off a GH. But for the near term, which to SpaceX means getting the LAS qualified, GH has no place in that test regimen.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/08/2013 07:30 pm

Testing at a variety of altitudes and air speeds, after experiencing the acceleration and vibration of suborbital launch.


And what is that going to accomplish?
What kind of question is that?  It's testing.  You learn things and make things better.

To get to the stage where propulsive landing is accepted in routine cases, Dragon needs to be tested like a commercial passenger aircraft: hundreds of test flights, under a wide variety of conditions.  It doesn't need to go to orbit for most of those tests, but on many of them it does need to go higher than it can fly on its own power.

A very robust abort system would be a natural byproduct of this kind of flight testing.

At the same time, they need to fly many test flights of the reusable first stage, and learn how to quickly and affordably refuel and restack used stages.  It seems natural to start combining these operations at some point.

A.  There is little return in the additional testing.
b.  They aren't flying GH for the sake of accumulating flight time.  Once the landing test objectives are done, you will see it go away.
b.  quick turnaround is years away.  The vehicle is going horizontal after landing before going back to the pad.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 07/08/2013 07:53 pm
Do you really think they will not be able to provide the best service for the best price? And do you really expect NASA and Congress to walk away from that scenario?
On the contrary I see SpaceX way in the lead which makes CST-100 and especially Dream Chaser extreme long shots and likely wasted efforts, sadly.

So what would you have done?  Award a non-compete single-source contract to SpaceX or whoever?  NASA tried to fast-forward with CCiDC but it didn't fly.  So we have competition between the remaining contenders.  Yes, it involves some "wasted effort", but competition always does.

The operative question is: Will that competition ultimately pay off in lower cost to the customer in the end?  The jury is still out, but let's cut NASA some slack as this is (for them) a new way of doing business.
No, not at all. I am in favor of maintaining competition as long as possible. And I applaud NASA for going down this route. However, competition was always just a means to an end. Competition in and of itself is not sustainable without enough companies to exist within a given sizable market to provide either downward pricing pressure or increased capabilities at competitive pricing or both. NASA can not currently provide that kind of scale on their own. They just don't have the funds or the needs to support both the development and utilization of 3 different Crew service providers.

Based on NASA's current funding profile, it now becomes a trade on capabilities and approximate costs of bringing at least one of these services to market now. Get the best, most affordable domestic capability you can as fast as you can. Bring others on-line later as funds and market conditions allow. Who's now and who's later? I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/08/2013 08:16 pm
As an astronaut I would certainly prefer the CST-100 parachute and airbag landing to hypergolic thruster landing. The Dragon may be able to make more precise landings though.

By the way, what is the Dreamchaser's solution to launch abort over the ocean, deploying floats?  ;D
SNC has stated that DC has no black zones, so we would be talking RTLS, TAL or ATO. No need really to ditch, since they can throttle their hybrid rocket motors...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 07/08/2013 09:01 pm
^

TAL? ATO?

I read something about crew bailout, which would be ok I guess.

The Dreamchaser is by far the coolest design, but I fear its also the most expensive to maintain.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 07/08/2013 09:19 pm
^

TAL? ATO?

I read something about crew bailout, which would be ok I guess.

The Dreamchaser is by far the coolest design, but I fear its also the most expensive to maintain.
OK I'll bite -
The design of the HL-20 from the outset was for a reduced cost, low maintenance spacecraft (compared to Shuttle), the DC is an outgrowth and evolution of the HL-20, why do you feel that the DC will be the most expensive to maintain?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/08/2013 09:25 pm

1.  I see no reason to believe they don't intend to fly unloaded or lightly loaded first stages all the way to space and on boost-back trajectories as part of the Grasshopper program.  These are natural steps on an incremental path toward their stated goals.

2.  CCiCAP manned orbital flight appears to also be years away, and going horizontal doesn't have to be incompatible with quick turnaround. 

1.  There is no need for GH to do such things, they will have stages from revenue producing flights to play with, like what they are doing on Cassiope.  GH is only for close in testing and not full flight envelope.

2.  Quick turnaround is much further way.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/08/2013 09:25 pm
^

TAL? ATO?

I read something about crew bailout, which would be ok I guess.

The Dreamchaser is by far the coolest design, but I fear its also the most expensive to maintain.
TAL, “Trans Atlantic Landing” if needed at any 7000’ runway. ATO “Abort To Orbit, including once around. Bailing out might prove tricky wearing pressure suits out of the two hatches with the CoG changes as the crew is departing. If it’s not on fire why bail out?

Yes, the refurbishing and turnaround is going to be interesting but SNC sees it as no problem...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 07/08/2013 09:34 pm
^

So the trajectory is along the coast or something? Otherwise there is no guarantee it will reach a runway. Then the crew would have to bail out before hitting the water.

P.S. Ah those are shuttle abort modes :). Well but the shuttle had a whole tank of fuel to boost back to the launch site.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 07/08/2013 09:48 pm
^

TAL? ATO?

I read something about crew bailout, which would be ok I guess.

The Dreamchaser is by far the coolest design, but I fear its also the most expensive to maintain.
OK I'll bite -
The design of the HL-20 from the outset was for a reduced cost, low maintenance spacecraft (compared to Shuttle), the DC is an outgrowth and evolution of the HL-20, why do you feel that the DC will be the most expensive to maintain?

Figure the current hybrid engines will have issues. Don't believe there is much experience with them in space for extended periods. You basically rebuild the engines after every mission.

Then there is the external TPS with unknown refurbishment costs.

Until the Dreamchaser flies a few flights. All cost estimates are exactly that, estimates.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: LegendCJS on 07/08/2013 10:02 pm
^

TAL? ATO?

I read something about crew bailout, which would be ok I guess.

The Dreamchaser is by far the coolest design, but I fear its also the most expensive to maintain.
OK I'll bite -
The design of the HL-20 from the outset was for a reduced cost, low maintenance spacecraft (compared to Shuttle), the DC is an outgrowth and evolution of the HL-20, why do you feel that the DC will be the most expensive to maintain?

The HL-20 is a shape.  Details of a shape aren't really known to correlate all that much with cost.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 07/08/2013 10:10 pm
^

TAL? ATO?

I read something about crew bailout, which would be ok I guess.

The Dreamchaser is by far the coolest design, but I fear its also the most expensive to maintain.
OK I'll bite -
The design of the HL-20 from the outset was for a reduced cost, low maintenance spacecraft (compared to Shuttle), the DC is an outgrowth and evolution of the HL-20, why do you feel that the DC will be the most expensive to maintain?

The HL-20 is a shape.  Details of a shape aren't really known to correlate all that much with cost.
I agree with you that shape and cost are probably poorly correlated however, the design of the HL-20 had maintenance and refurbishment "built-in" such as access panels, simple engine replacement etc. The DC went a step further with the TPS "slipper" system for  replacement of the lower section. These design choices should make the DC competitive, hopefully the DC will make it to flight so that the long-term costs of operation can be extrapolated.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/08/2013 10:54 pm

Clunky-legged, single-engined Grasshopper 1.0 was for close in testing.  Grasshopper 1.1 apparently is for full flight envelope.

Far from it.  They will being doing things with FH boosters before GH is ready.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 07/08/2013 11:30 pm
As an astronaut I would certainly prefer the CST-100 parachute and airbag landing to hypergolic thruster landing. The Dragon may be able to make more precise landings though.

By the way, what is the Dreamchaser's solution to launch abort over the ocean, deploying floats?  ;D
SNC has stated that DC has no black zones, so we would be talking RTLS, TAL or ATO. No need really to ditch, since they can throttle their hybrid rocket motors...

I'll be very interested to see how DC will handle (or not handle) ditching in the ocean, if needed. Not as simple as it sounds, and parachutes will add weight. DC is a great shape for runway landings, but what about anywhere else?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 07/08/2013 11:34 pm
I'll be very interested to see how DC will handle (or not handle) ditching in the ocean, if needed. Not as simple as it sounds, and parachutes will add weight. DC is a great shape for runway landings, but what about anywhere else?

I don't understand.. surely it would be as easy to ditch in the ocean as any other glider. Why would you want parachutes?

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 07/08/2013 11:37 pm
I'll be very interested to see how DC will handle (or not handle) ditching in the ocean, if needed. Not as simple as it sounds, and parachutes will add weight. DC is a great shape for runway landings, but what about anywhere else?

I don't understand.. surely it would be as easy to ditch in the ocean as any other glider. Why would you want parachutes?

Ditching ANY aircraft in the ocean is a very difficult endeavor and has a very high chance of going badly. And DC won't be the most nimble or slow kind of glider.

I could be wrong on this, but I thought that NASA did not consider a Shuttle ditching in the ocean to be a survivable event - and DC has similar slow speed handling characteristics, doesn't it?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/09/2013 04:29 am

Clunky-legged, single-engined Grasshopper 1.0 was for close in testing.  Grasshopper 1.1 apparently is for full flight envelope.

Far from it.  They will being doing things with FH boosters before GH is ready.
how are you guys disagreeing, here? GH2 (whatever) will be more capable than GH1, but won't be ready until after v1.1 (and Falcon heavy?) flies, probably several times. Or do you have some insight on FH?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jason1701 on 07/09/2013 05:46 am

Clunky-legged, single-engined Grasshopper 1.0 was for close in testing.  Grasshopper 1.1 apparently is for full flight envelope.

Far from it.  They will being doing things with FH boosters before GH is ready.

No, I think Funchucks was right.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/09/2013 10:35 am
^

So the trajectory is along the coast or something? Otherwise there is no guarantee it will reach a runway. Then the crew would have to bail out before hitting the water.

P.S. Ah those are shuttle abort modes :). Well but the shuttle had a whole tank of fuel to boost back to the launch site.
Sorry I couldn’t reply, storm knocked out the power.  Yes, it will fly up the east coast and then over Europe as Shuttle did (see attached). It really is about energy, how high, how far and how fast where you would land with many opportunities to land on a field. It has been discussed over the years on the DC threads, have a look. :) I need to mention again DC has no parachutes to lower it for landing...

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_overview.html
http://www.universetoday.com/14159/shuttle-launch-controllers-prepared-to-press-self-destruct-button/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/09/2013 10:44 am
^

TAL? ATO?

I read something about crew bailout, which would be ok I guess.

The Dreamchaser is by far the coolest design, but I fear its also the most expensive to maintain.
OK I'll bite -
The design of the HL-20 from the outset was for a reduced cost, low maintenance spacecraft (compared to Shuttle), the DC is an outgrowth and evolution of the HL-20, why do you feel that the DC will be the most expensive to maintain?

The HL-20 is a shape.  Details of a shape aren't really known to correlate all that much with cost.
I agree with you that shape and cost are probably poorly correlated however, the design of the HL-20 had maintenance and refurbishment "built-in" such as access panels, simple engine replacement etc. The DC went a step further with the TPS "slipper" system for  replacement of the lower section. These design choices should make the DC competitive, hopefully the DC will make it to flight so that the long-term costs of operation can be extrapolated.
The “ablative slipper” has been rethought to conventional evolved TPS as on X-37 at this point.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 07/09/2013 11:54 am
Quote from: Rocket Science
Sorry I couldn’t reply, storm knocked out the power.  Yes, it will fly up the east coast and then over Europe as Shuttle did (see attached). It really is about energy, how high, how far and how fast where you would land with many opportunities to land on a field. It has been discussed over the years on the DC threads, have a look. :) I need to mention again DC has no parachutes to lower it for landing...

Indulge me. The shuttle required to fire its engines to change its trajectory to the launch site or to the coast. And I read this about the HL-20:

Quote
Once at a safe distance, a cluster of three emergency parachutes would open to lower the vehicle to a safe ocean landing. Inflatable flotation devices ensure that it rides high in the water, with at least one of two hatches available for crew emergency egress.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 07/09/2013 02:22 pm
Quote from: Rocket Science
Sorry I couldn’t reply, storm knocked out the power.  Yes, it will fly up the east coast and then over Europe as Shuttle did (see attached). It really is about energy, how high, how far and how fast where you would land with many opportunities to land on a field. It has been discussed over the years on the DC threads, have a look. :) I need to mention again DC has no parachutes to lower it for landing...

Indulge me. The shuttle required to fire its engines to change its trajectory to the launch site or to the coast. And I read this about the HL-20:

Quote
Once at a safe distance, a cluster of three emergency parachutes would open to lower the vehicle to a safe ocean landing. Inflatable flotation devices ensure that it rides high in the water, with at least one of two hatches available for crew emergency egress.

Good question, to my knowledge (which is limited) this aspect of the HL-20 is not on the DC. Maybe one of the SNC folks can answer this aspect of abort scenarios.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 08/01/2013 02:28 pm
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
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 08/01/2013 06:15 pm
I hope that Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser makes the cut! Having two roughly comparable capsules in CST-100 and Dragon would be kind of pointless and boring. Hopefully the "dissimilar redundancy" offered by a reusable lifting body spacecraft with low reentry g-loads and high cross-range will appeal to NASA.

If not, I hope Sierra Nevada can keep the program alive somehow so that all of the work to date (going back to HL-20 and earlier) isn't for naught.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 08/01/2013 07:22 pm
I hope that Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser makes the cut! Having two roughly comparable capsules in CST-100 and Dragon would be kind of pointless and boring.
Why do you believe it would be "pointless"?

Hopefully the "dissimilar redundancy" offered by a reusable lifting body spacecraft with low reentry g-loads and high cross-range will appeal to NASA.
That's not what dissimilar redundancy is. Eventually CCDev is going to downselect to one.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Go4TLI on 08/01/2013 07:46 pm

Hopefully the "dissimilar redundancy" offered by a reusable lifting body spacecraft with low reentry g-loads and high cross-range will appeal to NASA.
That's not what dissimilar redundancy is. Eventually CCDev is going to downselect to one.

Actually that is exactly what it means. 

For those who think SpaceX is the answer to everything, I find it ironic that all the arguements against shuttle, etc were that the "eggs were in one basket" and now it seems perfectly acceptable to give SpaceX cargo and crew and on the same rocket and with only a variant Dragon. 

Sure, give them 39A too.  Unfortunately thus far, while they have made accomplishments no doubt, their rhetoric has not matched reality. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 08/01/2013 08:24 pm
I think you are confusing Fan Boy with company rhetoric.

I have seen nothing but class (with a little cockyness) out of Hawthorne.
The same cannot be said for the more vocal "new space" community that follows them, which often seems to bend reality.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 08/01/2013 09:49 pm

Hopefully the "dissimilar redundancy" offered by a reusable lifting body spacecraft with low reentry g-loads and high cross-range will appeal to NASA.
That's not what dissimilar redundancy is. Eventually CCDev is going to downselect to one.

Actually that is exactly what it means. 

For those who think SpaceX is the answer to everything, I find it ironic that all the arguements against shuttle, etc were that the "eggs were in one basket" and now it seems perfectly acceptable to give SpaceX cargo and crew and on the same rocket and with only a variant Dragon. 
He didn't claim dissimilar redundancy came from having Commercial Crew use different spacecraft and rockets than Commercial Cargo. He claimed it came from having a non-capsule design. So no, that is not dissimilar redundancy.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 08/02/2013 01:51 am
Dreamchaser is not designed to carry crew and cargo. It is a crew vehicle. Any "cargo" that accompanies the crew will likely be personal items of the crews' or small stores of consumables that either don't rate a cargo launch or can't wait for one. In either case any cargo going uphill will be minor at most. SN does not advertise the Dreamchaser as a cargo vehicle.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Go4TLI on 08/02/2013 03:47 pm
Dreamchaser is not designed to carry crew and cargo. It is a crew vehicle. Any "cargo" that accompanies the crew will likely be personal items of the crews' or small stores of consumables that either don't rate a cargo launch or can't wait for one. In either case any cargo going uphill will be minor at most. SN does not advertise the Dreamchaser as a cargo vehicle.

That's not precisely true. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 08/02/2013 05:22 pm
It would have the benefit of being able to return the most g limited cargo back to earth, something none of the others will.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 08/03/2013 09:51 am
Hopefully the "dissimilar redundancy" offered by a reusable lifting body spacecraft with low reentry g-loads and high cross-range will appeal to NASA.

That's not what dissimilar redundancy is. Eventually CCDev is going to downselect to one.

Actually that is exactly what it means. 

For those who think SpaceX is the answer to everything, I find it ironic that all the arguements against shuttle, etc were that the "eggs were in one basket" and now it seems perfectly acceptable to give SpaceX cargo and crew and on the same rocket and with only a variant Dragon.

Surely, in this context, it just means F9/Merlin vs Atlas/RD-180/RL-10, and three spacecraft with very little in common component- or design-wise?

Downselect to DC & CST-100 would leave both vulnerable to Atlas being grounded, but otherwise what issue that grounds Dragon would be more likely to ground CST-100 and less to ground DC (the whole point of dissimilar redundancy, as I understand it)?

Certainly they're dissimilar capabilities, which has it's own value.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 08/03/2013 07:22 pm
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


While it is a great ideal, anything but one will just mean a delay past 2017.  Just no way around it - unless lightening strikes and the CCP gets a HUGE budget increase.  And that is not going to happen. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/03/2013 07:48 pm
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


While it is a great ideal, anything but one will just mean a delay past 2017.  Just no way around it - unless lightening strikes and the CCP gets a HUGE budget increase.  And that is not going to happen. 
This doesn't take a lightning strike, it's all human. It's the collective will and faith of enough people that determines whether a good idea will or will not happen. People like you and me influencing the influencers. Just saying.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 08/15/2013 11:20 pm
Four Milestones Added to Commercial Crew Agreements
Trent J. Perrotto, NASA Headquarters  Aug. 15, 2013

NASA announced Thursday it is adding some additional milestones to agreements with three U.S. commercial companies that are developing spaceflight capabilities that could eventually provide launch services to transport NASA astronauts to the International Space Station from U.S. soil.

NASA is supporting the development of these capabilities through its Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative. As part of this initiative, NASA is exercising and funding specific additional milestones for these next generation space transportation systems. The agency has extended the Space Act Agreements (SAAs) for The Boeing Company of Houston, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, Calif., and Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) of Louisville, Colo., to include one or two additional milestones each under CCiCap.

"Our commercial partners are on-track developing innovative, new space systems that can safely, reliably and affordably transport astronauts and end the gap in U.S. human spaceflight capabilities," said William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "These additional milestones are specifically targeted by NASA and our partners to reduce risk and improve development efforts."

In their respective CCiCap SAAs, which were awarded in August 2012, NASA's partners listed optional milestones that could be exercised to continue the development and maturation of their space systems. After negotiation with the partners, NASA decided to fund revised portions of existing CCiCap optional milestones and extend the period of performance for the CCiCap SAAs from May 2014 to August 2014. The industry partners also will be contributing financially to the execution of these milestones. The revisions, in the form of amendments to the SAAs, are posted online at:

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=38 (http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=38)

The milestones are:

• Boeing Spacecraft Safety Review. NASA's investment is $20 million and the milestone is planned to be
   accomplished in July 2014.
• SpaceX Dragon Parachute Tests. NASA's investment is $20 million and the milestone is planned to be
   accomplished over several months culminating in November 2013.
• SNC Incremental Critical Design Review #1. NASA's investment is $5 million and the milestone is planned
   to be accomplished in October 2013.
• SNC Incremental Reaction Control System Testing #1. NASA's investment is $10 million and the milestone
   is planned to be accomplished in July 2014.

These milestones each reduce risks, advance the partners' development efforts or accelerate schedules consistent with the goals of CCiCap. NASA plans to use fiscal year 2014 funding for the total government investment of $55 million. Funding these optional milestones does not alter or affect NASA's acquisition strategy for the agency's Commercial Crew Program.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/four-milestones-added-to-commercial-crew-agreements (http://www.nasa.gov/content/four-milestones-added-to-commercial-crew-agreements)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/01/2013 10:36 pm
Quote
NASA, Congress Finalize Operating Plan for 2013

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, intended to nurture development of commercial crew taxi services to and from the international space station, received $525 million under the final operating plan — exactly the presequestration amount Congress approved in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (H.R. 933) signed March 26

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/37020nasa-congress-finalize-operating-plan-for-2013
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 10/30/2013 10:51 am
Meanwhile... in other news...

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/37916mango-steps-down-as-commercial-crew-manager

Quote
Mango Steps Down As Commercial Crew Manager

                        WASHINGTON ­— Edward Mango, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida has stepped down from his position and will be replaced on an acting basis by his deputy Kathryn Lueders, a NASA spokesman confirmed Oct. 29.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/01/2013 12:46 am
Meanwhile... in other news...

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/37916mango-steps-down-as-commercial-crew-manager

Quote
Mango Steps Down As Commercial Crew Manager

                        WASHINGTON ­— Edward Mango, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida has stepped down from his position and will be replaced on an acting basis by his deputy Kathryn Lueders, a NASA spokesman confirmed Oct. 29.


We have had half a crash but otherwise CCiCap appears to be progressing well.  So any scandal here?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 11/01/2013 12:54 am
Too well for some?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/10/2013 03:32 am
NASA Administrator Bolden to Hail Success of Commercial Cargo Program

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden will discuss the success of the agency's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) initiative during a televised news briefing at 11:30 a.m. EST Wednesday, Nov. 13.

Through COTS, NASA's partners Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences Corp., developed new U.S. rockets and spacecraft, launched from U.S. soil, capable of transporting cargo to low-Earth orbit and the International Space Station.

A successful Orbital Sciences demonstration mission to the space station was completed in October, signifying the end of COTS development. SpaceX made its first trip to the space station in May 2012 and completed its COTS partnership with NASA the same year. The agency now contracts space station cargo resupply missions with both companies.

The briefing will be held in the James E. Webb Auditorium at NASA Headquarters at 300 E St. SW in Washington. It will be broadcast live on NASA Television and streamed on the agency's website.

The participants will be:

-- Charles Bolden, NASA Administrator
-- Alan Lindenmoyer, Manager of Commercial Crew and Cargo Program, NASA
-- Gwynne Shotwell, President, SpaceX
-- Frank Culbertson, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Orbital Sciences Advanced Programs Group
-- Frank Slazer, Vice President of Space Systems, Aerospace Industries Association
-- Phil McAlister, Director of Commercial Spaceflight Development, NASA

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2013/november/nasa-administrator-bolden-to-hail-success-of-commercial-cargo-program/#.Un8CuuLjU7Y

See above.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 11/10/2013 04:15 pm
Too well for some?
Yepp, certain elements hate commercial crew and the fact that it is such a success. It makes their pet programs look inefficient and outdated.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/10/2013 08:32 pm
Too well for some?
Yepp, certain elements hate commercial crew and the fact that it is such a success. It makes their pet programs look inefficient and outdated.
Who would be these "certain elements" and what would be their "pet programs"? 

There are three primary commercial crew efforts and there is MPCV.  Is MPCV a "pet program"?  Is it not a success?  All four of these are NASA funded.  MPCV and commercial crew have differing goals - deep space versus ISS resupply - so one is not at odds with the other.  The only live-or-die competition is going to be among the three commercial crew alternatives.

 - Ed Kyle 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 11/10/2013 09:00 pm
Too well for some?
Yepp, certain elements hate commercial crew and the fact that it is such a success. It makes their pet programs look inefficient and outdated.
Who would be these "certain elements" and what would be their "pet programs"? 

There are three primary commercial crew efforts and there is MPCV.  Is MPCV a "pet program"?  Is it not a success?  All four of these are NASA funded.  MPCV and commercial crew have differing goals - deep space versus ISS resupply - so one is not at odds with the other.  The only live-or-die competition is going to be among the three commercial crew alternatives.

 - Ed Kyle

It is also too early to call either commercial crew or MPCV a success or failure. Commercial CARGO is a success, although the program missed the target dates and needed a boost of a couple hundred million over it's initial budget figure. It succeeded despite one of the original vendors (Kistler) failing.
We have yet to see whether the crew version or MPCV will succeed. The only factions that want to see either program fail are the folks who would rather grab that share of NASA's budget for their own pet programs. And of course, if NASA can't succeed with their Mars program, another vendor will ask for full funding for his Mars program, because he thinks he can do it better....
 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 11/10/2013 10:13 pm
Who would be these "certain elements" and what would be their "pet programs"? 
Certain politicians and their pork rockets.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/10/2013 11:39 pm
Who would be these "certain elements" and what would be their "pet programs"? 
Certain politicians and their pork rockets.
I wish things would not be presented this way.  It should not be one or the other.  It should be both, and more.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 11/11/2013 03:25 am
I wish things would not be presented this way.  It should not be one or the other.  It should be both, and more.
Tell that to these politicians.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: beancounter on 11/11/2013 04:23 am

The milestones are:

• Boeing Spacecraft Safety Review. NASA's investment is $20 million and the milestone is planned to be
   accomplished in July 2014.
• SpaceX Dragon Parachute Tests. NASA's investment is $20 million and the milestone is planned to be
   accomplished over several months culminating in November 2013.
• SNC Incremental Critical Design Review #1. NASA's investment is $5 million and the milestone is planned
   to be accomplished in October 2013.
• SNC Incremental Reaction Control System Testing #1. NASA's investment is $10 million and the milestone
   is planned to be accomplished in July 2014.

These milestones each reduce risks, advance the partners' development efforts or accelerate schedules consistent with the goals of CCiCap. NASA plans to use fiscal year 2014 funding for the total government investment of $55 million. Funding these optional milestones does not alter or affect NASA's acquisition strategy for the agency's Commercial Crew Program.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/four-milestones-added-to-commercial-crew-agreements (http://www.nasa.gov/content/four-milestones-added-to-commercial-crew-agreements)

I thought Dragon Crew was going to use the SuperDraco for landing not parachutes or is it chutes first evolving to the SDs?
Thanks.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jason1701 on 11/11/2013 04:39 am

The milestones are:

• Boeing Spacecraft Safety Review. NASA's investment is $20 million and the milestone is planned to be
   accomplished in July 2014.
• SpaceX Dragon Parachute Tests. NASA's investment is $20 million and the milestone is planned to be
   accomplished over several months culminating in November 2013.
• SNC Incremental Critical Design Review #1. NASA's investment is $5 million and the milestone is planned
   to be accomplished in October 2013.
• SNC Incremental Reaction Control System Testing #1. NASA's investment is $10 million and the milestone
   is planned to be accomplished in July 2014.

These milestones each reduce risks, advance the partners' development efforts or accelerate schedules consistent with the goals of CCiCap. NASA plans to use fiscal year 2014 funding for the total government investment of $55 million. Funding these optional milestones does not alter or affect NASA's acquisition strategy for the agency's Commercial Crew Program.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/four-milestones-added-to-commercial-crew-agreements (http://www.nasa.gov/content/four-milestones-added-to-commercial-crew-agreements)

I thought Dragon Crew was going to use the SuperDraco for landing not parachutes or is it chutes first evolving to the SDs?
Thanks.

Chutes + SDs for the first few flights at least.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 11/11/2013 09:00 am

The milestones are:

• Boeing Spacecraft Safety Review. NASA's investment is $20 million and the milestone is planned to be
   accomplished in July 2014.
• SpaceX Dragon Parachute Tests. NASA's investment is $20 million and the milestone is planned to be
   accomplished over several months culminating in November 2013.
• SNC Incremental Critical Design Review #1. NASA's investment is $5 million and the milestone is planned
   to be accomplished in October 2013.
• SNC Incremental Reaction Control System Testing #1. NASA's investment is $10 million and the milestone
   is planned to be accomplished in July 2014.

These milestones each reduce risks, advance the partners' development efforts or accelerate schedules consistent with the goals of CCiCap. NASA plans to use fiscal year 2014 funding for the total government investment of $55 million. Funding these optional milestones does not alter or affect NASA's acquisition strategy for the agency's Commercial Crew Program.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/four-milestones-added-to-commercial-crew-agreements (http://www.nasa.gov/content/four-milestones-added-to-commercial-crew-agreements)

I thought Dragon Crew was going to use the SuperDraco for landing not parachutes or is it chutes first evolving to the SDs?
Thanks.

Is this what the nominal mission looks like?

Retro burn,
Heat shield deceleration
Parachute deceleration
Parachute release
Draco soft landing ...

The eventual goal is to skip parachutes completely and only have them as back-up. But they might start with what you suggest.
Here's some relevant videos. The propulsion landing with parachutes video (https://youtu.be/6q3hHvdEqYE?t=34m) was from late July 2012. The entirely propulsive landing video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZJk4CrxctQ&t=1m30s) is from early August 2012.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Occupymars on 11/11/2013 02:05 pm
This is very interesting you have to wonder how Spacex plans to get to SuperDraco only landings. It's obviously though that we will see them dropping dragons from skycrane helicopter's and testing it that way many times before they will risk putting people in them.
Will the cargo version of dragon eventually become the crew dragon without the seat's having it's own set of SuperDracos, legs and or NDS so that the two versions are as common as possible as too share the benefits of capability and economies of scale?. If so could we see the cargo version updated to this more capable dragon before the Dragonrider ever carries people or would CRS contract, NASA and lack of ports not agree. This is even more interesting when you consider Bigelow's modules may well just have NDS on them.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Falcon H on 11/13/2013 01:39 pm
I thought Dragon Crew was going to use the SuperDraco for landing not parachutes or is it chutes first evolving to the SDs?
Thanks.
Dragon v2 was originally supposed to use parachutes only in an emergency, but this CCICAP video shows Dragon landing on both rockets and chutes, similar to Soyuz. [urlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW3K3TfQbSI][/url] 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: dcporter on 11/13/2013 02:35 pm
I thought Dragon Crew was going to use the SuperDraco for landing not parachutes or is it chutes first evolving to the SDs?
Thanks.
Dragon v2 was originally supposed to use parachutes only in an emergency, but this CCICAP video shows Dragon landing on both rockets and chutes, similar to Soyuz. [urlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW3K3TfQbSI][/url]

The general assumption, and I believe the explicit statement from SpaceX somewhere, was that this video represents an initial capability, sort of a test run of the system, while the full-SD-landing mode would happen on later flights. NASA will probably have a lot to say about this progression.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 11/13/2013 10:00 pm
Interesting video - thanks. I was struck by the statement "Exploration is what this business is all about". That's refreshing and is what sets SpaceX apart from all the other companies even, apparently, present day NASA. Everyone is in it for the profit. NASA's supporting massive jobs programs by way of the funding it gets from Congress. That funding is all about jobs, votes, jobs, votes, etc, and definitely not about exploration, in spite of the titles of the various divisions and departments. Human exploration with NASA won't happen unless the congressional legislators see a means to increase their votes by supporting various big-ticket jobs programs with public funding.

So that's the difference between SpaceX and everybody else.
SpaceX really does want to explore.
Everybody else just wants to make money.


There's nothing wrong with making money, I just want to be clear on the basic motivations.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 11/13/2013 10:15 pm
So long as you define "explore" as settlement, sure.

Last I heard, SpaceX isn't planning an exploration program, although they'd love to sell rockets and spaceships to NASA.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 11/13/2013 10:21 pm
So long as you define "explore" as settlement, sure.

Last I heard, SpaceX isn't planning an exploration program, although they'd love to sell rockets and spaceships to NASA.


Read Elon's own words. He wants to open up Mars for settlement.
That's his driving goal.
All the profit he makes along the way is to fund that goal.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 11/13/2013 10:43 pm
So long as you define "explore" as settlement, sure.

Last I heard, SpaceX isn't planning an exploration program, although they'd love to sell rockets and spaceships to NASA.


Read Elon's own words. He wants to open up Mars for settlement.
That's his driving goal.
All the profit he makes along the way is to fund that goal.

Yes, I agree, but "exploration" is not the goal. It's a means to an end - settlement - and SpaceX expects government - NASA and others - to do that exploring.

Whereas there's plenty of people who support "space exploration" but think settlement isn't the goal.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 11/14/2013 01:15 am
OIG report on the Commercial Crew program

http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY13/IG-14-001.pdf
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 11/14/2013 02:52 am
OIG report on the Commercial Crew program
http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY13/IG-14-001.pdf

Thanks very much for that catch.  My take on a short version... Three major challenges identified by the IG and which NASA is working to address:

1. Annual program cost estimates.  Given the somewhat novel development and acquisition approach (i.e., SAA+FAR), NASA is still trying to figure out how to obtain reasonably accurate cost estimates.  Based on COTS and their experience to date with Commercial Crew, NASA now thinks they have enough data to provide such estimates, and will work towards providing them.

2. Alternative human rating requirements and standards.  The original objective was for NASA to provide resolution within 90 days.  They managed for some, but there has been a significant backlog, with some still outstanding after 9 months.  Timely resolution is important to avoid rework.  Part of those delays is due to the number of organizations involved (I counted 16 NASA groups), including inter-agency issues...

3. Inter-agency issue resolution.  There is no clear inter-agency resolution process and authority that abitrates between NASA, FAA, and USAF -- each of which have safety- and regulatory-related interests and concerns.  While NASA has had an ongoing effort with the FAA, they are expanding and formalizing that and including the USAF (specifically, the 45th Space Wing).

One other interesting tidbit from the report (emphasis added):
Quote
On average, the three Commercial Crew partners are contributing under 20 percent of the CCiCap development costs for their spaceflight systems. ... For comparison, partner contributions for the cargo development program were roughly 50 percent.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 11/14/2013 03:53 am
So long as you define "explore" as settlement, sure.

Last I heard, SpaceX isn't planning an exploration program, although they'd love to sell rockets and spaceships to NASA.


Read Elon's own words. He wants to open up Mars for settlement.
That's his driving goal.
All the profit he makes along the way is to fund that goal.

Yes, I agree, but "exploration" is not the goal. It's a means to an end - settlement - and SpaceX expects government - NASA and others - to do that exploring.

Whereas there's plenty of people who support "space exploration" but think settlement isn't the goal.

This.

Exploration is all well and good but we need space exploitation.... :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 11/14/2013 03:58 am
16 NASA groups involved, inter agency roadblocks, miles of red tape, public funds footing most of the bill, downselect imminent .. sounds like COTS was an anomaly and everything is back to normal now.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: beancounter on 11/14/2013 04:39 am
16 NASA groups involved, inter agency roadblocks, miles of red tape, public funds footing most of the bill, downselect imminent .. sounds like COTS was an anomaly and everything is back to normal now.
Not yet.  One can hope  :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 11/14/2013 02:20 pm
16 NASA groups involved, inter agency roadblocks, miles of red tape, public funds footing most of the bill, downselect imminent .. sounds like COTS was an anomaly and everything is back to normal now.
There is no arguing about the bureaucracy at play. And yes, it gets frustrating and counterproductive on all levels.
 
But Commercial Crew Capability is a whole other beast from COTS. And by it's nature will brush up against and sometimes slam up against many more legacy methodologies and interests. So I'm ok with giving NASA, USAF and FAA some additional time to figure this out and streamline the process. But not too much more time. Action needs to be taken now. Decisions need to be made.

As for only 20 percent skin in the game. I'm ok with that as well. It's still a fraction of what it would have been if NASA did this the old way. It's still a very good investment strategy that will pay major dividends in the long run. That's not to say it is without risk, all investments have inherent risk.

As for down select, nobody knows for sure what that's going to look like, so I'm not going to pile on just yet.

Needless to say, major programatic milestones are set to be reached throughout 2014. I believe this is the crux year. So hopefully all the key Governmental stake holders will get their proverbial sh&* together and make this work.

Personally, I believe they will.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 11/14/2013 07:35 pm
COTS and CCDev are completely separate programs.
COTS was allow to go to completion without the same funding drama, mostly because they were asking for an order of magnitude less funding. Of course, neither vendor was allowed to fail either. It probably helped that the market for commercial cargo is well defined, with only a single destination possible.
Instead of focusing initially on just crew to the ISS, I think NASA lost its way trying to develop an entire commercial HSF industry, and they just don't have enough seed money for that. I think if CCdev has stumbled, its in that area.
 
 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/14/2013 08:56 pm
COTS and CCDev are completely separate programs.
COTS was allow to go to completion without the same funding drama, mostly because they were asking for an order of magnitude less funding. Of course, neither vendor was allowed to fail either.

Kistler failed and was replaced.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrianNH on 11/19/2013 04:58 pm
This is slightly OT, but I was looking for info on what is happening with human rating Atlas V.  ULA did not get CCiCAP funding directly, but did any of the funds for Boeing or SNC include work for ULA to upgrade Atlas and/or the pad?

Also, where are threads related to human rating Atlas V supposed to go?  There is a pinned thread in the "Commercial Crew Vehicles" section that says that they go in the ULA section.  The ULA section has a pinned thread that says that they go in the Commercial Crew Vehicles section.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 11/19/2013 09:08 pm
This is slightly OT, but I was looking for info on what is happening with human rating Atlas V.  ULA did not get CCiCAP funding directly, but did any of the funds for Boeing or SNC include work for ULA to upgrade Atlas and/or the pad?

Also, where are threads related to human rating Atlas V supposed to go?  There is a pinned thread in the "Commercial Crew Vehicles" section that says that they go in the ULA section.  The ULA section has a pinned thread that says that they go in the Commercial Crew Vehicles section.


The George Sowers Q/A was in the ULA section, so I vote for keeping ULA specific threads over there.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 11/21/2013 01:15 am

Re: earlier question...


http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20131120/SPACE/131120008/?sf19694712=1&nclick_check=1
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 11/21/2013 01:18 am

Re: earlier question...


http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20131120/SPACE/131120008/?sf19694712=1&nclick_check=1

Yeah, stranger than fiction. They've done well to keep a lid of this for this long.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Kabloona on 11/21/2013 02:44 am

Re: earlier question...


http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20131120/SPACE/131120008/?sf19694712=1&nclick_check=1

Quote from the article:

"However, according to the records, he “believed his advocacy with others on C.T.’s behalf was appropriate because he was familiar with her work product.”

He actually said that? Ouch.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/21/2013 04:09 am

Re: earlier question...


http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20131120/SPACE/131120008/?sf19694712=1&nclick_check=1

Quote from the article:

"However, according to the records, he “believed his advocacy with others on C.T.’s behalf was appropriate because he was familiar with her work product.”

He actually said that? Ouch.
More info, with a reveal of "C.T.".  Unfortunate.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/NASA-employee-at-KSC-arrested-on-forgery-charges/-/1637132/17851572/-/1rksf0z/-/index.html
http://petecrownasa.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/candrea-thomas-opf-directing-0427111.jpg
http://www.americaspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/DSC_2049.jpg

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 11/21/2013 05:00 am
So you think the reveal is unfortunate, yet you link to stories and pictures identifying the individual?

A very strange case this is...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 11/21/2013 06:20 am
Meanwhile... in other news...

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/37916mango-steps-down-as-commercial-crew-manager (http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/37916mango-steps-down-as-commercial-crew-manager)

Quote
Mango Steps Down As Commercial Crew Manager

                        WASHINGTON ­— Edward Mango, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida has stepped down from his position and will be replaced on an acting basis by his deputy Kathryn Lueders, a NASA spokesman confirmed Oct. 29.

And now we know why mr. Mango suddenly left his office.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/38262former-head-of-nasas-commercial-crew-program-faces-federal-charge
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF on 11/21/2013 12:33 pm
This whole matter is very minor. Look at the original case. She was fined  only 2 weeks pay, not fired.

 His mistake was loaning her money for the lawyer and then getting NASA to allow her to pay her fine over several pay periods. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: deltaV on 11/21/2013 02:14 pm
More info, with a reveal of "C.T.".  Unfortunate.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/NASA-employee-at-KSC-arrested-on-forgery-charges/-/1637132/17851572/-/1rksf0z/-/index.html

According to that article C.T.'s drivers license was suspended for a DUI conviction and she submitted forged temporary drivers permits to NASA in order to retain her driving privileges at work. I've heard of private sector employee being fired for a first-time DUI even though their job has nothing to do with driving (nor any other heavy machinery operation). It amazes me that C.T. received a second DUI (didn't learn the first time), forged documents, continued driving at work with a suspended license, and yet received only a slap on the wrist (two weeks pay) as punishment. Now that the improper influence of Mr. Mango has been revealed will C.T.'s punishment be reevaluated by a neutral party?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/21/2013 03:00 pm
So you think the reveal is unfortunate, yet you link to stories and pictures identifying the individual?

A very strange case this is...
I don't think that the reveal is unfortunate.  I think that the entire episode is unfortunate - for those involved, for NASA in general, for Commercial Crew, etc., but it appears that NASA has now done what it had to do and is moving on. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/21/2013 03:51 pm
Knew about it (and more) a few months ago. Opted not to report it.

Afraid it could get a lot worse on this story and for fear of this turning into a Lisa Nowak style thread I'm probably going to send you off to other sites if this dominates threads like this.

And as such, no, we're not having a splinter thread for those who'll want to keep it bumped on top. Have a think to yourselves and don't post unless it's absolutely required.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 11/21/2013 07:19 pm
Knew about it (and more) a few months ago. Opted not to report it.

Afraid it could get a lot worse on this story and for fear of this turning into a Lisa Nowak style thread I'm probably going to send you off to other sites if this dominates threads like this.

And as such, no, we're not having a splinter thread for those who'll want to keep it bumped on top. Have a think to yourselves and don't post unless it's absolutely required.
Thank you Chris for stopping this... I was uncomfortable where it was going this morning and I thought, “Let’s be the space site that doesn’t do this, we're not some tabloid rag”...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 11/22/2013 11:20 pm
There is a job posting for Ed Mango's replacement (if anyone is interested):
https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/355429700
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 12/25/2013 11:02 pm
A slightly amusing comparison of how fast CCiCAP is hitting the milestones, found on Parabolic Arc (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/12/23/commercial-crew-companies-stay-track-milestone-completions/#disqus_thread)


http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/May_2013_60_Day_Report_508_2.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASAROIReport_Dec2013_TAGGED.pdf
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/26/2013 05:04 am
That's amusing because it's easy to slant... The milestones, as far as I can tell, are not actually comparable in difficulty. Also, the scales are different. In the last one, they're all at 20, even though only Boeing has 20 milestones. The others have fewer, which doesn't mean they have less work to do. For instance, SpaceX's milestones include biggies like a pad abort and an in-flight abort, neither of which are in any of Boeing's milestones (but are things Boeing will probably need to demonstrate before putting crew on board).

You got to wonder if whoever made that graphic was intending to favor Boeing above the other two...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: dcporter on 12/26/2013 12:25 pm
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by statistical illiteracy.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/26/2013 02:14 pm
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by statistical illiteracy.
It's a NASA document, not a pop press article.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 12/26/2013 04:32 pm
Quote from: Robotbeat
The milestones, as far as I can tell, are not actually comparable in difficulty.

Right, as far as you can tell.

It may be misleading insofar as it suggests Boeing is ahead overall in commercial crew dev.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 12/26/2013 04:52 pm
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by statistical illiteracy.
It's a NASA document, not a pop press article.

There may be some who are statistically illiterate at NASA, although I agree you'd expect a bit better on average..

In fact, I think a study showed that 98.4% of organizations had at least one employee who was statistically illiterate and that the average fraction of statistically illiterate employees was somewhere around 23.45% across all organizations. Within aerospace organizations this was 12.34% but within the media it was closer to 45.67%

( I just made all that up )

I think what's more important here is to understand who is doing well against their milestones and I'm not sure I have enough data to judge. But the SpaceX fan boy in me has to point out that SpaceX is awesome anyway.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/26/2013 04:56 pm
Each group has the same number of milestones left to go. 6.

But is a technical review the same difficulty of an in-flight max-q abort test? I kind of doubt it. The milestones can't be directly compared as if they're all the same.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 12/26/2013 05:02 pm
Each group has the same number of milestones left to go. 6.

But is a technical review the same difficulty of an in-flight max-q abort test? I kind of doubt it. The milestones can't be directly compared as if they're all the same.

I did not see pad abort or maxQ-abort as milestones for the Boeing CST-100 capsule. Did I miss them or were they not regarded necessary? Or would they be part of the next phase with Boeing?

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/26/2013 05:10 pm
Each group has the same number of milestones left to go. 6.

But is a technical review the same difficulty of an in-flight max-q abort test? I kind of doubt it. The milestones can't be directly compared as if they're all the same.

I did not see pad abort or maxQ-abort as milestones for the Boeing CST-100 capsule. Did I miss them or were they not regarded necessary? Or would they be part of the next phase with Boeing?

No, those milestones aren't there on the CCiCap milestone list for CST-100.

SpaceX is clearly much farther along with crewed Dragon than either CST-100 or Dream Chaser.  These milestones reflect that.  If all three finish all their CCiCap milestones successfully, crewed Dragon will be essentially ready to carry crew while the other two will still require significantly more work.

Part of that is surely because SpaceX started out ahead, since crewed Dragon is an evolution of the cargo Dragon that was already developed and making operational orbital flights and reentries.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 12/26/2013 05:22 pm
Quote from: Robotbeat
The milestones, as far as I can tell, are not actually comparable in difficulty.

Right, as far as you can tell.

It may be misleading insofar as it suggests Boeing is ahead overall in commercial crew dev.

But there is a better way to compare than counting milestones.  It's the dollar value of completed milestones vs the total dollars.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by statistical illiteracy.
It's a NASA document, not a pop press article.

Edward Tufte (http://www.edwardtufte.com) would have a thing or two to say about poor communications in graphics.  This one ranks with his example from Pravda.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/26/2013 05:24 pm
The slant direction is correct but the amounts (percentages) are not. Actual percentag completions of number of milestones: Beoing 70%, SpaceX 65%, SNC 50%.

SNC completion of only 50% on a 50% budget compared to the other two plus their difficulty in completing the CCDev contract milestones has put them behind. They have a higher technical ramp to accomplish in a lifting body design than just a capsule design.

The true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 12/26/2013 05:33 pm
The slant direction is correct but the amounts (percentages) are not. Actual percentag completions of number of milestones: Beoing 70%, SpaceX 65%, SNC 50%.

SNC completion of only 50% on a 50% budget compared to the other two plus their difficulty in completing the CCDev contract milestones has put them behind. They have a higher technical ramp to accomplish in a lifting body design than just a capsule design.

The true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.

Agreed!   IMHO, this is partly because they are (or will be) completing milestones that matter and partly because they started ahead. 

If you ask me, huge props are due to SNC for how far they've gotten on only half budget.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 12/26/2013 05:36 pm
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by statistical illiteracy.
Note how someone has been literate enough in the first doc, and then lost all of it for the next version of the same graph.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 12/26/2013 05:51 pm
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy
The true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.

Is that so? Yes, Dragon is already flying, but in terms of designing a manned system capable of prolonged missions in space, ISS docking, compatibility with NASA mission control etc. Boeing may have some advantages. I don't know whether crewed Dragon shows much commonality in hardware/software with the cargo version (other than the shape).

By the way, is there a way to launch Dragon on Atlas? If Falcon doesn't show flawless performance next year the lack of proven launch vehicle could make them lose this.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 12/26/2013 06:08 pm
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy
The true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.

Is that so? Yes, Dragon is already flying, but in terms of designing a manned system capable of prolonged missions in space, ISS docking, compatibility with NASA mission control etc. Boeing may have some advantages. I don't know whether crewed Dragon shows much commonality in hardware/software with the cargo version (other than the shape).

By the way, is there a way to launch Dragon on Atlas? If Falcon doesn't show flawless performance next year the lack of proven launch vehicle could make them lose this.
The low flight rate and history of the Falcon is an interesting point - how does one weigh a few flights versus dozens (42) - does this affect NASA's decision making process on CCiCAP?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 12/26/2013 06:10 pm

Is that so? Yes, Dragon is already flying, but in terms of designing a manned system capable of prolonged missions in space, ISS docking, compatibility with NASA mission control etc. Boeing may have some advantages. I don't know whether crewed Dragon shows much commonality in hardware/software with the cargo version (other than the shape).


Damn, they need to change the name of the spacecraft already.

The SpaceX crew vehicle is significantly different from the SpaceX cargo vehicle, and has NOT flown missions in space. This is the same problem people had with the differences between F9 V1.0 and F9 V1.1. They are completely different from below the ground, up.

Boeing has built spacecraft that have flown in space as well. Since their first spacecraft went to space before SpaceX, perhaps they are ahead ?? Never mind that it wasn't a CST-100.

SNC actually flew a vehicle that was the same shape as the spacecraft. Maybe they are ahead, except for the fact that their vehicle didn't actually get to space or have the engines integrated yet.

At the end of the CCiCAP program, hopefully 2 vehicles will be at the CDR level, regardless of what the actual milestones completed along the way happen to be, and another vehicle will be close to CDR. We won't see manned flights from any of the vendors in 2014.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/26/2013 06:11 pm
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy
The true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.

Is that so? Yes, Dragon is already flying, but in terms of designing a manned system capable of prolonged missions in space, ISS docking, compatibility with NASA mission control etc. Boeing may have some advantages. I don't know whether crewed Dragon shows much commonality in hardware/software with the cargo version (other than the shape).

Dragon will be doing both a pad abort and a max-Q abort test under CCiCap, which puts it significantly further along the development path than either CST-100 or Dream Chaser.

And yes, there does seem to be a lot of commonality between crew Dragon and cargo Dragon.  The heat shield is the same.  The Draco thrusters are the same.  Likely many more things are the same.

By the way, is there a way to launch Dragon on Atlas? If Falcon doesn't show flawless performance next year the lack of proven launch vehicle could make them lose this.

Flawless performance isn't necessary for something to be considered "proven".  If a Falcon flight fails and then they find and fix the root cause, that shouldn't be considered grounds to give up on Falcon.  I think it extremely unlikely that a Falcon launch failure would make SpaceX lose CCtCap.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/26/2013 06:16 pm
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy
The true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.

Is that so? Yes, Dragon is already flying, but in terms of designing a manned system capable of prolonged missions in space, ISS docking, compatibility with NASA mission control etc. Boeing may have some advantages. I don't know whether crewed Dragon shows much commonality in hardware/software with the cargo version (other than the shape).

By the way, is there a way to launch Dragon on Atlas? If Falcon doesn't show flawless performance next year the lack of proven launch vehicle could make them lose this.
The low flight rate and history of the Falcon is an interesting point - how does one weigh a few flights versus dozens (42) - does this affect NASA's decision making process on CCiCAP?

It's true that Falcon 9 should be considered somewhat more of a risk than Atlas V right now.

But, on the other hand, cargo Dragon has already flown several times, and that means Draon itself should be considered somewhat less of a risk than CST-100 and Dream Chaser.

Also, Falcon 9 looks to be on track to fly more than Atlas V per year going forward.  So, while the early flights of Falcon 9 will have less of a track record, eventually it will have more of a track record, so later flights should be considered safer than Atlas V.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/26/2013 06:30 pm
I think that "graphic" belongs in the "NASA Waste" thread... nuff said... ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 12/27/2013 01:11 am
The low flight rate and history of the Falcon is an interesting point - how does one weigh a few flights versus dozens (42) - does this affect NASA's decision making process on CCiCAP?

Yes, as the CCiCap milestones (and funding) were based on where the contenders were at the time of the CCiCap awards, and where NASA felt they needed to be as a result of CCiCap:
Boeing -- System critical design review.*
SpaceX -- Integrated critical design review.*
SNC -- Significant progress toward completion of critical design.


* Not sure what the difference is between "system" and "integrated" critical design review.  In some contexts NASA appears to treat them the same; in others they use slightly different verbiage.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 12/27/2013 01:18 am
* Not sure what the difference is between "system" and "integrated" critical design review.  In some contexts NASA appears to treat them the same; in others they use slightly different verbiage.

In this case, it's whether or not the launch vehicle is integrated, isn't it?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 12/27/2013 01:52 am
My question is if the "AtlasV HR" has enough software, avionics and physical differences to at least partially reset its success clock? Has it actually flown in anything but simulation?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 12/27/2013 02:43 am
* Not sure what the difference is between "system" and "integrated" critical design review.  In some contexts NASA appears to treat them the same; in others they use slightly different verbiage.
In this case, it's whether or not the launch vehicle is integrated, isn't it?

Not sure, but I think your sense is probably correct.  My impression from the CCiCap selection statement is that the objective was for both Boeing and SpaceX to get to CDR in early-mid 2014 (before CCtCap proposals).  Another NASA presentation (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672130main_CCiCap%20Announcement.pdf) seems to affirm that both "Culminates in an integrated critical design review milestone".  However, later in that presentation they seem to differentiate:
- Boeing: "System Critical Design Review"
- SpaceX: "Integrated Critical Design Review"
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 12/28/2013 03:57 pm
* Not sure what the difference is between "system" and "integrated" critical design review.  In some contexts NASA appears to treat them the same; in others they use slightly different verbiage.

In this case, it's whether or not the launch vehicle is integrated, isn't it?

Integrated includes ground processing (means vehicle, cargo, astronauts...), launch vehicle, spacecraft, mission control, communications network and recovery area/forces.  Some of those NASA will supply (e.g., TDRS) and some the commercial companies may reach agreement with NASA to provide but it is the company's responsonbility to string it all together and verify/validate the processes.  System CDR either means a small system (e.g., the environmental system of the spacecraft) or could mean a part of the integrated system (e.g., THE spacecraft).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 12/28/2013 04:00 pm
My question is if the "AtlasV HR" has enough software, avionics and physical differences to at least partially reset its success clock? Has it actually flown in anything but simulation?

Not really.  You start with the past as a basis and then carefully analyze the new stuff.  The new stuff is almost exclusively in the abort system which is additional, not modification of exisiting.  So you really have to prove/test/analyze that.  And some of that system is heritage as well.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 12/28/2013 04:01 pm
At the end of the CCiCAP program, hopefully 2 vehicles will be at the CDR level, regardless of what the actual milestones completed along the way happen to be, and another vehicle will be close to CDR. We won't see manned flights from any of the vendors in 2014.

Correct, 2 will be at that level.  No others will be close.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Garrett on 12/29/2013 09:09 pm
My impression from the CCiCap selection statement is that the objective was for both Boeing and SpaceX to get to CDR in early-mid 2014 (before CCtCap proposals).  Another NASA presentation (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672130main_CCiCap%20Announcement.pdf) seems to affirm that both "Culminates in an integrated critical design review milestone".  However, later in that presentation they seem to differentiate:
- Boeing: "System Critical Design Review"
- SpaceX: "Integrated Critical Design Review"
Yeah, it's not really clear from that document exactly how far along both will be, but going on erioladastra's comment (copied below) on the difference between "system" and "integrated" reviews, it would seem to put SpaceX quite a ways ahead.

Integrated includes ground processing (means vehicle, cargo, astronauts...), launch vehicle, spacecraft, mission control, communications network and recovery area/forces.  Some of those NASA will supply (e.g., TDRS) and some the commercial companies may reach agreement with NASA to provide but it is the company's responsonbility to string it all together and verify/validate the processes.  System CDR either means a small system (e.g., the environmental system of the spacecraft) or could mean a part of the integrated system (e.g., THE spacecraft).
So, if I'm understanding it right, an integrated CDR is the very last CDR?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 12/30/2013 02:36 pm
My impression from the CCiCap selection statement is that the objective was for both Boeing and SpaceX to get to CDR in early-mid 2014 (before CCtCap proposals).  Another NASA presentation (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672130main_CCiCap%20Announcement.pdf) seems to affirm that both "Culminates in an integrated critical design review milestone".  However, later in that presentation they seem to differentiate:
- Boeing: "System Critical Design Review"
- SpaceX: "Integrated Critical Design Review"
Yeah, it's not really clear from that document exactly how far along both will be, but going on erioladastra's comment (copied below) on the difference between "system" and "integrated" reviews, it would seem to put SpaceX quite a ways ahead.

Integrated includes ground processing (means vehicle, cargo, astronauts...), launch vehicle, spacecraft, mission control, communications network and recovery area/forces.  Some of those NASA will supply (e.g., TDRS) and some the commercial companies may reach agreement with NASA to provide but it is the company's responsonbility to string it all together and verify/validate the processes.  System CDR either means a small system (e.g., the environmental system of the spacecraft) or could mean a part of the integrated system (e.g., THE spacecraft).
So, if I'm understanding it right, an integrated CDR is the very last CDR?

Well, I shoudl have been more clear.  It is a bit more complicated.  While Boeing's CDR is a paid milestone it fits intoa  complicated Boeing process (I think they use a system of Gates), which is equivalent to NASA's ICDR.  So even though the system is the paid, they will complete CCiCAP at the same level as SpaceX.  Of course there will be some differences and there is always some judgement call by NASA ("well this area is a little behind, this area is a little bit ahead...") it should be about right as best as can be told in this complicated process.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 12/30/2013 04:20 pm
At the end of the CCiCAP program, hopefully 2 vehicles will be at the CDR level, regardless of what the actual milestones completed along the way happen to be, and another vehicle will be close to CDR. We won't see manned flights from any of the vendors in 2014.

Correct, 2 will be at that level.  No others will be close.

Well, there is really only 1 other than really matters. Assuming SNC completes all of their milestones, how much more work do you think there is to get to the same CDR level as the other vendors ? Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 12/31/2013 11:05 pm
Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.
They probably have the funds for at least some of them.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/31/2013 11:22 pm
Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.
They probably have the funds for at least some of them.

Really?  Atlas launches aren't cheap.  Or did you mean just more glide testing after being dropped from aircraft altitudes?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/01/2014 01:02 am
Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.
They probably have the funds for at least some of them.
Current SNC CCiCap funding includes one "Engineering Test Article Flight Testing" milestone (was due Apr 2013) to "... reduce risk due to aerodynamic uncertainties in the subsonic approach and landing phase of flight ...".
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/01/2014 05:44 am
Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.
They probably have the funds for at least some of them.
Current SNC CCiCap funding includes one "Engineering Test Article Flight Testing" milestone (was due Apr 2013) to "... reduce risk due to aerodynamic uncertainties in the subsonic approach and landing phase of flight ...".

That's the same Engineering Test Article that, on its one and only free flight, had a landing gear failure and got banged up, no?  NASA gave them the money for that milestone.

A gliding drop test of a mock-up isn't really in the same league as an abort test of actual flight hardware at max-q, is it?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/01/2014 06:58 am
That's the same Engineering Test Article that, on its one and only free flight, had a landing gear failure and got banged up, no?  NASA gave them the money for that milestone.
Probably.  IIRC the original plan was to subsequently outfit the CCDev2 ETA for the CCiCap test flights, although SNC apparently has another ETA that might be used.
Quote
A gliding drop test of a mock-up isn't really in the same league as an abort test of actual flight hardware at max-q, is it?
Right.  The current SNC CCiCap milestones don't provide for any powered test flights (only ground test of the main propulsion and RCS systems, among other things), let alone a flight abort test.

However, there are also no CCiCap milestones for CST-100 powered test flights.  The presence or absence of such should not necessarily be  interpreted as to whether one or another vehicle is closer to CDR.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/01/2014 06:05 pm

Really?  Atlas launches aren't cheap.  Or did you mean just more glide testing after being dropped from aircraft altitudes?
AFAIK SNC is a pretty big company (over 2000 employees) with branches in militar and other space related business. Dream Chaser is only a small part of their operations.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/01/2014 07:04 pm

Really?  Atlas launches aren't cheap.  Or did you mean just more glide testing after being dropped from aircraft altitudes?
AFAIK SNC is a pretty big company (over 2000 employees) with branches in militar and other space related business. Dream Chaser is only a small part of their operations.

You cut out the quote I was replying to.  Here it is:

Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.
They probably have the funds for at least some of them.

This implies more than one test flight, which is at least two Atlas V launches, which is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  SNC isn't so big they can throw hundreds of millions of dollars to something that is only a small part of their operations without seriously harming the whole company.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/02/2014 12:40 pm
That's the same Engineering Test Article that, on its one and only free flight, had a landing gear failure and got banged up, no?  NASA gave them the money for that milestone.

A gliding drop test of a mock-up isn't really in the same league as an abort test of actual flight hardware at max-q, is it?

Lockheed is building another "Test Article" for them. I don't know if the second is supposed to be called a "Flight Test Article", or just another more robust ETA. The second vehicle will have capability for testing return from space, which the first one did not.

NASA paid out on a CC-DEV2 milestone. I'm sure there may be more flight and/or landing test milestones as part of the current CCiCAP program.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/02/2014 12:54 pm

This implies more than one test flight, which is at least two Atlas V launches, which is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  SNC isn't so big they can throw hundreds of millions of dollars to something that is only a small part of their operations without seriously harming the whole company.

How many flights are the other vendors planning before a crewed flight to the ISS, which I assume NASA will pay for ?

Pad abort test does not require a launch vehicle, just the proper interface structure. This is where we get to see if those hybrid engines have enough oomph to get Dream Chaser successfully away from the LV and let it turn and land on a nearby runway.

They need the LV for the in-flight abort scenario, if they need to demonstrate it to the FAA / NASA.

Maybe one more LV for a "normal" test flight that lasts a day or two in orbit.

Do they need more flights than this ?

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/02/2014 03:51 pm
This implies more than one test flight, which is at least two Atlas V launches, which is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  SNC isn't so big they can throw hundreds of millions of dollars to something that is only a small part of their operations without seriously harming the whole company.
Well they have over 750 million in just government contracts every year and that is not all of their business. So over a few years, they might very well be able to set aside the funds. Also maybe ULA would co sponsor the flight (after all they would benefit as well if DC was selected, providing the LV and all that).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 01/02/2014 06:29 pm

This implies more than one test flight, which is at least two Atlas V launches, which is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  SNC isn't so big they can throw hundreds of millions of dollars to something that is only a small part of their operations without seriously harming the whole company.

How many flights are the other vendors planning before a crewed flight to the ISS, which I assume NASA will pay for ?

Pad abort test does not require a launch vehicle, just the proper interface structure. This is where we get to see if those hybrid engines have enough oomph to get Dream Chaser successfully away from the LV and let it turn and land on a nearby runway.

They need the LV for the in-flight abort scenario, if they need to demonstrate it to the FAA / NASA.

Maybe one more LV for a "normal" test flight that lasts a day or two in orbit.

Do they need more flights than this ?

There is no set number nor is an in flight test abort required.  It is up tot he companies to define how many flights and of what type they need.  Obviously NASA will need to agree to the plan before NASA astronauts are put on the vehicle (which appears to now be required for the test flights also) or before entering the ISS's Keep Out Sphere.  Theoretically (and this I just an example, have no idea if it is the plan), SpaceX could make tweaks on their cargo and then put crew to the ISS on the first manned vehicle if they could show that it has demonstrated it is ready to do so. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/02/2014 07:07 pm
Is there any hardcore reason why SNC couldn't do an abort test on a vastly-cheaper Falcon 9?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 01/02/2014 07:21 pm
Is there any hardcore reason why SNC couldn't do an abort test on a vastly-cheaper Falcon 9?
Yeah, they didnt book that launch 2 years ago.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 01/02/2014 07:59 pm
Is there any hardcore reason why SNC couldn't do an abort test on a vastly-cheaper Falcon 9?
Yeah, they didnt book that launch 2 years ago.

Did they book a Atlas V? Or can they get a flight from ULA on short notice?

Edited typo.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/02/2014 09:59 pm
Is there any hardcore reason why SNC couldn't do an abort test on a vastly-cheaper Falcon 9?

Because of the design work already in process that mates the vehicle to Atlas.
The whole design for mating the craft to the top of centaur, The fairing, LAS interface, wind tunnel tests, etc.
I'm sure that any test flight is more than 2 years away. At that point, it may be easier to find an opening on the Atlas manifest than SpaceX.
 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/02/2014 10:15 pm
Is there any hardcore reason why SNC couldn't do an abort test on a vastly-cheaper Falcon 9?

Because of the design work already in process that mates the vehicle to Atlas.
The whole design for mating the craft to the top of centaur, The fairing, LAS interface, wind tunnel tests, etc.
I'm sure that any test flight is more than 2 years away. At that point, it may be easier to find an opening on the Atlas manifest than SpaceX.
How do you know for sure that they have only been looking at talking to the Atlas V folk?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/02/2014 10:42 pm
SNC could even go to Orbital for a “new” version of Little Joe II tests....
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/03/2014 01:29 pm
How do you know for sure that they have only been looking at talking to the Atlas V folk?

I don't know anything for sure. It just seems that with the pace of their development, they are only working on integrating with 1 launch vehicle at a time, and they are not working on integrating with their commercial crew competition.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Occupymars on 01/07/2014 06:44 pm
It's nearly been a year since we got a proper status update on the Commercial Crew program!
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvVdD6qqROM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvVdD6qqROM)

January 9th to be precise. Anyone hear any indicators when the next one will be?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/07/2014 08:28 pm
It's nearly been a year since we got a proper status update on the Commercial Crew program!
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvVdD6qqROM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvVdD6qqROM)

January 9th to be precise. Anyone hear any indicators when the next one will be?
Here's your update.  :(
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/38944nasa-may-order-more-soyuz-rides-to-station-despite-commercial-crew

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/07/2014 08:44 pm
It seems more important that commercial crew is not seen as "winning" (financially, at very least) at the expense of SLS/Orion than we actually stop having to pay the Russians. I hope I'm wrong.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/07/2014 08:45 pm
There is also this presentation by McAlister to the NAC:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/20131209_heocnac_mcalister_tagged.pdf
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Occupymars on 01/07/2014 09:12 pm
It's nearly been a year since we got a proper status update on the Commercial Crew program!
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvVdD6qqROM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvVdD6qqROM)

January 9th to be precise. Anyone hear any indicators when the next one will be?
Here's your update.  :(
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/38944nasa-may-order-more-soyuz-rides-to-station-despite-commercial-crew

 - Ed Kyle
Delightful news! -_-
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Occupymars on 01/07/2014 09:36 pm
There is also this presentation by McAlister to the NAC:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/20131209_heocnac_mcalister_tagged.pdf
Cool I haven't seen that pdf before thank's but still not much of an update. I demand a video update :D
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 01/07/2014 10:27 pm
Another recent update document:

Dec 20, 2013 "Commercial Spaceflight - 60 Day Report, Issue 13"

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASAROIReport_Dec2013_TAGGED.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASAROIReport_Dec2013_TAGGED.pdf)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/14/2014 01:17 am
Commercial crew will get $696M for FY 2014. See the post below:

Here is a copy of the FY 2014 CJS Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 158 of the bill):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-h3547-hamdt2samdt_xml.pdf

Here is a copy of the report (NASA starts at page 112 of the PDF):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-FM-B.pdf

$696M for commercial report but $171M is conditional on NASA obtaining an independant cost-benefit report for commercial crew. See pages 161-162 of the bill.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/14/2014 02:35 am
Commercial crew will get $696M for FY 2014. See the post below:
Here is a copy of the FY 2014 CJS Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 158 of the bill):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-h3547-hamdt2samdt_xml.pdf
Here is a copy of the report (NASA starts at page 112 of the PDF):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-FM-B.pdf

Thanks yg!  Also of note, launch liability is extended from 31-Dec-2013 to 31-Dec-2016.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: boinc on 01/14/2014 08:26 am
Commercial crew will get $696M for FY 2014. See the post below:

Here is a copy of the FY 2014 CJS Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 158 of the bill):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-h3547-hamdt2samdt_xml.pdf

Here is a copy of the report (NASA starts at page 112 of the PDF):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-FM-B.pdf

$696M for commercial report but $171M is conditional on NASA obtaining an independant cost-benefit report for commercial crew. See pages 161-162 of the bill.


this is good news, right? (still a downselect this year?)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jarnis on 01/14/2014 09:56 am
Less than was asked for (~$820M if I recall right)

Probably still enough that they won't downselect down to just one? Perhaps one-and-a-half of sorts?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 01/14/2014 02:45 pm
Commercial crew will get $696M for FY 2014. See the post below:

Here is a copy of the FY 2014 CJS Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 158 of the bill):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-h3547-hamdt2samdt_xml.pdf

Here is a copy of the report (NASA starts at page 112 of the PDF):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-FM-B.pdf

$696M for commercial report but $171M is conditional on NASA obtaining an independant cost-benefit report for commercial crew. See pages 161-162 of the bill.


(still a downselect this year?)
Probably. The proposals for the next and final phase of the program, Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCAP), are due on the 22nd. The contract is expected to be awarded in either August or September. So we should know the winner of the Commercial Crew Program in about eight months.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 01/14/2014 03:01 pm
Just doing some math...
2 astronauts paid by the US every 6 months or 4 "seats" per year to the ISS. Right now the Russians are charging $63 million per seat (is that correct?) which is $252 million per year. Starting in 2018 and going to 2024 (ISS extension). I count 7 years at $252 million per year which is
$1.764 billion to Russia for transport of US astronauts to ISS. Assume no change in cost  8)
There is some wording about the cost effectiveness of commercial crew in the appropriation- those that are against it would have this number as a metric for value.  I am not saying that I agree that this value is correct but this is an amount that can be used to evaluate costs to the taxpayer.
Can the present mix of suppliers beat this cost to ISS?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 01/14/2014 03:32 pm
Couple of points:
1) I think it's already at 73M, and the next extension should be at or around 85M.
2) Commercial Crew allows emergency escape for at least 4 (or upto 7, depending on who wins and craft configuration). That means that you can have one extra crew. Since there's a base amount of maintenance tasks at the station, a fourth passenger might mean upto a 50% extra utilization on the USOS. That's a lot of extra value for the 160B investment.
3) If they do direct handover, they could take a surge of three payload specialists for one week, that's a lot extra utilization.
4) Dollars sent to Russia are "lost" to the government. Those payed to US companies mostly "return" through further taxes.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 01/14/2014 03:42 pm
Couple of points:
1) I think it's already at 73M, and the next extension should be at or around 85M.
2) Commercial Crew allows emergency escape for at least 4 (or upto 7, depending on who wins and craft configuration). That means that you can have one extra crew. Since there's a base amount of maintenance tasks at the station, a fourth passenger might mean upto a 50% extra utilization on the USOS. That's a lot of extra value for the 160B investment.
3) If they do direct handover, they could take a surge of three payload specialists for one week, that's a lot extra utilization.
4) Dollars sent to Russia are "lost" to the government. Those payed to US companies mostly "return" through further taxes.
As of May 2013 I have seen quoted 71 million but not surprised (nor doubt) that it is now 73 million.
at $71 million per seat the 2018 to 2024 cost using my metric is 1.988 billion in constant dollars - if the Russians costs go to 73 million per seat then its over 2 Billion dollars lost to the taxpayer and that's without taking into account the multiplier for US based companies that would supply the service.  It also assumes incorrectly that the costs will not continue to rise - I assume that as commercial crew gets close to operational, the Russians will attempt to reduce costs.
The appropriation states that congress wants a cost-accounting for the CCiCAP - what is NASA waiting for?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/14/2014 03:57 pm
As well as the Russians taking people to the ISS NASA could use the SLS + Orion.  It is fair to include them because acting as a backup is one of the official purposes of the pair.  At least one of the comparisons should use the optimistic assumption that the pair of development programs do not slip.  Estimates for the total number of people launched on SLS and the cost per seat can be included.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rpapo on 01/14/2014 04:04 pm
As well as the Russians taking people to the ISS NASA could use the SLS + Orion.  It is fair to include them because acting as a backup is one of the official purposes of the pair.  At least one of the comparisons should use the optimistic assumption that the pair of development programs do not slip.  Estimates for the total number of people launched on SLS and the cost per seat can be included.
At what price per seat, and in how many years yet?  I have difficulty in imagining any launch of the SLS+Orion combination at coming in at less than $400M dollars.  Granted, it would be cheaper than launching with the Russians even if the total cost of the flight were $511M or less, but I have my doubts they will make even that price point.

Of course, as was mentioned above, it would be the US Government spending money on US corporations, and a portion of that money would circle back to the US Government, but still...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 01/14/2014 04:12 pm
As well as the Russians taking people to the ISS NASA could use the SLS + Orion.  It is fair to include them because acting as a backup is one of the official purposes of the pair.  At least one of the comparisons should use the optimistic assumption that the pair of development programs do not slip.  Estimates for the total number of people launched on SLS and the cost per seat can be included.
There has been discussions in congress about using Orion to ISS, I don't see that happening but my crystal ball is always cloudy.  I don't see how SLS and Orion will be competitive with commercial crew. My point is that we have metrics to evaluate (bound) the costs for Russian services and that congress, through OMB, should be able to determine if CCiCAP is viable and not hold funds back.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/14/2014 04:17 pm
Just doing some math...
2 astronauts paid by the US every 6 months or 4 "seats" per year to the ISS. Right now the Russians are charging $63 million per seat (is that correct?) which is $252 million per year. Starting in 2018 and going to 2024 (ISS extension). I count 7 years at $252 million per year which is
$1.764 billion to Russia for transport of US astronauts to ISS. Assume no change in cost  8)
There is some wording about the cost effectiveness of commercial crew in the appropriation- those that are against it would have this number as a metric for value.  I am not saying that I agree that this value is correct but this is an amount that can be used to evaluate costs to the taxpayer.
Can the present mix of suppliers beat this cost to ISS?
...Don't forget the fact that this is money being spent on the aerospace/defense sector of an intense geopolitical rival.

Economically speaking, it's far better for our country to spend the money here, especially since we're in a recession. A lot of that money can be collected via local, state, and federal taxes, helping to reimburse the taxpayer for any cost differential. Also, it creates local jobs which help reduce the burden on social services from the unemployed. Etc, etc.

It's not a one-to-one comparison.


...not only that, but by supporting Russia's space sector, we are essentially stimulating their launch industry, which is a high-profit export industry... Helping an economic competitor and long-time geopolitical rival. COTS for ISS, which certainly was a cost-effective way to develop a capability to send and return large cargo from ISS post-Shuttle, has already helped bring commercial launch services back to the US. SpaceX has just launched two big foreign satellites into space and has 10 foreign satellites (many made by the domestic Orbital Sciences) on its Falcon 9 launch manifest as we speak, plus the big (read: expensive) Intelsat bird on Falcon Heavy. That is hundreds of millions of dollars (probably billions, if you count the satellites themselves made by Orbital) that is coming into the US and helping eliminate our trade deficit.

It also is helping the domestic Iridium (annual revenue in the hundreds of millions) and domestic Orbcomm (annual revenue in the many tens of millions) launch their new constellations, building a more advanced telecommunications infrastructure that will benefit all Americans.

If you use either Russian or non-commercial-related launch services, you don't get all these benefits. For something like Ares-I, you're basically recreating at great expense the same launch infrastructure that the commercial industry already has, but your enormous costs make it unlikely you're going to get any commercial payloads.

And even ULA is starting to attract commercial customers. If there were more revenues from having 2 commercial crew providers, it'd likely help ULA reduce their per-launch costs enough to attract some business away from the likes of Arianespace.

Commercial crew is a bargain no matter what way you spin it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 01/14/2014 04:23 pm
$696M for commercial report but $171M is conditional on NASA obtaining an independant cost-benefit report for commercial crew. See pages 161-162 of the bill.

Shambolic. That's all I have to say. Where's the cost-benefit report for the other programs?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/14/2014 04:44 pm
And I just want to say that the fixed-price mechanism is far better than cost-plus or a straight subsidy if you have secondary goals of stimulating a commercial capacity. In order to be competitive and win the bid, you have to have low costs, which is absolutely essential for getting commercial customers. A straight subsidy might potentially help, but it doesn't encourage a corporate culture of cost efficiency like fixed-price would, and a cost-plus mechanism actively discourages cost efficiency.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 01/14/2014 04:50 pm
And I just want to say that the fixed-price mechanism is far better than cost-plus or a straight subsidy if you have secondary goals of stimulating a commercial capacity. In order to be competitive and win the bid, you have to have low costs, which is absolutely essential for getting commercial customers. A straight subsidy might potentially help, but it doesn't encourage a corporate culture of cost efficiency like fixed-price would, and a cost-plus mechanism actively discourages cost efficiency.
I recall the debate in congress was about a 1 to 1 comparison - which to us appears very naive but this is how congress works.  I hope wiser minds prevail and can see the benefits of CC well beyond transport to ISS. Can CC actually cost less than $2 billion - if it can - it will be a truly fantastic bargain.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/14/2014 06:35 pm
Also don't forget that there is no reason why NASA could not use the commercial crew services created now for other projects besides the ISS. Even when the ISS is discontinued, NASA will most likely need to get people to LEO.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/14/2014 06:49 pm
COTS has help create SpaceX into a contender for US government missions, which will finally break ULA monopoly. This should save US government $100millions in future launch costs.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 01/14/2014 07:22 pm
Also don't forget that there is no reason why NASA could not use the commercial crew services created now for other projects besides the ISS. Even when the ISS is discontinued, NASA will most likely need to get people to LEO.
If I recall correctly, CC is not supposed to be judged on potential future missions, just its application to ISS crew transport.  The value in this criteria is that metrics can be provided for an existing POR and can be judged on that merit alone.  I am not saying that this is a simple or straight-forward task, its not but serving the POR is a rational approach.  I find it hard to believe that a $2 billion+ cost to the American tax payer (via Russia) is better than an indigenous capability - again can CC be developed and operated for $2 billion dollars?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/14/2014 07:51 pm
As well as the Russians taking people to the ISS NASA could use the SLS + Orion.  It is fair to include them because acting as a backup is one of the official purposes of the pair.  At least one of the comparisons should use the optimistic assumption that the pair of development programs do not slip.  Estimates for the total number of people launched on SLS and the cost per seat can be included.
There has been discussions in congress about using Orion to ISS, I don't see that happening but my crystal ball is always cloudy.  I don't see how SLS and Orion will be competitive with commercial crew. My point is that we have metrics to evaluate (bound) the costs for Russian services and that congress, through OMB, should be able to determine if CCiCAP is viable and not hold funds back.

The report may say that the SLS is uncompetitive with COTS and EELV rockets for small payloads.  Since it will be the world's biggest rocket the SLS it will also be the world's most expensive rocket.  However when the payload weights more than 54 metric tons only the SLS can lift it.

The Orion can take 4 people to the ISS but is more expensive than the SpaceX DragonRider.  The DragonRider will run out of oxygen and battery power within a week if it does not dock, this is too short for a round trip to the Moon but adequate for the ISS.  Where as the Orion's 21.1 days endurance permits lunar round trips.

This amounts to a 'horses for courses' decision.  Orion+SLS is suitable for long trips but is too expensive for regular visits to the ISS.

References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_%28spacecraft%29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_%28spacecraft%29)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/14/2014 07:59 pm
Also don't forget that there is no reason why NASA could not use the commercial crew services created now for other projects besides the ISS. Even when the ISS is discontinued, NASA will most likely need to get people to LEO.
If I recall correctly, CC is not supposed to be judged on potential future missions, just its application to ISS crew transport.  The value in this criteria is that metrics can be provided for an existing POR and can be judged on that merit alone.  I am not saying that this is a simple or straight-forward task, its not but serving the POR is a rational approach.  I find it hard to believe that a $2 billion+ cost to the American tax payer (via Russia) is better than an indigenous capability - again can CC be developed and operated for $2 billion dollars?
I still say it’s a backdoor deal giving welfare to the Russian space sector. Keeps all their bright people gainfully employed lest they be selling their skills to other nefarious nations and a reason to stay engaged in ISS ops...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 01/14/2014 08:06 pm
It's interesting that 170+Million is contingent on a cost benefit analysis, as it could very well be the potential difference between 2 systems surviving a down-select as opposed to one.

I fully believe any such analysis will prove this program out. I'm not sure NASA can even do a proper analysis until they get each companies' full proposal and cost/fee structure for their complete, integrated service offerings.

In a very simplified way, selections will be contingent on the following:

1. How much will it cost to bring system A, B or C to full maturity?
2. How soon can system A, B or C be brought to full maturity?
3. How much will the service cost per seat/flight?
4. Do we really need 2 systems to be brought on-line concurrently? Or should we select the system we can field the soonest and will cost the least while providing incremental funds to a second non-simalr system to come on-line a bit later. (ISS to 2024 extension dependent)

I submit the following:

In August, NASA will select one capsule with complete funding to bring on-line asap. (2016-17) And will then select one lifting body (with a smaller funding profile)  to come on-line 1 or 2 years later. (I left company names out as I didn't want to start another SpaceX VS Boeing VS SNC debate. Although, happy to have one in the appropriate thread.

 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/14/2014 08:12 pm
Well, having 2 different systems has the big benefit of redundancy. Otherwise, we will be sending astronauts on Soyuz again for, should there be an accident that results in the system being grounded(and then an investigation, etc, etc).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 01/14/2014 08:41 pm
Well, having 2 different systems has the big benefit of redundancy. Otherwise, we will be sending astronauts on Soyuz again for, should there be an accident that results in the system being grounded(and then an investigation, etc, etc).
Did you not read where I clearly said I believe they will select 2 "different" systems. But each system would be brought on-line consecutively not concurrently as there will not be funds to do otherwise and perhaps not even that. One capsule and DC. Those are 2 Different vehicles using different rockets, no?

Besides, as much as what you say is obvious, the idea of more then one participant / provider was always about maintaining competition, hopefully resulting in innovations and efficiencies creating downward pricing pressure.

That's how NASA has always primarily justified keeping as many entrants involved for as long as possible. Competitive benefits, not redundancy.

PS: Also, the questions I listed were meant to be the questions I think NASA will be asking themselves, not necessarily what I would ask.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/14/2014 08:47 pm
Why one capsule and DC? Why not just 2 capsules?

EDIT:I will say that I think SNC is hungrier to get DC picked than Boeing is to get CST-100 picked. That's just my personal impression. But I think CST-100 is a much, much more conservative and realistic design with fewer unknown unknowns... The hybrid propulsion system being the most prominent issue, IMHO. If DC had used a conventional propulsion system from the start...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/14/2014 09:13 pm
Well, having 2 different systems has the big benefit of redundancy. Otherwise, we will be sending astronauts on Soyuz again for, should there be an accident that results in the system being grounded(and then an investigation, etc, etc).
Did you not read where I clearly said I believe they will select 2 "different" systems. But each system would be brought on-line consecutively not concurrently as there will not be funds to do otherwise and perhaps not even that. One capsule and DC. Those are 2 Different vehicles using different rockets, no?

Besides, as much as what you say is obvious, the idea of more then one participant / provider was always about maintaining competition, hopefully resulting in innovations and efficiencies creating downward pricing pressure.

That's how NASA has always primarily justified keeping as many entrants involved for as long as possible. Competitive benefits, not redundancy.

PS: Also, the questions I listed were meant to be the questions I think NASA will be asking themselves, not necessarily what I would ask.
I was not disagreeing with you, merely adding. Agree on the competition being good (which is indeed the main point).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 01/14/2014 09:17 pm
$696M for commercial report but $171M is conditional on NASA obtaining an independant cost-benefit report for commercial crew. See pages 161-162 of the bill.

Shambolic. That's all I have to say. Where's the cost-benefit report for the other programs?

To answer you would require a dip into the Space Policy section. But I think you know the answer already. They have more pork.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 01/14/2014 10:02 pm
Why one capsule and DC? Why not just 2 capsules?

EDIT:I will say that I think SNC is hungrier to get DC picked than Boeing is to get CST-100 picked. That's just my personal impression. But I think CST-100 is a much, much more conservative and realistic design with fewer unknown unknowns... The hybrid propulsion system being the most prominent issue, IMHO. If DC had used a conventional propulsion system from the start...
Yes. As much as I love DC, it does need to retire and/or mitigate much more risk then the other 2 systems. NASA has indeed said as much. And I am on the record as saying it as well. However...

As for DC being the second selection?  I think price and time to market is priority one and NASA will select accordingly between SpaceX and Boeing. I believe at which point they will then select to continue funding the DC as it offers additional mission profiles that it can use to compete, as opposed to just on price.

I suppose what I mean is once you select either Dragon or CST, why keep funding a more expensive system that doesn't really offer substantially different or greater capabilities? That leaves DC standing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/14/2014 10:08 pm
Because both CST-100 and Dragon can evolve in a very straightforward manner for BLEO missions when NASA needs them. Eventually ISS will be gone, and in its place we'll probably have some BLEO program (does anyone deny this?). Having vehicles which can service that capability makes a lot of sense for NASA. It's much harder for DC to do BLEO type missions.

EDIT:I hope DC gets its chance, I just don't think it's as good of a pick for commercial crew right now. It could be quite a good vehicle for servicing a Bigelow station or something if they get a better propulsion system (i.e. not hybrid).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 01/14/2014 10:09 pm
Well, having 2 different systems has the big benefit of redundancy. Otherwise, we will be sending astronauts on Soyuz again for, should there be an accident that results in the system being grounded(and then an investigation, etc, etc).
Did you not read where I clearly said I believe they will select 2 "different" systems. But each system would be brought on-line consecutively not concurrently as there will not be funds to do otherwise and perhaps not even that. One capsule and DC. Those are 2 Different vehicles using different rockets, no?

Besides, as much as what you say is obvious, the idea of more then one participant / provider was always about maintaining competition, hopefully resulting in innovations and efficiencies creating downward pricing pressure.

That's how NASA has always primarily justified keeping as many entrants involved for as long as possible. Competitive benefits, not redundancy.

PS: Also, the questions I listed were meant to be the questions I think NASA will be asking themselves, not necessarily what I would ask.
I was not disagreeing with you, merely adding. Agree on the competition being good (which is indeed the main point).
Well shame on me then for such a terse opening line to my response. There should be a thumbs down button for that. So, cool and I agree redundancy would be an added benefit both to NASA and the international commercial market.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 01/14/2014 10:30 pm
Because both CST-100 and Dragon can evolve in a very straightforward manner for BLEO missions when NASA needs them. Eventually ISS will be gone, and in its place we'll probably have some BLEO program (does anyone deny this?). Having vehicles which can service that capability makes a lot of sense for NASA. It's much harder for DC to do BLEO type missions.

EDIT:I hope DC gets its chance, I just don't think it's as good of a pick for commercial crew right now. It could be quite a good vehicle for servicing a Bigelow station or something if they get a better propulsion system (i.e. not hybrid).
I don't think NASA will be factoring BLEO into their decision. Not when they are currently spending billions on Orion. Also, while I like the idea of at least one CC vehicle being able to take on a future BLEO role, I don't think we need both selections to be able to do so. I  suspect there will be lots to do in LEO for a long time to come that will keep a vehicle like DC viable.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/14/2014 10:33 pm
So you think NASA won't take into account BLEO (which they're certainly heading for) but WILL take into account some sort of post-ISS LEO facility?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 01/14/2014 10:39 pm

So the ISS extension to 2024 is guaranteed? Otherwise its difficult to do a cost-benefit analysis...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 01/14/2014 10:46 pm

So the ISS extension to 2024 is guaranteed? Otherwise its difficult to do a cost-benefit analysis...
The Obama administration approved of the extension on January 9th at the International Space Exploration Forum. That does not however guarantee that the ESA and Russian partners will agree.  If they don't, I suspect it will be hard to justify CC only on the merit of ISS transport alone.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 01/14/2014 11:49 pm
So you think NASA won't take into account BLEO (which they're certainly heading for) but WILL take into account some sort of post-ISS LEO facility?
As far as I am aware, NASA has not directly listed BLEO capability as having serious weighting towards the selection criteria. So purely from a legal standpoint, heavily weighting BLEO capability after the fact would be problematic to say the least.

However, I certainly agree that it would be wise to select at least one system with that potential future capability. Whether for HSF and/or Robotics exploration.

But let's assume they will take it into account to some degree, I just don't think NASA currently rates CC BLEO capability to the point where they'll feel the need to have both selections be BLEO capable.

Lastly, I personally think LEO will offer more near future opportunities for these systems to be viable and close their business cases outside of NASA.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/15/2014 12:10 am
Look, primarily I think NASA is concerned with getting systems that work. Does anyone doubt that either SpaceX or Boeing could deliver their stated vehicle in a decent timeframe if given plenty of funding? I don't, mainly because both those companies have shown a capability to launch things to orbit, operate them in space successfully, and return them safely to Earth.

But I do doubt that Dreamchaser could mainly because of its hybrid propulsion system (though more complicated ascent aerodynamics doesn't help, either). I think they'll have to revamp that entirely before they fly orbitally. (Not that it's literally impossible, but it's going to be very unwieldy with a hybrid system...)

I think NASA is going to be conservative and probably pick both SpaceX and Boeing if they get to fund two systems. But again, it's possible that Boeing may drop CST-100 entirely if they don't get full funding (I think SpaceX will win the lion's share of funding, with another half of the funding for someone else), at which point SNC could continue along.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/15/2014 01:42 am
So the ISS extension to 2024 is guaranteed? Otherwise its difficult to do a cost-benefit analysis...
The Obama administration approved of the extension on January 9th at the International Space Exploration Forum. That does not however guarantee that the ESA and Russian partners will agree.  If they don't, I suspect it will be hard to justify CC only on the merit of ISS transport alone.

Assuming Soyuz seat price trend continues for the foreseeable future, it will be difficult if not impossible to show a CCP positive cost-benefit based purely on direct costs for ISS transportation, even if ISS is extended until 2024.  (On that basis, my rough estimate is CCP break-even somewhere beyond 2028.)

Getting to a positive cost-benefit will require including other factors, such as indirect benefits (funds retained and not sent to Russia, potential future markets, etc.), as well as the benefit from increased ISS utilization.  Then again, the requirement is for a cost-benefit analysis, not necessarily that it must demonstrate a positive cost-benefit.

That said, I think this is at least in part a response to an IG report late last year which dinged NASA for not having developed credible life-cycle cost estimates for CCP.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/15/2014 03:18 am
My understanding of the report is that the cost benefit analysis is for the life operations expectancy of ISS based on the study that NASA is currently doing on this (which is expected to be 2028).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Geron on 01/15/2014 05:02 am
Does any one remember the cots D option SpaceX was pushing for in 2008-2009? The funds requested for human conversion of dragon were I believe under $300 million total. What do you think SpaceX is spending all the extra money on?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 01/15/2014 05:12 am
Does any one remember the cots D option SpaceX was pushing for in 2008-2009? The funds requested for human conversion of dragon were I believe under $300 million total. What do you think SpaceX is spending all the extra money on?

That was a very different program. The COTS-D requirement was basically "show you can do it and we'll buy it." Here's the milestones (http://quantumg.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/how-cots-d-was-killed.html). Their plan was to add a traditional escape tower, life support and seats to essentially the same Dragon as we're seeing flying cargo now.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/15/2014 06:32 am
Commercial Crew is paying for the man rating of the vehicles as well as development of the spacecraft.  If Dream Chaser replaces the CST-100 then the cost of man rating the Atlas 5 will have to be transferred to the Dream Chaser program.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: a_langwich on 01/15/2014 07:02 am
Regarding cost justifying commercial crew, I wonder what capacity for down-mass (besides the obvious human crew) the various CC participants have?  If a vehicle had a capacity of 4-7, but was only returning 3, that would imply it has some spare capacity.

Adding the capability to return more than three people to Earth would open the possibility of a seven-man ISS rotation, which would nearly double the possible crew time dedicated to experiments.

Having the capability to return experiments in the CC vehicles as well as cargo Dragon would be an immense improvement as well.  One of the key requirements in increasing the scientific usefulness of ISS is reducing the total time required to put an experiment on ISS and retrieve the results.  Engineers can appreciate that running one test every six years is a bad way to find answers and a good way to spend the rest of your life looking (and that's even ignoring the dollar costs).  Frequent availability for mass up and down are needed for a faster cycle.

Both of those options represent immense value over Soyuz.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 01/15/2014 10:44 am
Exactly! Cost-benefit has to include all the extra value (and all hidden costs).
As I've stated multiple time, CC has to transport at least four people because it is specified to take a whole crew to the USOS (four). Since there's a base level of maintenance, that extra crew might mean as much as an extra 50% utilization, it can change our benefit significantly.
Just to make an example, let's assume that CC is 200M more expensive per year as Soyuz (4 vs 3 cre), but you only get 20% extra utilization. Then, when you do the numbers, is something like: spend 3B with Soyuz and get X utilization, or spend 3.2B (7% extra cost) on CC and get 20% more utilization. Which is an excellent value proposition.
And we didn't had to get into sending money abroad vs spendng it in the US, the recovery of lost capabilities or the potential to start a commercial market on LEO.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/15/2014 01:34 pm
There is nothing wrong with performing a cost-benefit analysis. Unfortunately, this is getting done about 5-6 years too late. Shouldn't you be looking at the costs and benefits of a program before it even starts ?

That's like taking a drive from Seattle to Orlando to visit Disney World, only to turn around once you get to Georgia because the Small Small World ride is closed for renovations.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/15/2014 01:44 pm
One problem with the report that I have is that it seems that it will analyse the developmental costs of commercial crew when factoring the costs versus Soyuz. That seems unfair, Russia isn't charging the United States for its developmental costs. Those are considered sunk costs. The analysis should look at the cost per seat for commercial crew and if it's cheaper than Soyuz, it's a good deal. If the cost per seat is significantly higher than Soyuz, the company offering these prices should be downselected.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/15/2014 01:49 pm
Commercial Crew is paying for the man rating of the vehicles as well as development of the spacecraft.  If Dream Chaser replaces the CST-100 then the cost of man rating the Atlas 5 will have to be transferred to the Dream Chaser program.

Unless DC decides to launch on the Falcon 9.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 01/15/2014 02:14 pm
My understanding of the report is that the cost benefit analysis is for the life operations expectancy of ISS based on the study that NASA is currently doing on this (which is expected to be 2028).
Do you have a reference for this date, if so, the CC program will look a lot better.  A cost-benefit analysis can have many in it things as stated in this thread which will make CC a bargain but my fear is that the powers that have called for the analysis are doing so to prevent CC from going forward.  Every year in the out-years that ISS is operating, the CC program looks better per cost per seat - including development. The four years from 2024 to 2028 will have Russian Soyuz seat costs projected at $85 million (according to posts in this thread) or an additional $1.36 billion over four years. So if CC starts operations in 2018 the equivalent costs sent to Russia would be about 3.5 billion dollars - I think we can do CC for 3.5 billion.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/15/2014 02:32 pm
Oh I am sure that certain senators will happily send money to the Russians instead of financing commercial crew, which is a thorn in their pork...
On a different note, I am wondering whether NASA might take a more gambling approach to the whole down select issue. E.g. I could see them pick Dreamchaser and CST-100, but give SpaceX a much larger commercial cargo contract this time. If I understand it correctly (and correct me if I am wrong), the crewed version of Dragon will be almost flight ready by the time their current paid milestones are fulfilled (like the abort tests). Dragon would be flying cargo missions anyway, so it gets its flight testing essentially for free (just without crew). So NASA could have three crew capable spacecraft and two LVs for the price of two, with only two being used for actual NASA crew missions. Meanwhile SpaceX can do manned missions for other clients or on their own (as they want to do that anyway). And then who knows what the future (and future contracts) brings. There might be other (non ISS) manned NASA missions that go to SpaceX and it could always serve as a sort of a backup.
Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/15/2014 02:36 pm
My understanding of the report is that the cost benefit analysis is for the life operations expectancy of ISS based on the study that NASA is currently doing on this (which is expected to be 2028).
Do you have a reference for this date, if so, the CC program will look a lot better.  A cost-benefit analysis can have many in it things as stated in this thread which will make CC a bargain but my fear is that the powers that have called for the analysis are doing so to prevent CC from going forward.  Every year in the out-years that ISS is operating, the CC program looks better per cost per seat - including development. The four years from 2024 to 2028 will have Russian Soyuz seat costs projected at $85 million (according to posts in this thread) or an additional $1.36 billion over four years. So if CC starts operations in 2018 the equivalent costs sent to Russia would be about 3.5 billion dollars - I think we can do CC for 3.5 billion.

See page 116-117 of the explanatory statement related to the FY Appropriation bill:
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-FM-B.pdf

The 2028 extension has been discussed several time by Gerst. See this link:
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=48674
Quote
At that time, the partners added that there were “no identified technical constraints to continuing ISS operations beyond the current planning horizon of 2015 to at least 2020″ and that, moreover, “the partnership is currently working to certify on-orbit elements through 2028.” The decision to maintain a permanent U.S. presence aboard the station for at least another full decade goes a significant distance in establishing some middle ground between these two dates. Meeting that target will be challenging, though not impossible. In 2010, ISS Program Manager Michael Suffredini reported that he felt comfortable that the station was structurally capable of supporting human occupants until at least the early 2020s, whilst analysis of relevant factors—including the procurement of spare parts—are expected to be completed by all ISS partners no later than 2016.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 01/15/2014 03:07 pm
Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.
It would also be illegal. Government procurement works by setting requirements and awarding contract to the best offeror. You can't leave the best offeror out bevause he "could supply it anyways".
Btw, it's not even the best way to bootstrap a commefcial LEO market. The missing supplier is space station one. If they want to really start the market, they should do something like COTS for the next National Laboratory in space for 2024-2044 and make the contract for a certain level of science utilization.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/15/2014 03:17 pm
Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.
It would also be illegal. Government procurement works by setting requirements and awarding contract to the best offeror. You can't leave the best offeror out bevause he "could supply it anyways".
Btw, it's not even the best way to bootstrap a commefcial LEO market. The missing supplier is space station one. If they want to really start the market, they should do something like COTS for the next National Laboratory in space for 2024-2044 and make the contract for a certain level of science utilization.
Looking at the discussions on this topic here and elsewhere, it is not quite clear who "the best offeror" really is.
I am sure arguments could be made for either one of them (as has been done here countless times). Also, if SpaceX got a large resupply contract instead of the crew, they might just go along (COTS was a lot less bureaucratic anyway and that might just be what they want).
I do agree that having a COTS for the next space station would be a good thing to do.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 01/15/2014 03:22 pm
The following is from HR3547 (Thanks to YG1968):
"The primary purpose of the CCP has always been to develop a national capability to
restore domestic access to the International Space Station (ISS) as quickly and safely as possible.
Currently, the ISS is scheduled to complete its mission by 2020, and NASA has no definitive
plan yet to extend the mission beyond that date. This uncertainty has a substantial impact on
planning and financial requirements in the CCP that must be addressed. To that end, the
agreement withholds from obligation a portion of CCP funds until NASA certifies that the
program has undergone an independent benefit-cost analysis that takes into consideration the
total Federal investment in the CCP and the expected operational life of the ISS. "Expected
operational life" shall be determed by NASA based on an ISS sustainability plan that includes a
comprehensive systems assessment, identification of critical functional and scientific capabilities
and long term funding projections as described in the Senate report. Benefits and costs shall be
examined in relation to current ISS crew transportation practices.

The cost-benefit analysis is directly related to ISS access not BLEO, further the analysis allows for a comprehensive assessment including scientific capabilities - thus the improved crew and science capability can be included in the analysis for the benefit to the ISS.  This option not only provides for the cost from development through operations but the added benefit of improved transportation to ISS.  When the document was written, the ISS life was to 2020, shortly after the congress and administration agreed to a 2024 extension and also in other documents (NASA Authorization ), planning is allocated for 2025 and 2030 - supporting the 2028 extension.  It's hard for me to believe that a cost-benefit analysis would not show that CC is a fantastic bargain - even at the 2024 life span, if ISS goes to 2028 it only gets better.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 01/15/2014 03:41 pm
Looking at the discussions on this topic here and elsewhere, it is not quite clear who "the best offeror" really is.
I am sure arguments could be made for either one of them (as has been done here countless times). Also, if SpaceX got a large resupply contract instead of the crew, they might just go along (COTS was a lot less bureaucratic anyway and that might just be what they want).
I do agree that having a COTS for the next space station would be a good thing to do.
Best offeror is determined by the selection comitee based on the parameters of the tender. Anything not strictly on the tender rules is object of protest. BTW there's content on this site that stongly suggest that SpaceX is the leading offeror right now. And remember that somethin like 60% of the selection criteria is price.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 01/15/2014 03:43 pm

Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.

Why does it have to fair to Spacex, the point is maximizing return for NASA
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 01/15/2014 03:45 pm

I do agree that having a COTS for the next space station would be a good thing to do.

There is no repeating of COTS.  It is done and no need for anymore.  Any future contracts will be for services.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/15/2014 03:46 pm

Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.

Why does it have to fair to Spacex, the point is maximizing return for NASA
Uhm, which was the point, I was trying to make?!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/15/2014 03:48 pm

I do agree that having a COTS for the next space station would be a good thing to do.

There is no repeating of COTS.  It is done and no need for anymore.  Any future contracts will be for services.
I was referring to a post by Baldusi, who suggested that NASA should buy services for a new commercially operated space station by taking a similar contractual approach to COTS.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/15/2014 03:52 pm
Best offeror is determined by the selection comitee based on the parameters of the tender. Anything not strictly on the tender rules is object of protest. BTW there's content on this site that stongly suggest that SpaceX is the leading offeror right now. And remember that somethin like 60% of the selection criteria is price.
I agree that SpaceX looks like the top contender (though some people here will disagree).
I do wonder though, who would protest it, if not SpaceX and if they ended up with another, equally attractive contract, why would they? Anyway, I get your point, lots of legal hurdles there. It was just fun speculation on my part, so lets not take this further than necessary.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 01/15/2014 03:54 pm

I was referring to a post my Baldusi, who suggested that NASA should buy services for a new commercially operated space station by taking a similar contractual approach to COTS.

Still wrong.  COTS was funding development of launch vehicles and cargo deliver spacecraft via SAA and it was not funding cargo services.   Services for a commercially operated space station could be done like launch services (NLS) and cargo service (CRS) contracts. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 01/15/2014 03:54 pm

Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.

Why does it have to fair to Spacex, the point is maximizing return for NASA

Are you sure this is the regulations?

Or is it that the best offer should get the contract?

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 01/15/2014 03:55 pm

Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.

Why does it have to fair to Spacex, the point is maximizing return for NASA

Are you sure this is the regulations?

Or is it that the best offer should get the contract?


It all depends on the selection criteria.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/15/2014 04:00 pm
Commercial Crew is paying for the man rating of the vehicles as well as development of the spacecraft.  If Dream Chaser replaces the CST-100 then the cost of man rating the Atlas 5 will have to be transferred to the Dream Chaser program.

Unless DC decides to launch on the Falcon 9.

Then NASA loses the operational safety of having redundant launch vehicles.  Having recently lost the ability to launch people into space I suspect NASA will not be in a hurry to repeat that embarrassment.

It should be possible to design the Dream Chaser so that it can be launched on both Atlas V and Falcon 9 LV.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 01/15/2014 04:12 pm
Commercial Crew is paying for the man rating of the vehicles as well as development of the spacecraft.  If Dream Chaser replaces the CST-100 then the cost of man rating the Atlas 5 will have to be transferred to the Dream Chaser program.

Unless DC decides to launch on the Falcon 9.

Then NASA loses the operational safety of having redundant launch vehicles.  Having recently lost the ability to launch people into space I suspect NASA will not be in a hurry to repeat that embarrassment.

It should be possible to design the Dream Chaser so that it can be launched on both Atlas V and Falcon 9 LV.
This brings up something I've been wondering about the F9v1.1.
SpaceX has always maintained that the F9 was designed and built from the beginning to be human rated. Is it considered that now? Or are there additional avionics, monitoring sensors, redundancies, etc. that will need to be added or updated for the inclusion of the LAS?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Go4TLI on 01/15/2014 04:28 pm

This brings up something I've been wondering about the F9v1.1.
SpaceX has always maintained that the F9 was designed and built from the beginning to be human rated. Is it considered that now? Or are there additional avionics, monitoring sensors, redundancies, etc. that will need to be added or updated for the inclusion of the LAS?

I hate the term "man-rated".  It is outdated and never really used correctly.  The requirements for "man-rating" are vague and nebulous. 

Man-rated should be based on applicable reliability and accepted risk via some level of redundancy in critical systems. 

Any launch vehicle with a crew vehicle on it will need some sort of avionics package that allows the booster to "talk" to the vehicle.  This is in the event emergency separation is required and triggered by the av package if monitored parameters are at the redline or trending that way quickly. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 01/15/2014 04:48 pm

This brings up something I've been wondering about the F9v1.1.
SpaceX has always maintained that the F9 was designed and built from the beginning to be human rated. Is it considered that now? Or are there additional avionics, monitoring sensors, redundancies, etc. that will need to be added or updated for the inclusion of the LAS?

I hate the term "man-rated".  It is outdated and never really used correctly.  The requirements for "man-rating" are vague and nebulous. 

Man-rated should be based on applicable reliability and accepted risk via some level of redundancy in critical systems. 

Any launch vehicle with a crew vehicle on it will need some sort of avionics package that allows the booster to "talk" to the vehicle.  This is in the event emergency separation is required and triggered by the av package if monitored parameters are at the redline or trending that way quickly.
Hmm. Well technically I used the term "human-rated". And while I appreciate your disdain for the term, there must be some HSF guidelines to all participants as to what is specifically needed for their systems to be considered adequately "rated for human occupancy". And since there are, I was wondering how close or even beyond the F9 is to those evaluations?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 01/15/2014 04:52 pm
SpaceX have repeatedly said that that F9 meets all published NASA human rating standards.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 01/15/2014 05:00 pm
SpaceX have repeatedly said that that F9 meets all published NASA human rating standards.
Yes, I know they've said that. But the key word is published, which is why they qualified their answer with it. As they should. But I remember at some point last year, that NASA was behind in clearly communicating further standards. And that each participant was supposed to get additional clarification on standards, so they can do their final proposals. So I was wondering if anyone knew exactly what they were and if F9 was still on target to meet them.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Go4TLI on 01/15/2014 05:36 pm

This brings up something I've been wondering about the F9v1.1.
SpaceX has always maintained that the F9 was designed and built from the beginning to be human rated. Is it considered that now? Or are there additional avionics, monitoring sensors, redundancies, etc. that will need to be added or updated for the inclusion of the LAS?

I hate the term "man-rated".  It is outdated and never really used correctly.  The requirements for "man-rating" are vague and nebulous. 

Man-rated should be based on applicable reliability and accepted risk via some level of redundancy in critical systems. 

Any launch vehicle with a crew vehicle on it will need some sort of avionics package that allows the booster to "talk" to the vehicle.  This is in the event emergency separation is required and triggered by the av package if monitored parameters are at the redline or trending that way quickly.
Hmm. Well technically I used the term "human-rated". And while I appreciate your disdain for the term, there must be some HSF guidelines to all participants as to what is specifically needed for their systems to be considered adequately "rated for human occupancy". And since there are, I was wondering how close or even beyond the F9 is to those evaluations?

There are but the general philosophy behind many of them are out dated.  One of the key requirements has to do with traceability and configuration management. 

While traceability is important in today's world with the influx of counterfeit EEE parts, having "paper" all the way down to the ore that was pulled from the ground is overkill. 

Some of the original requirements came from the pipeline for downlisted telemetry was only so large and certain parameters were deemed more important and needed to be monitored over others, thereby driving what was required.  That is essentially a moot point today as the pipeline for telemetry can host many parameters without much burden. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 01/15/2014 05:42 pm

This brings up something I've been wondering about the F9v1.1.
SpaceX has always maintained that the F9 was designed and built from the beginning to be human rated. Is it considered that now? Or are there additional avionics, monitoring sensors, redundancies, etc. that will need to be added or updated for the inclusion of the LAS?

I hate the term "man-rated".  It is outdated and never really used correctly.  The requirements for "man-rating" are vague and nebulous. 

Man-rated should be based on applicable reliability and accepted risk via some level of redundancy in critical systems. 

Any launch vehicle with a crew vehicle on it will need some sort of avionics package that allows the booster to "talk" to the vehicle.  This is in the event emergency separation is required and triggered by the av package if monitored parameters are at the redline or trending that way quickly.
Hmm. Well technically I used the term "human-rated". And while I appreciate your disdain for the term, there must be some HSF guidelines to all participants as to what is specifically needed for their systems to be considered adequately "rated for human occupancy". And since there are, I was wondering how close or even beyond the F9 is to those evaluations?

There are but the general philosophy behind many of them are out dated.  One of the key requirements has to do with traceability and configuration management. 

While traceability is important in today's world with the influx of counterfeit EEE parts, having "paper" all the way down to the ore that was pulled from the ground is overkill. 

Some of the original requirements came from the pipeline for downlisted telemetry was only so large and certain parameters were deemed more important and needed to be monitored over others, thereby driving what was required.  That is essentially a moot point today as the pipeline for telemetry can host many parameters without much burden.
See now, that's really interesting insight and the kind of response I was looking for. Thanks for that. I'd love to somehow see NASA's updated thinking on this and how each participant proposes to approach them. Maybe some day.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/15/2014 05:55 pm
NASA no longer uses the word human-rating because it means different things to different people. They now use the word certified. A draft of the safety regulations relating to certification was published here (the most important document is CCT-REQ-1130):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.0
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 01/15/2014 06:05 pm
NASA no longer uses the word human-rating because it means different things to different people. They now use the word certified. A draft of the safety regulations relating to certification was published here (the most important document is CCT-REQ-1130):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.0
Most excellent. Thanks. Certified it is. Sounds better anyway.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 01/15/2014 06:21 pm
NASA no longer uses the word human-rating because it means different things to different people. They now use the word certified. A draft of the safety regulations relating to certification was published here (the most important document is CCT-REQ-1130):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.0
Most excellent. Thanks. Certified it is. Sounds better anyway.

It's not like "certified" is any better. Because you have to be certified (presumably) to meet a some standard. Which puts us right back in the same boat.

I agree with Go4TLI that the term of little use. In reality and our history, the term "human rated" has in practice just meant "as safe as we can make it".
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Go4TLI on 01/15/2014 06:29 pm
NASA no longer uses the word human-rating because it means different things to different people. They now use the word certified. A draft of the safety regulations relating to certification was published here (the most important document is CCT-REQ-1130):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.0
Most excellent. Thanks. Certified it is. Sounds better anyway.

It's not like "certified" is any better. Because you have to be certified (presumably) to meet a some standard. Which puts us right back in the same boat.

I agree with Go4TLI that the term of little use. In reality and our history, the term "human rated" has in practice just meant "as safe as we can make it".

But "certifications" are all the rage in industry today.  From various ISO certs, other technical organizations, etc. 

The difference in the requirements document is that it gives a one-stop-shop for what is needed for said certification, as opposed to various out-dated documents that leave too many things questionable. 

If you look at the doc, it is based on a more sound philosophy.   
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/15/2014 06:29 pm

I was referring to a post my Baldusi, who suggested that NASA should buy services for a new commercially operated space station by taking a similar contractual approach to COTS.

Still wrong.  COTS was funding development of launch vehicles and cargo deliver spacecraft via SAA and it was not funding cargo services.   Services for a commercially operated space station could be done like launch services (NLS) and cargo service (CRS) contracts.
So you think that commercially operated space stations would not need development funding, at least to meet NASA requirements?
Anyway, I am sure baldusi was using the COTS example broadly and was not intending to mean "exactly like it".
I think it would be fair to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 01/15/2014 06:40 pm

So you think that commercially operated space stations would not need development funding, at least to meet NASA requirements?


No and no.  COTS vehicles were not designed to any NASA requirements.   If they are to be commercial, then let them funded themselves.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: WmThomas on 01/15/2014 07:03 pm
Some of you have speculated that SpaceX, being most advanced, could be left out of CCtCap with the effect that NASA will have enabled three crew vehicles, since SpaceX, it is supposed, will finish crew Dragon no matter what.

But if SpaceX is advanced enough to finish crew dragon reasonably soon, then SpaceX can just radically underbid Sierra Nevada and Boeing in their CCtCap proposal. Then it would be hard to legally justify a NASA refusal to fund SpaceX.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 01/15/2014 07:14 pm

But if SpaceX is advanced enough to finish crew dragon reasonably soon, then SpaceX can just radically underbid Sierra Nevada and Boeing in their CCtCap proposal. Then it would be hard to legally justify a NASA refusal to fund SpaceX.


Not true, if CCtCap is just to deliver astronauts to the ISS, a service, whether Spacex is ready sooner than the others has no bearing on the matter.  There is no "funding", there is just paying for the services rendered.  It all depends on what is contained in the proposals that is submitted by the 3 companieson who NASA will select.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/15/2014 07:51 pm
NASA probably won't be able to allow any of the vendors to make "certification" flights to the ISS before late 2016 / 2017 either. Everything depends on when the new docking adapter gets up to the ISS and is installed. It may be that the first flight of a crew vehicle to the ISS won't be used for crew rotation, although they do need to ensure that each vehicle can survive up to 6 months on orbit.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 01/15/2014 08:51 pm
Everything depends on when the new docking adapter gets up to the ISS and is installed.
Last I heard IDA-1 is planned to be delivered in April 2015 on SpX-7.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/07/nasa-planning-module-relocations-future-vehicles/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/15/2014 09:36 pm
But if SpaceX is advanced enough to finish crew dragon reasonably soon, then SpaceX can just radically underbid Sierra Nevada and Boeing in their CCtCap proposal. Then it would be hard to legally justify a NASA refusal to fund SpaceX.
Not true, if CCtCap is just to deliver astronauts to the ISS, a service, whether Spacex is ready sooner than the others has no bearing on the matter.  There is no "funding", there is just paying for the services rendered.  It all depends on what is contained in the proposals that is submitted by the 3 companieson who NASA will select.

But CCtCap is not just about delivering astronauts to the ISS.

CCtCap is primarily about certification, not buying ISS crew transportation services, although the CCtCap award will also include a minimum of two and up to six ISS crew flights or "post-certification missions".  The ISS crew transportation services contract is separate from, and comes after, CCtCap.

CCtCap price evaluation is based on: (1) the price for certification, which includes all DDT&E needed to get to certification, including at least one crewed flight to the ISS (not a crew rotation mission); and (2) the price of two crew service missions in alternate years.

All other things equal, a contender a with lower price for certification (e.g., due to being further ahead in DDT&E) will have a correspondingly stronger possibility of winning the award.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/15/2014 09:41 pm
Some of you have speculated that SpaceX, being most advanced, could be left out of CCtCap with the effect that NASA will have enabled three crew vehicles, since SpaceX, it is supposed, will finish crew Dragon no matter what.

But if SpaceX is advanced enough to finish crew dragon reasonably soon, then SpaceX can just radically underbid Sierra Nevada and Boeing in their CCtCap proposal. Then it would be hard to legally justify a NASA refusal to fund SpaceX.

That was just speculation and not very good one either. It would seem unlikely that SpaceX would get penalized for being more advanced than the others companies. The criteria that are set out in CCtCap do not suggest that this is a criteria that would be considered by NASA. Having said that, it is possible that SpaceX will request less money in its proposal than other companies but that would likely be a point in its favor.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/15/2014 09:55 pm
Having said that, it is possible that SpaceX will request less money in its proposal than other companies but that would likely be a point in its favor.

If SpaceX's price is lower than competitors, it is definitely to their favor.  The price  portion of the CCtCap selection evaluation is the most significant; the lower the price the better.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: R.Simko on 01/15/2014 10:57 pm
Some of you have speculated that SpaceX, being most advanced, could be left out of CCtCap with the effect that NASA will have enabled three crew vehicles, since SpaceX, it is supposed, will finish crew Dragon no matter what.

But if SpaceX is advanced enough to finish crew dragon reasonably soon, then SpaceX can just radically underbid Sierra Nevada and Boeing in their CCtCap proposal. Then it would be hard to legally justify a NASA refusal to fund SpaceX.

That was just speculation and not very good one either. It would seem unlikely that SpaceX would get penalized for being more advanced than the others companies. The criteria that are set out in CCtCap do not suggest that this is a criteria that would be considered by NASA. Having said that, it is possible that SpaceX will request less money in its proposal than other companies but that would likely be a point in its favor.

Is the criteria for CCTCaP public knowledge?  If it is, could you, or someone else, list the basic criteria and how much each item is weighted?

For example:
1.  Cost 40%
2.  Date ready 20%

Thanks.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/15/2014 11:46 pm
Is the criteria for CCTCaP public knowledge?  If it is, could you, or someone else, list the basic criteria and how much each item is weighted?

For example:
1.  Cost 40%
2.  Date ready 20%

Thanks.

See Section M of the attached document (pages 158 to 168). The table of contents summarizes the criteria that will be used and are as follows:

Quote from: Table of Contents
SECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD ........................................................ 158
M.1 SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS—GENERAL............................... 158
M.2 MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR........................................................................................ 159
I. Technical, Crew Safety and Mission Assurance Subfactor.....................................................................160
II. Management Approach Subfactor ...163
III. Small Business Utilization Subfactor .................................................................................................165
M.3 PRICE FACTOR ... 166
M.4 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR.......................................................................................... 167

See also this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32412.msg1121659#msg1121659
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/16/2014 06:30 am
Since it will be the world's biggest rocket the SLS it will also be the world's most expensive rocket.

In a couple of years Falcon Heavy will be the world's biggest rocket without being the world's most expensive rocket.  SLS is expensive not just because it's big.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 01/16/2014 02:08 pm
Since it will be the world's biggest rocket the SLS it will also be the world's most expensive rocket.

In a couple of years Falcon Heavy will be the world's biggest rocket without being the world's most expensive rocket.  SLS is expensive not just because it's big.

Why take one sentence someone said 5 pages back just to split hairs? Being uniquely large is a big component of SLS' cost and unsuitability per economics for ISS delivery.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/16/2014 02:33 pm
Since it will be the world's biggest rocket the SLS it will also be the world's most expensive rocket.

In a couple of years Falcon Heavy will be the world's biggest rocket without being the world's most expensive rocket.  SLS is expensive not just because it's big.

Why take one sentence someone said 5 pages back just to split hairs? Being uniquely large is a big component of SLS' cost and unsuitability per economics for ISS delivery.

Will Falcon Heavy really be the world's biggest rocket ?

Each core on a Delta is 5 meters where the Falcon is only 3.6 meters in diameter. And Wikipedia says that Delta can be 72 meters tall, also eclipsing Falcon (68.4) by several meters.

Sorry, FH failed the tale of the tape.


Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Go4TLI on 01/16/2014 02:36 pm

All other things equal, a contender a with lower price for certification (e.g., due to being further ahead in DDT&E) will have a correspondingly stronger possibility of winning the award.

Not necessarily.  While I suspect DDT&E will play a factor, there are certainly other things to consider.  A couple that immediately come to mind...  One is what capabilities will be offered and provided with said vehicle?  The other of course is what is the cost once the integrated vehicle comes online and is certified?

You will see fairly negligible differences between flying once a year and twice a year because the real cost is keeping the integrated vehicle sustained and viable.   
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jg on 01/16/2014 03:21 pm
Since it will be the world's biggest rocket the SLS it will also be the world's most expensive rocket.

In a couple of years Falcon Heavy will be the world's biggest rocket without being the world's most expensive rocket.  SLS is expensive not just because it's big.

Why take one sentence someone said 5 pages back just to split hairs? Being uniquely large is a big component of SLS' cost and unsuitability per economics for ISS delivery.

Will Falcon Heavy really be the world's biggest rocket ?

Each core on a Delta is 5 meters where the Falcon is only 3.6 meters in diameter. And Wikipedia says that Delta can be 72 meters tall, also eclipsing Falcon (68.4) by several meters.

Sorry, FH failed the tale of the tape.

Biggest by thrust/LEO payload.  KeroLox is much denser than LH2LOX.  The "big" thing about LH2 is it's density is so low (about 1/10 of kerosene).

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/16/2014 03:33 pm

Biggest by thrust/LEO payload.  KeroLox is much denser than LH2LOX.  The "big" thing about LH2 is it's density is so low (about 1/10 of kerosene).

This is off-topic, but he just said "Biggest".
And neither FH or DIV-H will be carrying humans during CCiCap or CCtCap.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: R.Simko on 01/16/2014 04:26 pm
Is the criteria for CCTCaP public knowledge?  If it is, could you, or someone else, list the basic criteria and how much each item is weighted?

For example:
1.  Cost 40%
2.  Date ready 20%

Thanks.



See Section M of the attached document (pages 158 to 168). The table of contents summarizes the criteria that will be used and are as follows:

Quote from: Table of Contents
SECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD ........................................................ 158
M.1 SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS—GENERAL............................... 158
M.2 MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR........................................................................................ 159
I. Technical, Crew Safety and Mission Assurance Subfactor.....................................................................160
II. Management Approach Subfactor ...163
III. Small Business Utilization Subfactor .................................................................................................165
M.3 PRICE FACTOR ... 166
M.4 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR.......................................................................................... 167

See also this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32412.msg1121659#msg1121659

Thanks YG for your assistance.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/17/2014 01:56 am
All other things equal, a contender a with lower price for certification (e.g., due to being further ahead in DDT&E) will have a correspondingly stronger possibility of winning the award.
Not necessarily.  While I suspect DDT&E will play a factor, there are certainly other things to consider.  A couple that immediately come to mind...  One is what capabilities will be offered and provided with said vehicle?  The other of course is what is the cost once the integrated vehicle comes online and is certified?

You will see fairly negligible differences between flying once a year and twice a year because the real cost is keeping the integrated vehicle sustained and viable.   

Agree, and as mentioned, "all other things equal".  All other things equal, and assuming NASA thinks they are relevant, the system with greater inherent capabilities wins.*  (Inherent being part of the package and included in the price, not potential.)  All other things equal, the lowest price wins. 

The price evaluation includes DDT&E/certification, special studies, and representative post-certification mission pricing for one mission each each year for three years); those prices become binding on CCtCap contract award.  Although not included in the price evaluation, there is also a price sheet for quantity 1-4 missions per year for up to five years.  While some of that information appears to be optional (?), those prices also become binding on contract award.

Relative importance of evaluation factors:
Quote from: CCtCap RFP para M.1(e)
Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price. The Price factor is more important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance.


* Added in the final RFP.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 01/17/2014 05:50 am
Adding the capability to return more than three people to Earth would open the possibility of a seven-man ISS rotation, which would nearly double the possible crew time dedicated to experiments.
It's not going to happen. The Russians wouldn't abandon Soyuz/PPTS (which is baselined for four crew members).

As I've stated multiple time, CC has to transport at least four people because it is specified to take a whole crew to the USOS (four). Since there's a base level of maintenance, that extra crew might mean as much as an extra 50% utilization, it can change our benefit significantly.
There's a good chart on slide 10 of this presentation regarding that.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/20131210_ISS_NAC_FINAL_TAGGED.pdf
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/18/2014 01:45 am
There's a good chart on slide 10 of this presentation regarding that.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/20131210_ISS_NAC_FINAL_TAGGED.pdf

Thanks manboy.  A note of caution about that chart (I think?) ... AFAICT, the numbers and graph represents an increase in crew time for HRP (NASA's Human Research Program), not crew time available for other, e.g., CASIS research.

Eyeballing the chart suggests that HRP time increases linearly with crew size.  I would hope and expect the time available for other research would increase non-linearly with crew size.  E.g., O&M activities remain relatively constant, so additional crew members would allow a correspondingly greater fraction of their time to other research.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/18/2014 03:16 pm
Relative importance of evaluation factors:
Quote from: CCtCap RFP para M.1(e)
Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price. The Price factor is more important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance.

* Added in the final RFP.

Good find. Here is what ASAP had to say about this addition (on page 15 of their annual report):

Quote from: ASAP
Many within the community of interest worry that NASA is being perceived as sending a message that cost outranks safety in the CCP RFP. The RFP’s Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors in Section M conveys: “Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price. The Price factor is more important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance.”

http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2013_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf

My personal view is that this criticism is non-sense. In order to be certified, your spacecraft and LV must be safe in the first place. So all of the proposals should be safe once they are completed. Safety has often been used as an excuse to favour traditional space contractors on the basis that they that have more history (e.g., it was the justification for maintining Ares I and not funding commercial crew prior to the Augustine report). But if safety and prior history was the overridding criteria, no new entrants would ever be allowed to compete. NASA got it right this time. Safety should not be used as an excuse to maintain existing relationships with traditional NASA contractors.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/18/2014 04:31 pm
Cost is an important safety consideration. Safety is strongly related to flight rate and flight history, both of which are ultimately inversely related to price.

For the same overall budget, the cheaper option is often safer, since you can afford more and earlier flight tests.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/18/2014 08:24 pm
There seems to be lots quotes regarding seat prices but not cost of flight.
Does NASA buy seats or lease/pay for the whole capsule on CC flights?.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/18/2014 10:01 pm
There seems to be lots quotes regarding seat prices but not cost of flight.
Does NASA buy seats or lease/pay for the whole capsule on CC flights?.
Presumably the latter as the CCtCap RFP pricing is based on per mission not per seat.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 01/18/2014 10:16 pm
There seems to be lots quotes regarding seat prices but not cost of flight.
Does NASA buy seats or lease/pay for the whole capsule on CC flights?.
Presumably the latter as the CCtCap RFP pricing is based on per mission not per seat.

At least for now the commercial company retains ownership of the spacecraft.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/18/2014 10:53 pm
Exactly! Cost-benefit has to include all the extra value (and all hidden costs).

I have posted on this before and have been revisiting my earlier (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29583.msg939788#msg939788) attempts at a rough cost-benefit analysis.  One of the big unkowns was the increase in usable crew time for research with a fourth USOS crew member.  NASA's Efforts to Maximize Research on the International Space Station (http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY13/IG-13-019.pdf), NASA IG, July 2013, states "According to the ISS Program Office, a seventh crew member could potentially add about 33 hours per week to the current amount of crew time devoted to research – a 94 percent increase."  Using what I think are conservative assumptions, a crude estimate of CCP/CTS cost-benefit is shown below.  Many details missing; suggestions welcome.

                                  Soyuz          CTS
Crew size (USOS)                      3            4
Crew usable hr/wk                    42 [1]       75
Crew transport $/seat              $70M [2]     $80M
Crew consumables $/kg              $60K         $60K
Crew consumables kg/crew/day        4.7          4.7
Crew variable cost $/yr          $0.73B       $1.05B
ISS fixed cost $/yr [3]          $2.50B       $2.50B
Total cost $/yr                  $3.23B       $3.55B
----------------------------------------------------
Net cost $/yr                                 $0.32B
Net benefit $/yr                              $1.24B

[1] Latest projections, not the IG report baseline of 35hr/wk.
[2] Souyz 2016-2017 average price.
[3] Some estimates put it closer to $3B/yr; I tried to factor variable costs out of that.

edit: clarify USOS crew size.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/18/2014 11:13 pm
A few comments on your calculations:

1) You would also have to factor in cargo. Commercial crew spacecrafts will use the empty seats to bring extra cargo to and from the ISS. Soyuz brings very little cargo. You could use the price of CRS to figure out how nuch that extra cargo is worth.

2) How do you get $80M per seat for CTS?

3) You have to factor in the development cost of commercial crew.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/19/2014 12:21 am
A few comments on your calculations:

1) You would also have to factor in cargo. Commercial crew spacecrafts will use the empty seats to bring extra cargo to and from the ISS. Soyuz bring very little cargo. You could use the price of CRS to figure out how nuch that extra cargo is worth.

2) How do you get $80 for CTS?

3) You have to factor in the development cost of commercial crew.

Thanks; good comments and suggestions.

1) Yes, but the problem is coming up with a credible estimate.  Cargo is generally going to fall into three buckets: (1) basic crew variable; (2) ISS operations and maintenance (O&M); and (3) research.  I've tried to account for (1); (2) is largely an unknown and I've lumped that into ISS fixed costs; (3) costs will presumably scale up with greater resarch, but I have not found a credible source as to how to relate those costs to increased research activity.  If you have ideas on how to divvy up those costs and relate them, I'll be happy to incorporate them.

2) $80M/seat is a figure Gerst mentioned in Congressional testimony a few years ago in response to a question as to how much they were budgeting.  I can't find a cite at the moment (I only remember Holy Cow! That sounds high!), but figured it was reasonably conservative for this exercise.  If you have a better number in mind, I can easily update the figures.

3) Agree, but that bears primarily on the payoff period and to answer the question: Is the investment in CC worth it before ISS splashes?  I would love to have some credible numbers on what it will take to finish beyond the ~$1.5B for CCDev+CCiCap.  As I've opined before (based on more optimistic cost-benefit), assuming it takes an additional $1.5-2.5B to finish, the payoff is 2-3 years.  However, that was at best a guess.  If you have a number in mind, I can easily plug it in to determine the payoff period.

Beyond those, there are a whole host of other factors that might be considered; for example:
a) Additional benefits of retaining spending within the US.
b) Additional benefits of not sending NASA crew to Russia.
c) Additional costs for crew such as ground support and training.
d) Additional costs for ISS O&M as it ages.
e) Additional costs due to increased research activity.
f) ...

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: WmThomas on 01/19/2014 12:28 am
Thanks, Jim.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/19/2014 02:33 am
A few comments on your calculations:

1) You would also have to factor in cargo. Commercial crew spacecrafts will use the empty seats to bring extra cargo to and from the ISS. Soyuz bring very little cargo. You could use the price of CRS to figure out how nuch that extra cargo is worth.

2) How do you get $80 for CTS?

3) You have to factor in the development cost of commercial crew.

Thanks; good comments and suggestions.

1) Yes, but the problem is coming up with a credible estimate.  Cargo is generally going to fall into three buckets: (1) basic crew variable; (2) ISS operations and maintenance (O&M); and (3) research.  I've tried to account for (1); (2) is largely an unknown and I've lumped that into ISS fixed costs; (3) costs will presumably scale up with greater resarch, but I have not found a credible source as to how to relate those costs to increased research activity.  If you have ideas on how to divvy up those costs and relate them, I'll be happy to incorporate them.

2) $80M/seat is a figure Gerst mentioned in Congressional testimony a few years ago in response to a question as to how much they were budgeting.  I can't find a cite at the moment (I only remember Holy Cow! That sounds high!), but figured it was reasonably conservative for this exercise.  If you have a better number in mind, I can easily update the figures.

3) Agree, but that bears primarily on the payoff period and to answer the question: Is the investment in CC worth it before ISS splashes?  I would love to have some credible numbers on what it will take to finish beyond the ~$1.5B for CCDev+CCiCap.  As I've opined before (based on more optimistic cost-benefit), assuming it takes an additional $1.5-2.5B to finish, the payoff is 2-3 years.  However, that was at best a guess.  If you have a number in mind, I can easily plug it in to determine the payoff period.

Beyond those, there are a whole host of other factors that might be considered; for example:
a) Additional benefits of retaining spending within the US.
b) Additional benefits of not sending NASA crew to Russia.
c) Additional costs for crew such as ground support and training.
d) Additional costs for ISS O&M as it ages.
e) Additional costs due to increased research activity.
f) ...

I have to admit I haven't dugged into your estimates. So I don't understand them fully. For price per seat, I would use Bigelow's number for SpaceX $26.5M x 6 = $160M for a Dragonrider. If you want it per seat, you would then get $40M (160M divided by 4 seats). But it's actually less than that because part of the spacecraft will be used for cargo. For cargo, I would assume that each spacecraft carries 3 (empty seats) x 100 kg and use the CRS price to determine how much that is worth. Incidentally, I think that Gerst said that they had budgeted about $480M (8 seats x $60 M) by using the Soyuz prices per seat at that time.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/19/2014 03:04 am
If NASA are buying seats in Dragon do they buy 2 seats for passengers or 4 ie crew + passengers. If they are leasing whole why not use all 7 seats,  transport is biggest cost of placing somebody in ISS.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/19/2014 04:00 am
If NASA are buying seats in Dragon do they buy 2 seats for passengers or 4 ie crew + passengers. If they are leasing whole why not use all 7 seats,  transport is biggest cost of placing somebody in ISS.

NASA only needs 4 astronauts on each flight. Each astronaut stays for at least 6 months.  There is only the budget for 6 or 7 astronauts on ISS. Gerst said that they weren't sure if they had the budget for a 7th astronaut.

Since the retirement of Shuttle, there is no longer any short term visits to the ISS. What makes short term visits difficult is that the arriving US spacecraft will also serve as a lifeboat for six months. So once you get to the ISS, the next U.S. ride down is 6 months later.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/19/2014 05:38 am
If NASA are buying seats in Dragon do they buy 2 seats for passengers or 4 ie crew + passengers. If they are leasing whole why not use all 7 seats,  transport is biggest cost of placing somebody in ISS.

NASA only needs 4 astronauts on each flight. Each astronaut stays for at least 6 months.  There is only the budget for 6 or 7 astronauts on ISS. Gerst said that they weren't sure if they had the budget for a 7th astronaut.

Since the retirement of Shuttle, there is no longer any short term visits to the ISS. What makes short term visits difficult is that the arriving US spacecraft will also serve as a lifeboat for six months. So once you get to the ISS, the next U.S. ride down is 6 months later.

But the replacement crew arrives before the old crew departs.  The overlap time is the time short-term visitors can stay.  They arrive on the new vehicle and go back on the vehicle that has been there for six months.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/19/2014 06:35 am
If NASA are buying seats in Dragon do they buy 2 seats for passengers or 4 ie crew + passengers. If they are leasing whole why not use all 7 seats,  transport is biggest cost of placing somebody in ISS.

NASA only needs 4 astronauts on each flight. Each astronaut stays for at least 6 months.  There is only the budget for 6 or 7 astronauts on ISS. Gerst said that they weren't sure if they had the budget for a 7th astronaut.

Since the retirement of Shuttle, there is no longer any short term visits to the ISS. What makes short term visits difficult is that the arriving US spacecraft will also serve as a lifeboat for six months. So once you get to the ISS, the next U.S. ride down is 6 months later.

But the replacement crew arrives before the old crew departs.  The overlap time is the time short-term visitors can stay.  They arrive on the new vehicle and go back on the vehicle that has been there for six months.

Thanks yg1968 for update.

So the issue is more of how many astronauts the ISS can support. If there is a Soyuz(3) and Dragon(7) present at one time then 10 maybe to much for the station.  If the overlap was 2 Dragons then we a looking at 14 (7+7) which is definitely too many for the station.  The only situation where spares seats could be used for short-term visitors(tourists) is if there is Dragon crew of 4 present with no Soyuz. Even then we are looking at 4+4+ upto 3 visitors. 11 maybe OK for a few days assuming everything goes to plan and return Dragon's flight is not delayed.

I'm now starting to see the reason for limiting seats to 4 per flight.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/19/2014 06:36 am
10 or whatever is fine for short durations. It does increase consumables use, though.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 01/19/2014 07:01 am


Thanks yg1968 for update.

So the issue is more of how many astronauts the ISS can support. If there is a Soyuz(3) and Dragon(7) present at one time then 10 maybe to much for the station.  If the overlap was 2 Dragons then we a looking at 14 (7+7) which is definitely too many for the station.  The only situation where spares seats could be used for short-term visitors(tourists) is if there is Dragon crew of 4 present with no Soyuz. Even then we are looking at 4+4+ upto 3 visitors. 11 maybe OK for a few days assuming everything goes to plan and return Dragon's flight is not delayed.

I'm now starting to see the reason for limiting seats to 4 per flight.

13 People have stayed at the station short term but it takes extra consumables and they rode on the Shuttle. The commercail crew craft and Soyuz don't use the same docking ports and they are planning to have 2 for CCREW craft. The bigger problem is that they are planning to rotate the whole NASA crew at once(i.e. Arrive with 4, depart with 4 on the same spacecraft that launched arrive with 4 more crew).

The station's normal capcaity is 7 but it has a surge capacity of 14(i.e. need extra supplies).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/19/2014 08:34 am
But the replacement crew arrives before the old crew departs.  The overlap time is the time short-term visitors can stay.  They arrive on the new vehicle and go back on the vehicle that has been there for six months.

That would be direct handover (new crew arrives before old crew leaves).  Last public information shows indirect handover (old crew leaves before new crew arrives).  Indirect handover would not allow for short term visitors without additional flights.  From NASA planning ISS module relocations to support future crew vehicles (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/07/nasa-planning-module-relocations-future-vehicles/), NASASpaceFlight.com, July 2013:
Quote
However, the FPIP chart shows that, under current planning, only one commercial crew vehicle will ever be docked to the ISS at any one time, since one crew vehicle will return home at the end of its 6-month ISS stay prior to the launch of another crew vehicle, in what is known as an “indirect handover”.
Note that would also implies at least one US crew continuing to ride on Soyuz in order to ensure the US segment always has at least one US crew present, and in turn one Russian crew riding on the US crew vehicle.

So the issue is more of how many astronauts the ISS can support. If there is a Soyuz(3) and Dragon(7) present at one time then 10 maybe to much for the station.  If the overlap was 2 Dragons then we a looking at 14 (7+7) which is definitely too many for the station.  The only situation where spares seats could be used for short-term visitors(tourists) is if there is Dragon crew of 4 present with no Soyuz. Even then we are looking at 4+4+ upto 3 visitors. 11 maybe OK for a few days assuming everything goes to plan and return Dragon's flight is not delayed.

See above.  Less a matter of how many people ISS can support and more dependent on transportation and direct vs. indirect handover.  Until something changes, the only people flying will be ISS crew increments; no short term visitors.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 01/19/2014 10:07 am


Thanks yg1968 for update.

So the issue is more of how many astronauts the ISS can support. If there is a Soyuz(3) and Dragon(7) present at one time then 10 maybe to much for the station.  If the overlap was 2 Dragons then we a looking at 14 (7+7) which is definitely too many for the station.  The only situation where spares seats could be used for short-term visitors(tourists) is if there is Dragon crew of 4 present with no Soyuz. Even then we are looking at 4+4+ upto 3 visitors. 11 maybe OK for a few days assuming everything goes to plan and return Dragon's flight is not delayed.

I'm now starting to see the reason for limiting seats to 4 per flight.

13 People have stayed at the station short term but it takes extra consumables and they rode on the Shuttle.

Didn't they also use the Shuttle's accommodation, eg for sleeping?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 01/19/2014 12:55 pm
10 or whatever is fine for short durations. It does increase consumables use, though.

Shuttle routinely arrived with 7 crew. For the duration of Shuttle's visit, ISS hosted 10.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/19/2014 02:33 pm
But the replacement crew arrives before the old crew departs.  The overlap time is the time short-term visitors can stay.  They arrive on the new vehicle and go back on the vehicle that has been there for six months.

That would be direct handover (new crew arrives before old crew leaves).  Last public information shows indirect handover (old crew leaves before new crew arrives).  Indirect handover would not allow for short term visitors without additional flights.  From NASA planning ISS module relocations to support future crew vehicles (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/07/nasa-planning-module-relocations-future-vehicles/), NASASpaceFlight.com, July 2013:
Quote
However, the FPIP chart shows that, under current planning, only one commercial crew vehicle will ever be docked to the ISS at any one time, since one crew vehicle will return home at the end of its 6-month ISS stay prior to the launch of another crew vehicle, in what is known as an “indirect handover”.
Note that would also implies at least one US crew continuing to ride on Soyuz in order to ensure the US segment always has at least one US crew present, and in turn one Russian crew riding on the US crew vehicle.

So the issue is more of how many astronauts the ISS can support. If there is a Soyuz(3) and Dragon(7) present at one time then 10 maybe to much for the station.  If the overlap was 2 Dragons then we a looking at 14 (7+7) which is definitely too many for the station.  The only situation where spares seats could be used for short-term visitors(tourists) is if there is Dragon crew of 4 present with no Soyuz. Even then we are looking at 4+4+ upto 3 visitors. 11 maybe OK for a few days assuming everything goes to plan and return Dragon's flight is not delayed.

See above.  Less a matter of how many people ISS can support and more dependent on transportation and direct vs. indirect handover.  Until something changes, the only people flying will be ISS crew increments; no short term visitors.

On this issue, McAlister said that it was up to the commercial crew provider to decide whether they wanted to use a rental or taxi system. A taxi system implies a short term visit for the pilot. McAlister admitted that a taxi system would be difficult to implement if the commercial crew provider also provides the lifeboat function. 

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/mcalister-discusses-commercial-crew-certification/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 01/19/2014 02:50 pm
On this issue, McAlister said that it was up to crew providers whether they wanted to use a rental or taxi system. A taxi system implies a short term visit for the pilot. McAlister admitted that a taxi system would be difficult if the commercial crew providers also provides the lifeboat function. 

Originally there was to be an X-38 CRV docked at all times to the ISS to provide on-demand safe haven or emergency crew return for a full ISS crew compliment. This was in addition to the visiting Soyuz and Shuttle spacecraft. If the CRV had come to full fruition short term visits to ISS could have been the norm. It had sufficient cross range capability that if necessary the crew could abandon station at any point in its orbit and return to almost any runway in the world within a wide swath under the ISS orbital path. It would be forward thinking (perhaps wishful thinking?) if NASA were to contract an SN DreamChaser spacecraft to fill this roll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Return_Vehicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Return_Vehicle)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 01/19/2014 02:51 pm
It had sufficient cross range capability that if necessary the crew could abandon station at any point in its orbit and return to almost any runway in the world

X-38 didn't use a runway
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 01/19/2014 02:54 pm
It had sufficient cross range capability that if necessary the crew could abandon station at any point in its orbit and return to almost any runway in the world

X-38 didn't use a runway

COULD HAVE, I said. I know it didn't need a runway. It could have set down on almost any sufficiently large open space, using its parafoil landing system. I said what I did specifically to lead into the DreamChaser comment, which does need a runway.

An operational CRV would have targeted a runway as its first choice, simply because of the emergency services available there. Lacking one, any large open space would have sufficed.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/19/2014 05:09 pm
On this issue, McAlister said that it was up to the commercial crew provider to decide whether they wanted to use a rental or taxi system. A taxi system implies a short term visit for the pilot. McAlister admitted that a taxi system would be difficult to implement if the commercial crew provider also provides the lifeboat function. 

Understood, but I think it's safe to say that the taxi model is dead without direct handover or additional flights beyond those required for normal ISS crew rotation.  Given the current path, I also question whether the taxi model will ever be needed or justified for normal ISS crew rotation, as the spacecraft crew is essentially dead weight.  Maybe in the future if there are additional flights to ferry short term ISS crew, or where the spacecraft crew are also seconded as station crew, the taxi model may make sense.

That IMHO obtains in part from current FAA regulations, which require that spacecraft crew be employees or contractors of the licensee* (the provider, such as Boeing, SpaceX, or SNC).  However, non-crew may perform crew tasks in an emergency; the FAA has stated they have made provisions for such.  In a CTS rental car model, all ISS crew would thus be considered non-crew (spaceflight participants).  The exception would be if the spacecraft crew is also seconded as ISS crew.  E.g., Boeing, SpaceX or SNC employee or contractor as spacecraft crew are also contracted by NASA as ISS crew.

In short, it appears that the need for spacecraft crew is being displaced by remote operation, on-board autonomous systems, or a combination.  The benefit of a taxi model would presumably be reduced emergency training requirements for non-crew.


* FAA definitions:
Quote from: FAA CFR Chapter III
Crew means any employee or independent contractor of a licensee, transferee, or permittee, or of a contractor or subcontractor of a licensee, transferee, or permittee, who performs activities in the courseof that employment or contract directly relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of or in a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle that carries human beings. A crew consists of flight crew and any remote operator.
...
Space flight participant means an individual, who is not crew, carried aboard a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 01/19/2014 09:36 pm
10 or whatever is fine for short durations. It does increase consumables use, though.

Shuttle routinely arrived with 7 crew. For the duration of Shuttle's visit, ISS hosted 10.
For three missions there were even thirteen aboard.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/20/2014 05:00 am
On this issue, McAlister said that it was up to crew providers whether they wanted to use a rental or taxi system. A taxi system implies a short term visit for the pilot. McAlister admitted that a taxi system would be difficult if the commercial crew providers also provides the lifeboat function. 

Originally there was to be an X-38 CRV docked at all times to the ISS to provide on-demand safe haven or emergency crew return for a full ISS crew compliment. This was in addition to the visiting Soyuz and Shuttle spacecraft. If the CRV had come to full fruition short term visits to ISS could have been the norm. It had sufficient cross range capability that if necessary the crew could abandon station at any point in its orbit and return to almost any runway in the world within a wide swath under the ISS orbital path. It would be forward thinking (perhaps wishful thinking?) if NASA were to contract an SN DreamChaser spacecraft to fill this roll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Return_Vehicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Return_Vehicle)

If NASA were to have a crew return vehicle at this point, it would only make sense if it were one of the CCtCap vehicles.  So, if DreamChaser is one of the CCtCap vehicles, another copy could serve as a dedicated lifeboat.  Dragon and CST-100 could do it equally well if they were a CCtCap vehicle.  What would not make sense would be to use a different vehicle for a lifeboat than one of the CCtCap vehicles.  They were only contemplating that with X-38 because a shuttle orbiter was far too big and expensive to leave up there as a lifeboat.

Anyway, there's no indication they plan to have a dedicated lifeboat instead of just continuing with the plan to have the vehicle that brought the crew up stay there as their lifeboat.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jcc on 01/20/2014 11:30 am
Isn't there also the concern about the longevity on orbit of a "lifeboat"? If they rotate out the crew vehicles that is not an issue, but leaving a vehicle there for several years and expecting it to work is risky.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/20/2014 08:00 pm
Isn't there also the concern about the longevity on orbit of a "lifeboat"? If they rotate out the crew vehicles that is not an issue, but leaving a vehicle there for several years and expecting it to work is risky.

Yes, absolutely, and I assume that's why the current plan is to have the crew use the vehicle they took up as a lifeboat during their stay, then bring it back down.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/20/2014 10:21 pm
Isn't there also the concern about the longevity on orbit of a "lifeboat"? If they rotate out the crew vehicles that is not an issue, but leaving a vehicle there for several years and expecting it to work is risky.
Yes, absolutely, and I assume that's why the current plan is to have the crew use the vehicle they took up as a lifeboat during their stay, then bring it back down.

Yes; CTS requirement is minimum life of 210 days on-station.  Not to mention something like a CRV would occupy a docking port.  Only two will be available for the foreseeable future on the USOS side, and IIRC nominal rule is one remain unoccupied in case there is a problem with the other.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 01/20/2014 11:31 pm
Isn't there also the concern about the longevity on orbit of a "lifeboat"? If they rotate out the crew vehicles that is not an issue, but leaving a vehicle there for several years and expecting it to work is risky.
Yes, absolutely, and I assume that's why the current plan is to have the crew use the vehicle they took up as a lifeboat during their stay, then bring it back down.

Yes; CTS requirement is minimum life of 210 days on-station.  Not to mention something like a CRV would occupy a docking port.  Only two will be available for the foreseeable future on the USOS side, and IIRC nominal rule is one remain unoccupied in case there is a problem with the other.

There would be no need to leave a lifeboat docked there for "years". Just have that vehicle in the rotation schedule. That way there is always a "new" lifeboat docked.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/20/2014 11:42 pm
Isn't there also the concern about the longevity on orbit of a "lifeboat"? If they rotate out the crew vehicles that is not an issue, but leaving a vehicle there for several years and expecting it to work is risky.
Yes, absolutely, and I assume that's why the current plan is to have the crew use the vehicle they took up as a lifeboat during their stay, then bring it back down.

Yes; CTS requirement is minimum life of 210 days on-station.  Not to mention something like a CRV would occupy a docking port.  Only two will be available for the foreseeable future on the USOS side, and IIRC nominal rule is one remain unoccupied in case there is a problem with the other.

There would be no need to leave a lifeboat docked there for "years". Just have that vehicle in the rotation schedule. That way there is always a "new" lifeboat docked.

NASA only wants one CTS contractor starting in 2017. So SNC would have to have edge out SpaceX for the CTS contract.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 01/21/2014 12:04 am
Isn't there also the concern about the longevity on orbit of a "lifeboat"? If they rotate out the crew vehicles that is not an issue, but leaving a vehicle there for several years and expecting it to work is risky.
Yes, absolutely, and I assume that's why the current plan is to have the crew use the vehicle they took up as a lifeboat during their stay, then bring it back down.

Yes; CTS requirement is minimum life of 210 days on-station.  Not to mention something like a CRV would occupy a docking port.  Only two will be available for the foreseeable future on the USOS side, and IIRC nominal rule is one remain unoccupied in case there is a problem with the other.

There would be no need to leave a lifeboat docked there for "years". Just have that vehicle in the rotation schedule. That way there is always a "new" lifeboat docked.

NASA only wants one CTS contractor starting in 2017. So SNC would have to have edge out SpaceX for the CTS contract.

NASA has not downselected to anybody yet. That statement is your personal opinion and should be so labeled.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/21/2014 12:27 am
NASA only wants one CTS contractor starting in 2017. So SNC would have to have edge out SpaceX for the CTS contract.

Did you mean "NASA only wants one CCtCap awardee starting flights in 2017.  So SNC would have to edge out SpaceX for the CCtCap contract."?

Although the NASA pre-solicitation conference briefing shows a notional CTS contract award in FY2016, it also shows first flight under CTS in FY2019.  I'd bet CTS solicition and award slip quite a bit.

The post-certification missions which nominally begin in 2018 are under CCtCap (not CTS).  As stated in the pricing guideline (Attachment L-04 Price Template - CCtCap.xlsx sheet CLIN 002-Post Cert. Mission):
Quote
Offerors are to consider their CTS lead time when inputting their data above.  The CCtCap contract is anticipated to conclude at the end of 2020.
Note that all other CCtCap pricing information is also requested through 2020.

In short, the CCtCap award is likely to have significant implications for who is providing ISS crew services through CY2020.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/21/2014 01:07 am
NASA has not downselected to anybody yet. That statement is your personal opinion and should be so labeled.

I think maybe the term down-select is being tossed about too freely.  Nit: NASA can not and will not down-select awardees for CCtCap.  Under FAR, CCtCap is open to any qualified bidder, and not a down-select from a predefined field.  That said, some culling of the field is likely given past and projected CCP funding constraints.

The operative question is: Who gets selected to provide ISS crew services under CCtCap?  In particular, will there be sufficient funds for 1, 2 or ...?  Given a projected demand of two ISS crew missions per year, the justification for funding at least one provider seems clear; for two questionable; for three extremely dubious.

Given that, it appears that there will be one front-runner who will be awarded sufficient funds to see CCtCap through to providing ISS crew services; and another awarded reduced funds which, while not sufficient to provide ISS crew services, provides a backup--or at least an incentive to the front-runner to keep their eye on the ball.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/21/2014 01:11 am
Isn't there also the concern about the longevity on orbit of a "lifeboat"? If they rotate out the crew vehicles that is not an issue, but leaving a vehicle there for several years and expecting it to work is risky.
Yes, absolutely, and I assume that's why the current plan is to have the crew use the vehicle they took up as a lifeboat during their stay, then bring it back down.

Yes; CTS requirement is minimum life of 210 days on-station.  Not to mention something like a CRV would occupy a docking port.  Only two will be available for the foreseeable future on the USOS side, and IIRC nominal rule is one remain unoccupied in case there is a problem with the other.

There would be no need to leave a lifeboat docked there for "years". Just have that vehicle in the rotation schedule. That way there is always a "new" lifeboat docked.

NASA only wants one CTS contractor starting in 2017. So SNC would have to have edge out SpaceX for the CTS contract.

NASA has not downselected to anybody yet. That statement is your personal opinion and should be so labeled.

It's not my personal opinion for the CTS contract (following CCtCap), NASA intends to have only one company. They have said so several times.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/21/2014 01:20 am
NASA has not downselected to anybody yet. That statement is your personal opinion and should be so labeled.

I think maybe the term down-select is being tossed about too freely.  Nit: NASA can not and will not down-select awardees for CCtCap.  Under FAR, CCtCap is open to any qualified bidder, and not a down-select from a predefined field.  That said, some culling of the field is likely given past and projected CCP funding constraints.

The operative question is: Who gets selected to provide ISS crew services under CCtCap?  In particular, will there be sufficient funds for 1, 2 or ...?  Given a projected demand of two ISS crew missions per year, the justification for funding at least one provider seems clear; for two questionable; for three extremely dubious.

Given that, it appears that there will be one front-runner who will be awarded sufficient funds to see CCtCap through to providing ISS crew services; and another awarded reduced funds which, while not sufficient to provide ISS crew services, provides a backup--or at least an incentive to the front-runner to keep their eye on the ball.

There is no backup. Each round is independent of each other. If NASA decides to have 1.5 providers for CCtCap, the 0.5 company also has a chance of winning the CTS award. But my point was that there will only be one CTS award. NASA has said so on a number of occasions. It's not set in stone but that's the current plan.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/21/2014 01:43 am
There is no backup. Each round is independent of each other. If NASA decides to have 1.5 providers for CCtCap, the 0.5 company also has a chance of winning the CTS award. But my point was that there will only be one CTS award. NASA has said so on a number of occasions. It's not set out in stone but that's the current plan.

Sorry should have been clearer as that was my point.  Any such FAR acquisition (i.e, CTS) must be open to all qualified bidders, including those not selected for previous contracts (i.e., CCiCap and CCtCap).  Also, just to be clear, my reference to "backup" is with respect to CCtCap, not CTS.

I don't recall NASA making any single-award statements with respect to CTS.  NASA's notional timeline at the CCtCap pre-proposal conference appears to suggest otherwise, with new-entrant certification and competition for CTS possible in the future (much like NLS on-ramp for new entrants).  What am I missing?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/21/2014 01:54 am
There is no backup. Each round is independent of each other. If NASA decides to have 1.5 providers for CCtCap, the 0.5 company also has a chance of winning the CTS award. But my point was that there will only be one CTS award. NASA has said so on a number of occasions. It's not set out in stone but that's the current plan.

Sorry should have been clearer as that was my point.  Any such FAR acquisition (i.e, CTS) must be open to all qualified bidders, including those not selected for previous contracts (i.e., CCiCap and CCtCap).

I don't recall NASA making any single-award statements with respect to CTS.  NASA's notional timeline at the CCtCap pre-proposal conference appears to suggest otherwise, with new-entrant certification and competition for CTS possible in the future (much like NLS on-ramp for new entrants).  What am I missing?

Gerst said so in a few hearings. I don't remember which one. I will try to find it. But just from a practical point of view, 2 flights per year makes it difficult to have more than one company.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/21/2014 02:04 am
Gerst said so in a few hearings. I don't remember which one. I will try to find it. But just from a practical point of view, 2 flights per year makes it difficult to have more than once company.

Thanks, would appreciate a reference.  Agree that two flights per year demand for ISS crew services would make it difficult to fund/justify more than one provider.  That said, let's ensure we differentiate between CCtCap (including post-certification missions, which could run through 2020), and CTS.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/21/2014 02:39 am
I found the document where Gerst says that commercial crew would cost $480M per year (on page 112):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg70800/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg70800.pdf

Quote
Mr. PALAZZO. What is your estimated cost per flight once the development stage is completed?
Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, we would look at it as equal to or less than what we would be paying for Soyuz at that time.
Mr. PALAZZO. Some———
Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Roughly $480 million or so.
Mr. PALAZZO. How much would that come down per astronaut since that seems to be the common way of looking at it?
Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Roughly $80 million per crew seat.
Mr. PALAZZO. Okay.
Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Six seats per year, $480 million total per year.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/21/2014 03:12 am
I found the document where Gerst says that commercial crew would cost $480M per year:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg70800/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg70800.pdf

That document from 2011 actually says that NASA might support more than one CTS provider. But I will see if I can find other more recent documents.

Thanks! (knew I'd see that $80M/seat before)  Note that Gerstenmaier says $480M/yr or $80M/seat based on projected Soyuz pricing, then...  For commercial crew, he states, "Again, we would look at it as equal to or less than what we would be paying for Soyuz at that time ... Roughly $480 million or so ... Six seats per year, $480 million total per year."  While we don't have firm numbers on commercial crew pricing yet, NASA at that time appeared to be budgeting $80M/seat @6 seats/yr for commercial crew (which is what stuck in my memory).  I hope and expect the price @8 seats/yr for commercial crew will be lower than $80M/seat, but time will tell.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/21/2014 04:09 am
OK. I found the document where it says that there will likely be only one CTS Provider. It's the white paper on page 3:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docID=637

Quote
ISS Services Contract
Likely single award

Gerst confirmed this information at the following 2012 House hearing on pages 44 and 45:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg76234/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg76234.pdf

Quote
Mr. BROOKS. Thank you. And continuing, Mr. Gerstenmaier, at a rate of no more than two NASA missions per year, most analysts conclude that only one provider will ultimately be needed. If only one provider is selected to provide this service, how much government funding will have been provided to the other firms that will not be providing subsequent services to the United States government?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. If you want a precise number, I can take it for the record and we can go calculate what that number is, but there will be funds that will have gone to these other providers that are not providing a service. The question is, is the market going to be just ISS or is the market going to be bigger than ISS. What we hear from these commercial companies is they believe that there is a market for their spacecraft that is beyond the government’s need. They believe there is a commercial-sector market for that. So even though one of these companies may only provide services to NASA for our ISS activities, the others may have another market to go do that can be there. Then I have the advantage from the government side is now I have another contractor that I could go back and pick up to go provide services later in some future activity if we decide to extend, for example, space station beyond 2020 and we need some additional services. It may be someone else in the market for us to go by. So we are investing in that other contractor as you described but we potentially get some benefit if they can generate a market on their own.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/21/2014 04:34 am
Incidentally, I think that one of the reason for having post-certification missions is in order to provide incentives to the CCtCap company that doesn't obtain a CTS contract. I think that post-certification can not go beyond 5 years from the date of the award (August 2019). This change was made in the final RFP. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/21/2014 02:54 pm
Gerst said so in a few hearings. I don't remember which one. I will try to find it. But just from a practical point of view, 2 flights per year makes it difficult to have more than once company.
That said, let's ensure we differentiate between CCtCap (including post-certification missions, which could run through 2020), and CTS.

CCtCap is likely to have 1.5 or two providers. McAlister said that they are unlikely to maintain three providers for the next round but that NASA wants (if they have the budget for it) to keep competition going as long as possible which is why CCtCap is likely to have more than one provider. But the CTS contract (the contract for ferrying crew to the ISS which starts in 2017) is likely to have just one provider.  At least, that is the current plan. I agree that there is an overlap between CTS and CCtCap and I believe that this was done on purpose in order to provide incentives for the company that doesn't win a CTS contract to continue. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/21/2014 03:19 pm
Incidentally, I think that one of the reason for having post-certification missions is in order to provide incentives to the CCtCap company that doesn't obtain a CTS contract. I think that post-certification can not go beyond 5 years from the date of the award (August 2019). This change was made in the final RFP.

So actually, then can come close to finishing out the decade without awarding a CTS contract.
There might actually be incentive for a company to remain in the CCtCap program as an "unfunded" if there is the possibility of funded post-certification flights.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/21/2014 03:51 pm
That's a good question and I am not certain about the answer. My understanding is that NASA has the option of either ordering post-certification missions (PCM) from both providers (assuming that there is two) or not order any. See clauses B.4, H.8 and H.19 in the second document linked below. More specifically, under H.19, NASA appears to have the discretion to proceed or not with PCMs (i.e., the authority to proceed seems discretionary) but if they do proceed with PCMs, each provider must be considered for a minimum of 2 flights (See B.4). 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32412.msg1121659#msg1121659

Quote
H.19 (a) Post Certification Mission (PCM) task orders may be awarded prior to completion of CLIN 001, DDTE/Certification. However, the Contractor shall meet the following development-related criteria before NASA will grant Authority to Proceed (ATP) with such missions. ATP for PCMs is at NASA’s sole discretion and is dependent on meeting the criteria. Specific mission objectives and target launch date are provided by NASA.

Post-certification missions will be able to rotate crews. So there is not much difference between a PCM flight and a CTS flight.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/nasa-outlines-plans-commercial-crew-certification/

Quote
The maximum number of all PCMs awarded to all CCtCap contractors is six. To the extent that they do not overlap with the existing Soyuz contract, post-certification missions are expected to be used to rotate crews on the ISS. Ed Mango mentioned at the conference that post-certification missions can be ordered thru December 31, 2020 [now September 2019].
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/21/2014 06:17 pm
CCtCap is likely to have 1.5 or two providers. McAlister said that they are unlikely to maintain three providers for the next round but that NASA wants (if they have the budget for it) to keep competition going as long as possible which is why CCtCap is likely to have more than one provider. But the CTS contract (the contract for ferrying crew to the ISS which starts in 2017) is likely to have just one provider.  At least, that is the current plan. I agree that there is an overlap between CTS and CCtCap and I believe that this was done on purpose in order to provide incentives for the company that doesn't win a CTS contract to continue.

I wish we would end references to "1.5 xxx".  There may be one CCtCap awardee; or one awardee that is funded at a higher level and finishes first, with another funded at a lower level that finishes later.

Under the current CCtCap solicitation the awardee *must* complete CLIN-001 (DDT&E through to certification); there is no option for completing only part of it.  The awardee is also guaranteed two post-certification missions. There is no 1/2; the only question is how long t takes each awardee to finish.

Also, representative post-certification mission pricing (one mission per year for three years) is part of the price evaluation for CCtCap; PCM's are much more than an incentive or consolation prize. 


So actually, then can come close to finishing out the decade without awarding a CTS contract.
There might actually be incentive for a company to remain in the CCtCap program as an "unfunded" if there is the possibility of funded post-certification flights.

Correct, we can finish the decade without CTS; based on the notional schedule, CTS flights will not start until late CY2019 (FY2020), even though the notional CTS award is in 2017.  IMHO the CTS contract* will likely be pushed back.

As to remaining in CCtCap unfunded, see above.  CCtCap currently requires that every awardee complete DDT&E/certification and is guaranteed a minimum of two post-certification missions.  If you get that far you're done, and the next step is missions paid for under CTS.


That's a good question and I am not certain about the answer. My understanding is that NASA has the option of either ordering post-certification missions (PCM) from both providers (assuming that there is two) or not order any. See clauses B.4, H.8 and H.19 in the second document linked below. More specifically, under H.19, NASA appears to have the discretion to proceed or not with PCMs (i.e., the authority to proceed seems discretionary) but if they do proceed with PCMs, each provider must be considered for a minimum of 2 flights (See B.4). 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32412.msg1121659#msg1121659

Each awardee is guaranteed a minimum of two post-certification flights.  NASA is simply stating that once the criteria for PCM's is complete, issuing the authority to proceed (ATP) is at NASA's discretion--that is when money starts flowing for the missions.  That type of verbiage is fairly typical and you will find similar in CRS and NLS.


* edit: CTS solicitation
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/21/2014 06:59 pm
Wolf first used the term 1.5 to mean half the funding for the 0.5. The term stuck and everybody is now using it. It doesn't mean that you don't get certified. It just means that you get half the funding.

As far as PCMs, B-4 of the RFP document uses the word "may" which implies that it is not automatic:

Quote
In accordance with clause C.1, Specification/Statement of Work, the task ordering procedures and other terms and conditions in the contract, the Contracting Officer may issue Post Certification Mission (PCM) task orders.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/21/2014 07:05 pm
Correct, we can finish the decade without CTS; based on the notional schedule, CTS flights will not start until late CY2019 (FY2020), even though the notional CTS award is in 2017.  IMHO the CTS contract* will likely be pushed back.

As to remaining in CCtCap unfunded, see above.  CCtCap currently requires that every awardee complete DDT&E/certification and is guaranteed a minimum of two post-certification missions.  If you get that far you're done, and the next step is missions paid for under CTS.

There is an overlap between CTS and CCtCap according to page 14 of this presentation. The chart also confirms that PCMs are optional and that they are there to provide incentives:

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=692

See the following document which is even clearer on this issue (page 3):
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/155325-OTHER-001-001.pdf

Quote
CCP is also assessing alternatives to mitigate transition timing between Phase 2 Certification and ISS Services (contracts). One approach being considered is to potentially include multiple postcertification mission(s) within the scope of the Phase 2 contract. The Government is considering these post-certification mission(s) to be optional (e.g. IDIQ or contract options); awarded at the Government’s discretion and based on Contractor performance. The mission(s) would be defined as the CCT-DRM-1110 of a certified configuration. During Phase 2 contract performance, flight specific objectives for optional mission(s) could be tailored to fit Agency requirements. The post-certification optional missions are expected to be licensed by the FAA for public safety.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/21/2014 09:30 pm
Short version...

CCtCap states a minimum (two per award) and maximum (six for all awards) post-certification missions (PCM) with indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ); that commits NASA to the minimum.  If there is no minimum, no minimum would be stated and there would be every reason *not* to state a minimum.  The PCM's are not optional.  Sans a catastrophic change in funding or other such event (edit: or renegotiation), if the awardee meets the requisite criteria and does so (including PCM delivery) within the CCtCap contract period, execution of PCM's are a matter of when, not if.

Longer version...

s far as PCMs, B-4 of the RFP document uses the word "may" which implies that it is not automatic:
Quote
In accordance with clause C.1, Specification/Statement of Work, the task ordering procedures and other terms and conditions in the contract, the Contracting Officer may issue Post Certification Mission (PCM) task orders.

That quote states that simply because the PCM prerequisites are met doesn't mean NASA will automatically issue a task order the next day (or within any predefined period).  While CCtCap commits to a minimum of two PCMs, it can not guarantee that those PCM orders will be issued because there are several prerequisites which must be met before a task order and ATP is issued, thus the weasel wording.

There is an overlap between CTS and CCtCap according to page 14 of this presentation. The chart also confirms that PCMs are optional and that they are there to provide incentives:

As I previously pointed out: While there is notional overlap between CCtCap and CTS, there is little or none in actual flights if all six PCM missions are executed.

The charts shows only that DDT&E / certification and PCM are separate phases of CCtCap; they say nothing about whether PCM's are optional.  In any case the verbiage in that same presentation and in the CCtCap solicitation explicitly state PCM award is not optional.

Quote
See the following document which is even clearer on this issue (page 3):
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/155325-OTHER-001-001.pdf

That document is outdated.  It tells us is that NASA had not made up its mind in April 2013; NASA subsequently did make up its mind as of Nov 2013, as reflected in the final CCtCap solicitation.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/21/2014 10:17 pm
Hmm... It looks like you were right after all. I found this document which clearly states it (it just recently came out) on page 6:

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/2013Dec9-10_HEOC_Minutes_Final.pdf

Quote from: McAlister
The winning (CCtCap) bidder will be awarded at least two missions, which gives them an assurance that they will recover some of their investment.

Come to think of it, page 14 of this chart also seems to indicate that at least two PCMs would be awarded as the first two PCM triangles are in bold and the CTS ISS missions (also triangles) seem to start right after these first two PCMs.
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=692

It's easy to get confused with this stuff. The language in the contract threw me off. Anyways, I don't mind being proven wrong (it means that I have learned something). It makes more sense that the first two PCM missions would be assured come to think of it as it provides incentives for the CTS loser and allows him to recoup some of his investment through these two missions.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/22/2014 04:43 am
... It's easy to get confused with this stuff. The language in the contract threw me off. Anyways, I don't mind being proven wrong (it means that I have learned something). ...

I would consider it less a matter of being "proven wrong" and more an indication of a good exchange.  Challenged to revisit readings and interpretations is welcome, good exercise, and keeps us healthy and honest.  That aside, I don't see how post-certification missions provide much of a consolation prize to the CTS loser or CCtCap runner-up.  The CCtCap front-runner appears to be in a winner-take-all position (or mostly-winner-take-all) for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/22/2014 01:18 pm
... It's easy to get confused with this stuff. The language in the contract threw me off. Anyways, I don't mind being proven wrong (it means that I have learned something). ...

I would consider it less a matter of being "proven wrong" and more an indication of a good exchange.  Challenged to revisit readings and interpretations is welcome, good exercise, and keeps us healthy and honest.  That aside, I don't see how post-certification missions provide much of a consolation prize to the CTS loser or CCtCap runner-up.  The CCtCap front-runner appears to be in a winner-take-all position (or mostly-winner-take-all) for the foreseeable future.

Thanks, it's a consolation prize in the sense that the CTS loser still gets two (PCM) missions to the ISS. Under a winner takes all scenario, the winner would get all missions to the ISS (PCM and CTS missions) and the loser would get none. I expect that the PCM missions will be full price.  Like I said before, for all intended purposes, there is almost no difference between a PCM mission and CTS mission. They will both be used to rotate crews to the ISS. There will two missions to the ISS per year. These missions can either be a PCM or a CTS mission but there will still not be more than two per year. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/22/2014 01:30 pm
Today (January 22) is the deadline for the CCtCap proposals. This deadline is important for three reasons:

First, it will allow NASA to determine what the cost of CCtCap will be and how many CCtCap providers they are able to fund.

Secondly, companies are relunctant to talk about their proposal until it has been submitted. The reason for this is simple; they don't want their competition to know what they are doing before the deadline (when it's too late to change their proposal).

Thirdly, we may find out if companies other than the CCiCap participants have submitted proposals. More specifically, we will find out if ATK or Blue Origin have submitted proposals. Although both companies are allowed to submit proposals, they must show that their certification plans is at the same level as the CPC participants (Boeing, SNC and SpaceX). I am not sure if that simply means that ATK or Blue Origin would submit additional certification documentation with their proposals or they would have had to conclude a prior (unfunded) arrangement with NASA to have completed this requirement (which we haven't heard anything about).     
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 01/22/2014 07:09 pm
Quote from: clongton
With or without NASA, Crewed Dragon will be deployed

And why is that? Is there a market for orbital human spaceflight that would support a commercial crew program?

If any of those programs is not supported by NASA anymore it will simply cease to exist.

Because Commercial Crew is not necessary to justify crewed Dragon. Elon started SpaceX for the very specific purpose of going to Mars, with or without NASA. His original plans specifically excluded NASA. He signed on to NASA's commercial program because federal dollars, though not required at all, does speed things up. A commercial market for crewed Dragon is not required at all. It is Elon's spaceship, not NASA's or ours. It will fly with crew - with or without NASA.
Watch Elon & company sue if he gets cut.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/22/2014 07:15 pm
It'd be understandable why, too. SpaceX is WAY ahead of the other players right now, and anyone who doesn't see that is kidding themselves. They've put in a lot of their own "skin in the game," with the understanding that NASA's selection process would be fair.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/22/2014 11:50 pm
Today (January 22) is the deadline for the CCtCap proposals. This deadline is important for three reasons:
...
Secondly, companies are relunctant to talk about their proposal until it has been submitted. The reason for this is simple; they don't want their competition to know what they are doing before the deadline (when it's too late to change their proposal).

Yay!  Seems like it has been forever.  I'm having a drink to celebrate.  However, we have a bit farther to travel, and we may still see continued reticence on the part of offerors in discussing their plans until later this summer.

Final proposal revisions (FPR) are due in late June.  Those revisions are nominally based on NASA feedback of Certification Product Contract (CPC) deliverables, as well as the Performance Work Statement (PWS) provided in the original proposal.

It is unclear (at least to me) the extent to which "revisions" outside those areas are allowed, and in any case the PWS appears to be a core element.  I expect (but can only speculate) that those changes will not fundamentally change pricing the offeror's approach or structure, but may change deliverables timing and funding profile.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/23/2014 02:12 am
Today (January 22) is the deadline for the CCtCap proposals. This deadline is important for three reasons:

First, it will allow NASA to determine what the cost of CCtCap will be and how many CCtCap providers they are able to fund.

Secondly, companies are relunctant to talk about their proposal until it has been submitted. The reason for this is simple; they don't want their competition to know what they are doing before the deadline (when it's too late to change their proposal).

Thirdly, we may find out if companies other than the CCiCap participants have submitted proposals. More specifically, we will find out if ATK or Blue Origin have submitted proposals. Although both companies are allowed to submit proposals, they must show that their certification plans is at the same level as the CPC participants (Boeing, SNC and SpaceX). I am not sure if that simply means that ATK or Blue Origin would submit additional certification documentation with their proposals or they would have had to conclude a prior (unfunded) arrangement with NASA to have completed this requirement (which we haven't heard anything about).   

It's hard for me to believe ATK or Blue Origin would submit a proposal at this point, unless it's just to play spoiler and delay the proceedings a bit with a protest.  Neither has a spacecraft that could possibly be ready in time.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: dglow on 01/23/2014 04:53 pm
Today (January 22) is the deadline for the CCtCap proposals. This deadline is important for three reasons:

First, it will allow NASA to determine what the cost of CCtCap will be and how many CCtCap providers they are able to fund.

Secondly, companies are relunctant to talk about their proposal until it has been submitted. The reason for this is simple; they don't want their competition to know what they are doing before the deadline (when it's too late to change their proposal).

Thirdly, we may find out if companies other than the CCiCap participants have submitted proposals. More specifically, we will find out if ATK or Blue Origin have submitted proposals. Although both companies are allowed to submit proposals, they must show that their certification plans is at the same level as the CPC participants (Boeing, SNC and SpaceX). I am not sure if that simply means that ATK or Blue Origin would submit additional certification documentation with their proposals or they would have had to conclude a prior (unfunded) arrangement with NASA to have completed this requirement (which we haven't heard anything about).   

It's hard for me to believe ATK or Blue Origin would submit a proposal at this point, unless it's just to play spoiler and delay the proceedings a bit with a protest.  Neither has a spacecraft that could possibly be ready in time.

Is enough known about Blue Origin's progress, or lack thereof, given their secrecy? I ask because I simply haven't followed them closely. Pointers to info and discussions would be welcome - thank you.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/23/2014 06:05 pm
Is enough known about Blue Origin's progress, or lack thereof, given their secrecy? I ask because I simply haven't followed them closely. Pointers to info and discussions would be welcome - thank you.
Quick recap from memory:
Well they now have a 110k lbs hydrolox engine. They made some testflights with a suborbital vehicle, but lost it during a supersonic test flight. They are currently building a replacement that will use the new engine. That will still be suborbital, though. The reusable orbital first stage would be much bigger with the suborbital vehicle being the template for the second stage.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 01/24/2014 12:23 am
Is enough known about Blue Origin's progress, or lack thereof, given their secrecy? I ask because I simply haven't followed them closely. Pointers to info and discussions would be welcome - thank you.
Quick recap from memory:
Well they now have a 110k lbs hydrolox engine. They made some testflights with a suborbital vehicle, but lost it during a supersonic test flight. They are currently building a replacement that will use the new engine. That will still be suborbital, though. The reusable orbital first stage would be much bigger with the suborbital vehicle being the template for the second stage.

Also, as far as anyone knows, they've only been working on launch vehicles so far.  There's no indication they've started work on a spacecraft.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 01/24/2014 12:28 am
Is enough known about Blue Origin's progress, or lack thereof, given their secrecy? I ask because I simply haven't followed them closely. Pointers to info and discussions would be welcome - thank you.
Quick recap from memory:
Well they now have a 110k lbs hydrolox engine. They made some testflights with a suborbital vehicle, but lost it during a supersonic test flight. They are currently building a replacement that will use the new engine. That will still be suborbital, though. The reusable orbital first stage would be much bigger with the suborbital vehicle being the template for the second stage.

Also, as far as anyone knows, they've only been working on launch vehicles so far.  There's no indication they've started work on a spacecraft.


Then what is this? (see image) They may have it on slow burn due to missing out on the latest commercial crew funding, but it appears to exist.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/24/2014 03:31 am
...
Thirdly, we may find out if companies other than the CCiCap participants have submitted proposals. More specifically, we will find out if ATK or Blue Origin have submitted proposals. Although both companies are allowed to submit proposals, they must show that their certification plans is at the same level as the CPC participants (Boeing, SNC and SpaceX). I am not sure if that simply means that ATK or Blue Origin would submit additional certification documentation with their proposals or they would have had to conclude a prior (unfunded) arrangement with NASA to have completed this requirement (which we haven't heard anything about).   
It's hard for me to believe ATK or Blue Origin would submit a proposal at this point, unless it's just to play spoiler and delay the proceedings a bit with a protest.  Neither has a spacecraft that could possibly be ready in time.

I agree ATK and Blue Origin are long shots, but I doubt they would go through the effort of submitting a CCtCap proposal simply to play spoiler; that is generally counter-productive and a dangerous game.  Who knows, they might receive an award and would then be on the hook to deliver on a firm fixed price contract (CCtCap is FFP, including post-certification missions).

A significant portion of my skepticism relates to the Certification Products Contract (CPC).  As yg1968 pointed out, they need to show an equivalent level of maturity with respect to CPC.  All of the CPC contracts were ~$10M, which isn't a huge amount, and they might have funded it internally.  OTOH, that they did not bid on CPC probably says more about their expectations that anything else.

There's also the question of "ready in time".  While NASA has a goal of having at least one provider ready for ISS crew service missions in early FY2018 (late CY2017), that does not necessarily mean that all CCtCap awardees need to be ready for ISS crew service missions at that time.  At the risk of going off a bit on a tangent ...

There will be either 1.0 or 2.0 CCtCap awards.  Those awards will commit the awardees to complete the CCtCap contract, which means through certification, and possibly post-certification missions (depending on timing).  There is no "0.5" CCtCap award in the sense that an awardee is allowed to complete less than CCtCap contract.[1]  If you're awarded a CCtCap contract, you're pregnant and committed to delivery (i.e., seeing the contract through to at least certification); the only question is timing.

Thus, what we may see is one awardee funded sufficiently to achieve certification in 2017; with the other awardee funded at a lower level and achieving certification at a later date--conceivably as late as 2020.[1]  In short, we need to consider who might be ready in ~3 years after award (the "fast track" awardee); and funding allowing, who might be ready up to ~5 years after award (the "slow track" awardee).

Given that funding is available for a second "slow track" award, the operative consideration is who might be viable contenders for that "slow track" award (lower annual funding but which takes a few more years)?


[1] The CCtCap contract nominally ends in 2020.  While task orders must be issued within 5 years of award (Aug 2019), the CCtCap solicitation does not put a bound on delivery, which may occur later.  For example, CRS task orders must be issued prior to 31-Dec-2015, with delivery up to one year later (31-Dec-2016), or even later if both NASA and the provider agree.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: dglow on 01/24/2014 09:38 pm
Is enough known about Blue Origin's progress, or lack thereof, given their secrecy? I ask because I simply haven't followed them closely. Pointers to info and discussions would be welcome - thank you.
Quick recap from memory:
Well they now have a 110k lbs hydrolox engine. They made some testflights with a suborbital vehicle, but lost it during a supersonic test flight. They are currently building a replacement that will use the new engine. That will still be suborbital, though. The reusable orbital first stage would be much bigger with the suborbital vehicle being the template for the second stage.

Also, as far as anyone knows, they've only been working on launch vehicles so far.  There's no indication they've started work on a spacecraft.


Then what is this? (see image) They may have it on slow burn due to missing out on the latest commercial crew funding, but it appears to exist.

That's a cool photo, thank you. I ponder the odds of BO surprising us in the years ahead – pulling an 'Apple' and suddenly revealing the result of many years' efforts.

Back to my original query and pardon the Rumsfeldism, but are the unknowns surrounding Blue Origin understood or not... knowns or unknowns?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/25/2014 01:40 am
Back to my original query and pardon the Rumsfeldism, but are the unknowns surrounding Blue Origin understood or not... knowns or unknowns?

No, the unknowns are not understood (at least in any detail), and likely will not be until Blue Origin tells us more.  That said, they will undoubtedly need to go through a flight test program, and that should leave some footprints in public records.  For example, at the moment it appears BO has suspended flight tests at their Corn Ranch facility (FAA permit expired and no new permit issued).  When/if we see FAA permits and licenses issued should provide some clues as to their progress.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/28/2014 11:37 pm
This is somewhat related to commercial crew: Soyuz will be extended until the end of 2017:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39312nasa-to-order-more-soyuz-seats

See also:
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=85172e891582386f3ab04df8314f2fc2&tab=core&_cview=0
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 01/30/2014 10:23 am
This is somewhat related to commercial crew: Soyuz will be extended until the end of 2017:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39312nasa-to-order-more-soyuz-seats

See also:
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=85172e891582386f3ab04df8314f2fc2&tab=core&_cview=0

From the article

Quote
In its online procurement note, NASA said the first crewed demonstration flight to station under the Commercial Crew Program was tentatively scheduled for the fall of 2017.

So its fall 2017 for the first commercial crew flight.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 01/30/2014 12:40 pm
This is somewhat related to commercial crew: Soyuz will be extended until the end of 2017:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39312nasa-to-order-more-soyuz-seats

See also:
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=85172e891582386f3ab04df8314f2fc2&tab=core&_cview=0

From the article

Quote
In its online procurement note, NASA said the first crewed demonstration flight to station under the Commercial Crew Program was tentatively scheduled for the fall of 2017.

So its fall 2017 for the first commercial crew flight.
tentatively.... assuming they get full funding for the years to come. Which they will not.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/30/2014 01:51 pm

tentatively.... assuming they get full funding for the years to come. Which they will not.

I'm of the opinion that Commercial Crew development is going to take the same amount of time regardless of whether Congress provides 700 million per year or 1 Billion per year for development. We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work. Even a down-select to one vendor and concentrating all of the funding to that vendor probably wont help the schedule at all.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 01/30/2014 03:35 pm

tentatively.... assuming they get full funding for the years to come. Which they will not.

I'm of the opinion that Commercial Crew development is going to take the same amount of time regardless of whether Congress provides 700 million per year or 1 Billion per year for development. We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work. Even a down-select to one vendor and concentrating all of the funding to that vendor probably wont help the schedule at all.
I understand your argument but shorting the funding can't help the schedule.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 01/30/2014 03:59 pm
We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work.

I'm sorry, but when exactly did we "throw money" at some of these vendors? And how much funding would you consider "throwing money"??
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrightLight on 01/30/2014 04:07 pm
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 01/31/2014 01:52 am

tentatively.... assuming they get full funding for the years to come. Which they will not.

I'm of the opinion that Commercial Crew development is going to take the same amount of time regardless of whether Congress provides 700 million per year or 1 Billion per year for development. We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work. Even a down-select to one vendor and concentrating all of the funding to that vendor probably wont help the schedule at all.
$830 million is being requested. The most that has ever has been requested is $850 million, it was in 2012, not even a year after the Space Shuttle program ended. Congressmen were complaining about how there wasn't a replacement ready, some even called it unacceptable. They didn't even give them half.

The meager budget has delayed Commercial Crew by several years.

Additional funds help prevent the severity of further slips. Not downselecting will push the schedule further to the right.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 01/31/2014 07:40 am
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.
And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 01/31/2014 09:29 am
We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work.
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.

That doesn't sound to me like we "threw money" at anybody. Instead it sounds like we contracted for a product and then shortchanged the contractor.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/31/2014 01:18 pm
We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work.

I'm sorry, but when exactly did we "throw money" at some of these vendors? And how much funding would you consider "throwing money"??

As part of the Stimulus program, both SpaceX and Orbital each received more than 100 million in additional COTS funding. Perhaps that's just pocket change to you. This extra COTS funding did not improve the schedule, and it only provided NASA funding tasks that the vendors needed to perform anyway.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/31/2014 01:22 pm
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.

Just for the record, that 3.052 Billion corresponded to Obama's NASA budget. This was rejected by Congress, just like his budget for each and every other federal agency.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/31/2014 02:32 pm
We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work.

I'm sorry, but when exactly did we "throw money" at some of these vendors? And how much funding would you consider "throwing money"??

As part of the Stimulus program, both SpaceX and Orbital each received more than 100 million in additional COTS funding. Perhaps that's just pocket change to you. This extra COTS funding did not improve the schedule, and it only provided NASA funding tasks that the vendors needed to perform anyway.
Is this the same money that Shelby ended up redirecting to Constellation?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/31/2014 03:48 pm
As part of the Stimulus program, both SpaceX and Orbital each received more than 100 million in additional COTS funding. Perhaps that's just pocket change to you. This extra COTS funding did not improve the schedule, and it only provided NASA funding tasks that the vendors needed to perform anyway.
Is this the same money that Shelby ended up redirecting to Constellation?
No, as part of the stimulus package OSC and SpaceX were each awarded (and spent) ~$118M for additional COTS milestones.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 01/31/2014 03:55 pm
We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work.

I'm sorry, but when exactly did we "throw money" at some of these vendors? And how much funding would you consider "throwing money"??

As part of the Stimulus program, both SpaceX and Orbital each received more than 100 million in additional COTS funding. Perhaps that's just pocket change to you. This extra COTS funding did not improve the schedule, and it only provided NASA funding tasks that the vendors needed to perform anyway.
NASA gave money to pay for risk reduction activities. In Orbital case that payed (among other things) for A-One. Which might actually have delayed a bit the schedule. And in SpaceX case other activities (like environmental testing and such) were executed.
You're very wrong saying that money was thrown to accelerate the solution. NASA had accepted a development program, and decided that it was too risky and so they payed to get extra development work to reduce the risk. Even though this was a program for demonstration and not operative missions.
I can't say if the money was worth or not. Could it be the reason why the COTS demonstration worked so well and CRS was done so fast after that? I don't know. But it was not money thrown to accelerate a schedule.
NASA was tight on logistics and decided that they'd rather wait and pay a bit more but reduce the operation risk. Plain and simple.
Crew services is a completely different beast. Where NASA has been asking money and Congress has systematically denied it. But they do ask to not get behind. The story is a lot more complicated, but that's the gist of it.
So don't compare to COTS because a) the procurement program is not comparable and b) the extra money was not to accelerate the schedule.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 01/31/2014 04:20 pm
We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work.

I'm sorry, but when exactly did we "throw money" at some of these vendors? And how much funding would you consider "throwing money"??

As part of the Stimulus program, both SpaceX and Orbital each received more than 100 million in additional COTS funding. Perhaps that's just pocket change to you. This extra COTS funding did not improve the schedule, and it only provided NASA funding tasks that the vendors needed to perform anyway.

Do you come from an alternate dimension where this money was not spent, so you can illustrate how not spending this money wouldn't have affected their schedules? And how the companies would have been able to self-fund these activities in no extra time?

And pocket change or not, in the overall NASA budget is a very minor element, and money well spent if the risk was reduced for NASA. And in retrospect, with a successfully completed COTS program with two CRS providers, it seems difficult to argue against.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 01/31/2014 05:19 pm
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.
And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.

Not quite true.  The requested funding is shooting for multiple parnters for competition.  It is possible that one partner could reach 2017 with the current funding (won't say how likely but possible).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/31/2014 05:22 pm
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.
The attached shows commercial crew Presidential Budget Requests FY2010-FY2014 and actuals (assuming completion of CCtCap given current projections).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 01/31/2014 05:32 pm
Do you come from an alternate dimension where this money was not spent, so you can illustrate how not spending this money wouldn't have affected their schedules? And how the companies would have been able to self-fund these activities in no extra time?

And pocket change or not, in the overall NASA budget is a very minor element, and money well spent if the risk was reduced for NASA. And in retrospect, with a successfully completed COTS program with two CRS providers, it seems difficult to argue against.

let's try this.

The CRS budget this year was about 300 million less than the 850 million request.
Where would that extra 300 million have gone ?
Which vendor would be past the CDR level today, instead of completing CDR this summer ?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 01/31/2014 05:57 pm
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.
And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.

Not quite true.  The requested funding is shooting for multiple parnters for competition.  It is possible that one partner could reach 2017 with the current funding (won't say how likely but possible).

Believe we are rehashing funding and agreements between Congress and the administration that were locked in.  What if's are gone.    Remember when SpaceX & Boeing got full shares and SN received 1/2?  The program was changed at that point with the agreement, so going back and saying its not fully funded is the difference between a wish list and a real program.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 01/31/2014 06:11 pm
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.
And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.

Not quite true.  The requested funding is shooting for multiple parnters for competition.  It is possible that one partner could reach 2017 with the current funding (won't say how likely but possible).
As soon as you downselect, most benefits of commercial approach are lost. The winner has zero incentive to keep schedule and budget.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/31/2014 06:32 pm
Not quite true.  The requested funding is shooting for multiple parnters for competition.  It is possible that one partner could reach 2017 with the current funding (won't say how likely but possible).
As soon as you downselect, most benefits of commercial approach are lost. The winner has zero incentive to keep schedule and budget.

You could have one fast-track award, and another slow-track award.  Fast-track is funded at a higher annual level and reaches the goal sooner; slow-track is funded at a lower annual level and reaches the goal later.  That still provides some competitive pressure in the short term, greater competitive pressure long term, and at least some hope of recovering if the fast track fails to perform.

I believe that is NASA's current strategy and is the best that can be hoped for at this time given budget constraints.  The questions are then: (1) Even if funded at an optimal level (where "optimal" is within the program budget), can the fast-track finish by 2017? (2) After the fast-track award, what if any funds are available for a slow-track, and could it finish in a reasonable time (e.g., the CCtCap contract period which nominally ends 2020)?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Go4TLI on 01/31/2014 08:00 pm
As soon as you downselect, most benefits of commercial approach are lost. The winner has zero incentive to keep schedule and budget.

This is where things begin to fall apart and takes everyone right back to the philosophical discussion of what "commercial" is and why are doing this with multiple partners.  That's never truly been answered with conviction and consistency by the actual policy makers. 

For the record I absolutely do NOT buy into the statement that competition is necessary to maintain cost and schedule.  That push can remain via various incentive fees to whatever company.  IF that is they way forward chosen, that provider can get the majority of the available money increasing the likelihood of having a capability that much sooner.  And, quite obviously, the sooner the capability exists, the sooner contracts can be given for it's use, which is exactly what a provider would want. 

This is not a new idea, and contrary to popular opinion, is exactly how cost-plus contracts work as far as incentives in order to keep cost and schedule per the baseline as outlined in a Statement of Work. 

Now, maybe you believe more than one is needed because this is to open up the "vast market" that exists as so many claimed.  That's fine, and that is the philosophical discussion. 

The much more practical reason for more than one, in the here and now, is to have multiple vehicles in the event a provider is grounded, or if the rocket they ride on is. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 01/31/2014 09:32 pm
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.
And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.

Not quite true.  The requested funding is shooting for multiple parnters for competition.  It is possible that one partner could reach 2017 with the current funding (won't say how likely but possible).
As soon as you downselect, most benefits of commercial approach are lost. The winner has zero incentive to keep schedule and budget.

That's why I think that it's important to have two certified providers. The price of the post-certification missions may not represent the actual prices that NASA ends up paying for the CTS contract (especially if only one provider makes it to certification).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/31/2014 10:09 pm
If you are going for a fast track you can add 2 or 3 milestone that basically say the contractor gets a large payment if he completes milestone g, j and y by a certain (early) date and passes a tough quality inspection.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/31/2014 10:25 pm
If you are going for a fast track you can add 2 or 3 milestone that basically say the contractor gets a large payment if he completes milestone g, j and y by a certain (early) date and passes a tough quality inspection.

There are already numerous potential milestones--provider to propose, in addition to the minimum required by NASA.  The incentive is getting paid sooner rather than later, and in particular to start billing for post-certification missions.  Certification is the "tough quality inspection" and has a defined set of milestones.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 01/31/2014 10:32 pm
This is not a new idea, and contrary to popular opinion, is exactly how cost-plus contracts work as far as incentives in order to keep cost and schedule per the baseline as outlined in a Statement of Work. 
Yeah, because cost plus has worked so well for NASA in the past 35 years (sarcasm). IIRC one of the drivers behind the COTS and commercial crew (as it was originally envisioned) was to get away from cost plus.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 01/31/2014 11:22 pm
This is not a new idea, and contrary to popular opinion, is exactly how cost-plus contracts work as far as incentives in order to keep cost and schedule per the baseline as outlined in a Statement of Work. 
Yeah, because cost plus has worked so well for NASA in the past 35 years (sarcasm). IIRC one of the drivers behind the COTS and commercial crew (as it was originally envisioned) was to get away from cost plus.

Please, let's not start this again.  The error is in misapplication of contract types, not any inherent goodness or evil of a particular contract type.

1. If the government wants/needs unobtainium and no rational group would bid on it because no one knows enough to estimate the risks and costs (and thus insane to commit to firm-fixed-price), then cost-plus would be appropriate.  Can you imagine Apollo or the Manhattan project being acquired solely on firm-fixed-price basis?  Not.

2. If a large enough group feels confident they understand risks and costs, and there is demonstrable reason to believe so (that is, not just one loony), then cost-plus is inappropriate, and firm-fixed-price is more inappropriate.  Can you imagine NASA acquiring toilet paper or pencils solely on a cost-plus basis?  Not.

Are we at (2) with commercial cargo?  Demonstrably yes.  Are we at (2) with commercial crew?  Arguably yes, and IMHO CCDev and CCiCap have been instrumental in getting us there.  The path has not been soley a question of which type of contract vehicle, but the appropriate contract vehicle at a point in time.

Moreover, this is (to paraphrase NASA), something of a grand experiment, and everyone is still figuring out the best path forward.   Personally, I think NASA and the potential providers have done a stellar job of trying to make this work and ensure the experiment is successful.  So please, let's cut everyone some slack?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 02/02/2014 11:00 pm
Enough orion/apollo in a thread about commercial crew. Thread trimmed.  Perhaps a bit hard. If I trimmed your post a bit too vigorously, then post again without the pounce on typos etc.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/04/2014 11:14 am
1. If the government wants/needs unobtainium and no rational group would bid on it because no one knows enough to estimate the risks and costs (and thus insane to commit to firm-fixed-price), then cost-plus would be appropriate.  Can you imagine Apollo or the Manhattan project being acquired solely on firm-fixed-price basis?  Not.

This is a very widely shared view.  But I think it is incorrect.  Private industry deals with unknown risks all the time.  Venture capitalists do nothing else.

It's definitely not insane for a private company to bid just because the risks are hard to quantify.

Contracts can be written with firm fixed prices for milestones and still have outs that let the contractors bail out if it turns out to be too difficult to reach some of those milestones.  So the liabilities of the contractors don't have to be unlimited.

It's not something all companies would be comfortable with.  But the more the government started doing contracting this way, the more companies would learn how to operate in these kinds of environments.

Letting the private sector figure out the risk-adjusted cost would let the political decision makers make their decisions based on realistic cost estimates, in addition to the incentives being set up right to make the execution efficient.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/04/2014 11:17 am
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.
And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.

Not quite true.  The requested funding is shooting for multiple parnters for competition.  It is possible that one partner could reach 2017 with the current funding (won't say how likely but possible).
As soon as you downselect, most benefits of commercial approach are lost. The winner has zero incentive to keep schedule and budget.

That's only true for prices beyond the period the selectee is required to commit to.  If you force bids for the downselect to include commitments to schedule and price for the full time that you need the service, all the incentives to keep to schedule and budget are still there.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/05/2014 12:37 am
We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work.
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.

That doesn't sound to me like we "threw money" at anybody. Instead it sounds like we contracted for a product and then shortchanged the contractor.

Actually, what happened is that someone at NASA wanted enough money to kick-start an entire LEO spaceflight industry and Congress said no. Congress will pay for commercial crew to go to the ISS. Many people are saying there aren't enough flights to support more than 1 or 2 vendors. Why pay to develop a vehicle that won't earn a NASA crew rotation contract ?

There were NEVER 3 Billions dollars worth of contracts. Just the fact that Excalibur Almaz and ATK's capsule design from a back of a napkin were funded at any level at all just goes to show the program needed some type of oversight.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/05/2014 03:17 am
Yeah that someone had vision, congress did not.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 02/05/2014 06:53 am

Actually, what happened is that someone at NASA wanted enough money to kick-start an entire LEO spaceflight industry and Congress said no. Congress will pay for commercial crew to go to the ISS. Many people are saying there aren't enough flights to support more than 1 or 2 vendors. Why pay to develop a vehicle that won't earn a NASA crew rotation contract ?

Wasn't it a publicly declared aim of the program to "kick-start an entire LEO spaceflight industry"?

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 02/05/2014 11:22 am

Actually, what happened is that someone at NASA wanted enough money to kick-start an entire LEO spaceflight industry and Congress said no. Congress will pay for commercial crew to go to the ISS. Many people are saying there aren't enough flights to support more than 1 or 2 vendors. Why pay to develop a vehicle that won't earn a NASA crew rotation contract ?

Wasn't it a publicly declared aim of the program to "kick-start an entire LEO spaceflight industry"?



Absolutely yes it was. That was the whole idea. NASA's stake in it was to be ISS cargo/crew but the aim was, as you said, "an entire LEO spaceflight industry". It was to go far beyond NASA, just as the aircraft industry went far beyond the military.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 02/05/2014 12:28 pm


Actually, what happened is that someone at NASA wanted enough money to kick-start an entire LEO spaceflight industry and Congress said no. Congress will pay for commercial crew to go to the ISS. Many people are saying there aren't enough flights to support more than 1 or 2 vendors. Why pay to develop a vehicle that won't earn a NASA crew rotation contract ?

Wasn't it a publicly declared aim of the program to "kick-start an entire LEO spaceflight industry"?



Absolutely yes it was. That was the whole idea. NASA's stake in it was to be ISS cargo/crew but the aim was, as you said, "an entire LEO spaceflight industry". It was to go far beyond NASA, just as the aircraft industry went far beyond the military.

Well no wonder Congress knocked them back for that kind of pie in the sky thinking. A whole industry was never going to just spring up because of this & I am shocked that someone in NASA thought it was going to. Maybe more of the blame for the delays in this process should be aimed at NASA rather than Congress for that kind of thinking.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 02/05/2014 12:33 pm


Actually, what happened is that someone at NASA wanted enough money to kick-start an entire LEO spaceflight industry and Congress said no. Congress will pay for commercial crew to go to the ISS. Many people are saying there aren't enough flights to support more than 1 or 2 vendors. Why pay to develop a vehicle that won't earn a NASA crew rotation contract ?

Wasn't it a publicly declared aim of the program to "kick-start an entire LEO spaceflight industry"?



Absolutely yes it was. That was the whole idea. NASA's stake in it was to be ISS cargo/crew but the aim was, as you said, "an entire LEO spaceflight industry". It was to go far beyond NASA, just as the aircraft industry went far beyond the military.

... I am shocked that someone in NASA thought it was going to ...


NASA does not make its own policies. NASA carries out the policies of the Administration. It was/is the President's vision.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Go4TLI on 02/05/2014 01:02 pm

This is a very widely shared view.  But I think it is incorrect.  Private industry deals with unknown risks all the time.  Venture capitalists do nothing else.

It's definitely not insane for a private company to bid just because the risks are hard to quantify.

Contracts can be written with firm fixed prices for milestones and still have outs that let the contractors bail out if it turns out to be too difficult to reach some of those milestones.  So the liabilities of the contractors don't have to be unlimited.

It's not something all companies would be comfortable with.  But the more the government started doing contracting this way, the more companies would learn how to operate in these kinds of environments.

Letting the private sector figure out the risk-adjusted cost would let the political decision makers make their decisions based on realistic cost estimates, in addition to the incentives being set up right to make the execution efficient.

It's not incorrect at all.  Can it be done on fixed-price?  Of course, but not the smartest way. 

If something is in development, etc when the scope/requirements of the project/program could possibly change, technical issues arise, etc then the fixed price offer that any sound company is going to submit will be filled with contingency dollars and schedule for "just in case" purposes. 

In addition, if no or little problems are encountered or anything like that, then the govt or whatever company is still obligated to pay the fixed price of the contract because that is what they signed up to, not necessarily what the true cost of said product was. 

In addition, on a fixed price contract, a very defined SOW is required with specific and agreed upon terms and conditions.  Change the requirements, the SOW gets invalidated or at the very least the work is disrupted until the SOW is renegotiated.  This brings me right back to my point above about high contingency dollars and lots of schedule margin. 

So, I know it is in fashion to proclaim all problems can be solved if there was no such thing as cost-plus contracts.  The reality is that is far from true and cost-plus is widely used in industry when appropriate. 

In summary, some things really do make more sense to cost-plus contracts.  Others it makes more sense to be fixed price. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/05/2014 02:08 pm
Well no wonder Congress knocked them back for that kind of pie in the sky thinking. A whole industry was never going to just spring up because of this & I am shocked that someone in NASA thought it was going to. Maybe more of the blame for the delays in this process should be aimed at NASA rather than Congress for that kind of thinking.
Considering the knock back from congress it has still worked pretty well so far. We have one new GEO launch provider, 2 new launchers, 2 new space craft, with another 2 on the way. Plus a whole bunch of new startups that are piggy backing on the commercial space trend. I would call that pretty good for the little money congress provided to the commercial space program.
If you are really serious about space development and expanding space exploration, the presidents vision is a good way to do it. Programs like the SLS wont get us anywhere in the long term. They may (and that is a big, huge may) be able to do a footprints and flags kind of mission. Anything beyond that is not going to be affordable. That sort of mission is not what I am interested in though. We did it once, it did not get us anywhere.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/05/2014 08:14 pm
Small trim:

No one is allowed to be rude on the internet. If you're not civil, you will lose your post.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 02/05/2014 08:44 pm

Well no wonder Congress knocked them back for that kind of pie in the sky thinking. A whole industry was never going to just spring up because of this & I am shocked that someone in NASA thought it was going to. Maybe more of the blame for the delays in this process should be aimed at NASA rather than Congress for that kind of thinking.
Considering the knock back from congress it has still worked pretty well so far. We have one new GEO launch provider, 2 new launchers, 2 new space craft, with another 2 on the way. Plus a whole bunch of new startups that are piggy backing on the commercial space trend. I would call that pretty good for the little money congress provided to the commercial space program.
If you are really serious about space development and expanding space exploration, the presidents vision is a good way to do it. Programs like the SLS wont get us anywhere in the long term. They may (and that is a big, huge may) be able to do a footprints and flags kind of mission. Anything beyond that is not going to be affordable. That sort of mission is not what I am interested in though. We did it once, it did not get us anywhere.

I don't think it will work there just isn't enough available public money in these times of austerity to successfully seed this kind of growth.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/05/2014 08:56 pm

Well no wonder Congress knocked them back for that kind of pie in the sky thinking. A whole industry was never going to just spring up because of this & I am shocked that someone in NASA thought it was going to. Maybe more of the blame for the delays in this process should be aimed at NASA rather than Congress for that kind of thinking.
Considering the knock back from congress it has still worked pretty well so far. We have one new GEO launch provider, 2 new launchers, 2 new space craft, with another 2 on the way. Plus a whole bunch of new startups that are piggy backing on the commercial space trend. I would call that pretty good for the little money congress provided to the commercial space program.
If you are really serious about space development and expanding space exploration, the presidents vision is a good way to do it. Programs like the SLS wont get us anywhere in the long term. They may (and that is a big, huge may) be able to do a footprints and flags kind of mission. Anything beyond that is not going to be affordable. That sort of mission is not what I am interested in though. We did it once, it did not get us anywhere.

I don't think it will work there just isn't enough available public money in these times of austerity to successfully seed this kind of growth.
That's the opposite of true.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 02/05/2014 11:11 pm

Well no wonder Congress knocked them back for that kind of pie in the sky thinking. A whole industry was never going to just spring up because of this & I am shocked that someone in NASA thought it was going to. Maybe more of the blame for the delays in this process should be aimed at NASA rather than Congress for that kind of thinking.
Considering the knock back from congress it has still worked pretty well so far. We have one new GEO launch provider, 2 new launchers, 2 new space craft, with another 2 on the way. Plus a whole bunch of new startups that are piggy backing on the commercial space trend. I would call that pretty good for the little money congress provided to the commercial space program.
If you are really serious about space development and expanding space exploration, the presidents vision is a good way to do it. Programs like the SLS wont get us anywhere in the long term. They may (and that is a big, huge may) be able to do a footprints and flags kind of mission. Anything beyond that is not going to be affordable. That sort of mission is not what I am interested in though. We did it once, it did not get us anywhere.

I don't think it will work there just isn't enough available public money in these times of austerity to successfully seed this kind of growth.
That's the opposite of true.

We will see when in ten years time there still isn't any kind of major competitive industry to LEO, perhaps people will then wake up and realise that. Even something like Dream Chaser, which I have a lot time for, I believe will struggle to move outside the taxi to ISS stage within this timespan.

SLS has for all its faults marginally more of a chance of doing something significant in that timeframe than all this commercialism of LEO people think is going to happen.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/05/2014 11:24 pm
You misunderstand me. I was saying there's plenty of money available now, more than there is during a boom, if measured by the effect of public spending.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/05/2014 11:26 pm
We will see when in ten years time there still isn't any kind of major competitive industry to LEO, perhaps people will then wake up and realise that.

I assume you mean flying people.. as there's already a competitive industry for satellites and (arguably) for ISS cargo.

I doubt anyone will see the light when it comes to government interference.. the idea that government can "kickstart" an industry is too seductive.

The SLS comments are offtopic.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/05/2014 11:49 pm
We will see when in ten years time there still isn't any kind of major competitive industry to LEO, perhaps people will then wake up and realise that.

I assume you mean flying people.. as there's already a competitive industry for satellites and (arguably) for ISS cargo.

I doubt anyone will see the light when it comes to government interference.. the idea that government can "kickstart" an industry is too seductive.

The SLS comments are offtopic.

Government Interference ? Yes, there are some basic safety rules. Other than that, I'm sure the FAA will approve a license for anyone who is ready to launch people into space. Do you think folks like VG or XCOR receive much feedback from any part of the government other than the FAA with regards to their launch vehicle development ? Other than the CCDev project, BO probably doesn't get much direction from NASA either.

SpaceX, Boeing, and SNC are developing space craft that are intended to meet a specific NASA need. These same spacecraft may have other purposes, but NASA needs to be specific with regards to the requirements for the CTS contract. NASA has a consistent problem delivering the full set requirements at the proper time, which increases risk on the vendor's side and adds costs.

Also, the current administration has a bad record trying to jump start industries. See how poorly the green energy business is doing.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/06/2014 12:11 am
Government Interference?

Yes, we were talking about the administration asking for enough CCDev funding to jump start the human spaceflight industry.. not just to service NASA's needs.

Also, the current administration has a bad record trying to jump start industries. See how poorly the green energy business is doing.

I believe that exact comparison was made by members of the House in rejecting the funding request for CCDev.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/06/2014 02:23 am
Also, the current administration has a bad record trying to jump start industries. See how poorly the green energy business is doing.

I believe that exact comparison was made by members of the House in rejecting the funding request for CCDev.
With every risk investment, you plan for one out of 10 to be a success. One example for such a success would be Tesla, another would be Solar City. So I would be careful with dismissing the notion that this works. Besides, the whole jobs creation argument was used by the opponents of commercial crew to funnel tax money to their favored space projects and centers. So lets be careful with that argument. Finally, there was unfortunately not enough money spent to really jump start the industry on the scale des
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/06/2014 02:30 am
Also, the current administration has a bad record trying to jump start industries. See how poorly the green energy business is doing.

I believe that exact comparison was made by members of the House in rejecting the funding request for CCDev.
With every risk investment, you plan for one out of 10 to be a success. One example for such a success would be Tesla, another would be Solar City. So I would be careful with dismissing the notion that this works. Besides, the whole jobs creation argument was used by the opponents of commercial crew to funnel tax money to their favored space projects and centers. So lets be careful with that argument. Finally, there was unfortunately not enough money spent to really jump start the industry on the scale des
No, but the COTS/CRS money /did/ help SpaceX enter the commercial satellite field in a significant way, bringing significant commercial launch business back to the US. And we don't actually know that CC won't end up jump-starting the commercial orbital human spaceflight industry, though Congress seems to be doing their best to make sure CC is done with cost-plus type contracts which are less likely to spur truly commercial development.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 02/06/2014 02:34 am
No, but the COTS/CRS money /did/ help SpaceX enter the commercial satellite field in a significant way, bringing significant commercial launch business back to the US.

Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/06/2014 02:40 am
Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.
I might be wrong there, as I do not have access to their books, but I somehow doubt that SpaceX was paying much taxes by the time they got the COTS money.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 02/06/2014 12:50 pm

No, but the COTS/CRS money /did/ help SpaceX enter the commercial satellite field in a significant way, bringing significant commercial launch business back to the US.

Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.

You're venturing into the area of political rhetoric now which I am not sure is on topic for this thread.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 02/06/2014 05:03 pm
Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.
I might be wrong there, as I do not have access to their books, but I somehow doubt that SpaceX was paying much taxes by the time they got the COTS money.

Indeed. When you are a start-up, there is a *massive difference* between just getting tax breaks (which don't amount to much if you aren't making much at the time) vs a $396 million contract (COTS) + $1.6 billion (CRS).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 02/06/2014 05:40 pm
We will see when in ten years time there still isn't any kind of major competitive industry to LEO, perhaps people will then wake up and realise that. Even something like Dream Chaser, which I have a lot time for, I believe will struggle to move outside the taxi to ISS stage within this timespan.

SLS has for all its faults marginally more of a chance of doing something significant in that timeframe than all this commercialism of LEO people think is going to happen.

Agreed, NASA says commercial crew is expected to cost $80m per seat. That's for only 3 astronauts per flight, but even if you offer tourism flights you need pilots etc. and cargo.

I am pretty much convinced that there is no business case for manned LEO flights beyond the ISS in the next 10 years.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/06/2014 06:15 pm
We will see when in ten years time there still isn't any kind of major competitive industry to LEO, perhaps people will then wake up and realise that. Even something like Dream Chaser, which I have a lot time for, I believe will struggle to move outside the taxi to ISS stage within this timespan.

SLS has for all its faults marginally more of a chance of doing something significant in that timeframe than all this commercialism of LEO people think is going to happen.

Agreed, NASA says commercial crew is expected to cost $80m per seat. That's for only 3 astronauts per flight, but even if you offer tourism flights you need pilots etc. and cargo.

I am pretty much convinced that there is no business case for manned LEO flights beyond the ISS in the next 10 years.

Gerst said that NASA budgeted $480M per year for commercial crew transportation to the ISS. That amounts to $80M per seat if you take 3 astonauts on each flight. But if NASA decides to have a 7th crew on ISS, it would then be $480M for 4 astronauts per flight ($60M per flight). 

As far as a market for transportation beyond ISS, it rests entirely on Bigelow. But Bigelow needs NASA as a customer for him to have a business case. Bigelow is the missing piece of the puzzle for commercial crew. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/06/2014 06:26 pm

I am pretty much convinced that there is no business case for manned LEO flights beyond the ISS in the next 10 years.

There might be a business case for one or two vendors, but there isn't going to be enough volume to support more than that. Is it possible for any of the vendors to make a profit and pay off any of the investment expense on just one or two flights per year ? Look at how much overhead to support these low number of flights ? What is Boeing going to be doing in that OPF if the CST-100 only flights once per year. Are those employees going to spend 6 weeks on the capsule, and 46 weeks planning vacations ?

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/06/2014 06:40 pm
There might be a business case for one or two vendors, but there isn't going to be enough volume to support more than that. Is it possible for any of the vendors to make a profit and pay off any of the investment expense on just one or two flights per year ? Look at how much overhead to support these low number of flights ? What is Boeing going to be doing in that OPF if the CST-100 only flights once per year. Are those employees going to spend 6 weeks on the capsule, and 46 weeks planning vacations ?
If you assume that NASA will be the only client, then you have a problem.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 02/06/2014 07:35 pm

There might be a business case for one or two vendors, but there isn't going to be enough volume to support more than that. Is it possible for any of the vendors to make a profit and pay off any of the investment expense on just one or two flights per year ? Look at how much overhead to support these low number of flights ? What is Boeing going to be doing in that OPF if the CST-100 only flights once per year. Are those employees going to spend 6 weeks on the capsule, and 46 weeks planning vacations ?
If you assume that NASA will be the only client, then you have a problem.

If you assume there is going to be other clients than NASA in the near term then you have a problem.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/06/2014 07:58 pm
If you assume there is going to be other clients than NASA in the near term then you have a problem.
Maybe there will be others, maybe there wont. Bigelow certainly comes to mind. IIRC, transport of people to Bigelow stations was part of Boeings business plan for the CST-100 as it was presented to NASA for CCDev. Of course it depends a bit on what you call "near term".
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Go4TLI on 02/06/2014 08:05 pm
Maybe there will be others, maybe there wont. Bigelow certainly comes to mind. IIRC, transport of people to Bigelow stations was part of Boeings business plan for the CST-100 as it was presented to NASA for CCDev.

However, Bigelow needs clients as well outside of any potential NASA interest. 

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/06/2014 08:51 pm
Maybe there will be others, maybe there wont. Bigelow certainly comes to mind. IIRC, transport of people to Bigelow stations was part of Boeings business plan for the CST-100 as it was presented to NASA for CCDev.

However, Bigelow needs clients as well outside of any potential NASA interest.
Well, he seems to think that countries that are currently not space station partners and that cant afford ISS missions would be potential customers, as well as space tourists. I remember he originally wanted to charge about 15 million for a 4 week stay. That price has undoubtedly gone up since then. But I think that even twice as much puts this into the reach of a lot of small nations and institutions.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 02/06/2014 11:34 pm


Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.

Please provide more information/evidence related to these claims. 

Besides some general non-SpaceX specific Commercial Crew funding issues I have seen nothing to indicate any of what you wrote is true. On the contrary, there are states and their congressmen/women practically begging SpaceX to set up shop there.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 02/07/2014 10:08 am

If you assume there is going to be other clients than NASA in the near term then you have a problem.
Maybe there will be others, maybe there wont. Bigelow certainly comes to mind. IIRC, transport of people to Bigelow stations was part of Boeings business plan for the CST-100 as it was presented to NASA for CCDev. Of course it depends a bit on what you call "near term".

I guessed Bigelow might be mentioned. I am just not sure myself whether their time has come yet. Hopefully we might have a better idea how things stand with them once we see how their ISS project gets along.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/07/2014 11:15 am

If you assume there is going to be other clients than NASA in the near term then you have a problem.
Maybe there will be others, maybe there wont. Bigelow certainly comes to mind. IIRC, transport of people to Bigelow stations was part of Boeings business plan for the CST-100 as it was presented to NASA for CCDev. Of course it depends a bit on what you call "near term".

I guessed Bigelow might be mentioned. I am just not sure myself whether their time has come yet. Hopefully we might have a better idea how things stand with them once we see how their ISS project gets along.

Actually, the lack of features in the BEAM module illustrate how far away they are from a true standalone station that can support humans.


Edit: fixed quotes... ++Lar
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 02/07/2014 12:26 pm

Actually, the lack of features in the BEAM module illustrate how far away they are from a true standalone station that can support humans.

Actually it illustrates, what NASA has ordered.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/07/2014 01:09 pm


Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.

Please provide more information/evidence related to these claims. 

Besides some general non-SpaceX specific Commercial Crew funding issues I have seen nothing to indicate any of what you wrote is true. On the contrary, there are states and their congressmen/women practically begging SpaceX to set up shop there.

Elon (and others) have complained about California being a tough state to do business in because of its excessive regulations, taxes, etc.  As far as commercial crew is concerned, NASA should have stuck with the COTS model. Having said that, (IMO) the commercial crew program is still much better than any traditional cost-plus program.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Proponent on 02/07/2014 01:23 pm
Just what is the difference between COTS-D and CC-whatever?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/07/2014 01:26 pm
Just what is the difference between COTS-D and CC-whatever?

Certification for commercial crew is not under a space act agreement. There is no firm skin in the game requirement under commercial crew development. Safety requirements are a bit cumbersome under the commercial crew development program.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 02/07/2014 02:02 pm
I agree that COTS-D would have been preferable, but CCDev is close enough for me.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/07/2014 04:55 pm
Just what is the difference between COTS-D and CC-whatever?

Certification for commercial crew is not under a space act agreement. There is no firm skin in the game requirement under commercial crew development. Safety requirements are a bit cumbersome under the commercial crew development program.

NASA has given each vendor a "Certification Products" contract. I assume that was to pay for the effort to determine how to certify the vendor's vehicle meets NASA's requirements for carrying NASA astronauts.

Is there any reason certification itself can't be conducted under a firm fixed price contract ? There should be no unknowns for either NASA or the vendor.

Of course, any failure and the costs associated with re-trying any portion of the certification tests would be borne by the vendor. No need for "cost-plus", since that does not limit NASA's liability. It would really be the same as the "SAA" milestones, except there is only 1 milestone. Get certified, get paid with the cost and task list well defined up front by the results of the certification products contract .
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/07/2014 06:04 pm
NASA has given each vendor a "Certification Products" contract. I assume that was to pay for the effort to determine how to certify the vendor's vehicle meets NASA's requirements for carrying NASA astronauts.

Is there any reason certification itself can't be conducted under a firm fixed price contract ? There should be no unknowns for either NASA or the vendor.

Of course, any failure and the costs associated with re-trying any portion of the certification tests would be borne by the vendor. No need for "cost-plus", since that does not limit NASA's liability. It would really be the same as the "SAA" milestones, except there is only 1 milestone. Get certified, get paid with the cost and task list well defined up front by the results of the certification products contract .

That is how it is intended to work.  Both CPC and CCtCap are firm-fixed price (FFP); no cost-plus involved.  CCtCap includes DDT&E/Certification, Special Studies and Post-certification Missions  (three different contract line items or CLIN's).  There are several NASA-specified milestones.  Beyond those, offeror's may propose additional milestones and associated payments.

edit: correct/clarify contract line items.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/18/2014 05:04 am
Moved from Which vehicle/spacecraft will be next to carry crew to orbit from the US? (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33739.0) as this is the more appropriate thread...
Actually, Boieng hasn't put any skin in the game for CCiCap and for the prior rounds but they said that they intend to do so for the next round (CCtCap). The skin in the game milestones are usually called "financial milestones" in the SAAs.
Nit: We're not sure of Boeing's contribution to CCiCap, other than it was disappointingly small, per the selection statement "... does not provide significant industry financial investment and there is increased risk of having sufficient funding in the base period".
Thanks for the official reference. Incidentally, the amount of skin in the game among all three commercial crew providers is about 10% on average. See page 9 of the following PDF (page 5 of the document) from a September 2012 House Hearing:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg76234/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg76234.pdf
Quote from: House Hearing Statement
NASA's goal for the Commercial Crew Development program is to stimulate the aerospace industry to develop multiple, competitive, privately operated, human spaceflight vehicles and systems. Although the government is paying for about 90 percent(3) of this development, NASA will not own the vehicles or retain the designs, intellectual property, or data rights. Private entities will own and operate the vehicles and systems.

(Footnote 3): 90 percent is indicative of the approximate relative contribution of the Federal Government. The actual nongovernment cash or in-kind contributions of the commercial partners is proprietary information and varies by company, and may be greater or less than 10 percent of the total.

Thanks; good refresher and reference.  Rep Johson said 11% based on committee staff calculations (always thought that was a bit too precise); Gerstenmaier qualified "on the order of" 10-20%.  The last (Nov 2013) NASA IG report (http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY14/IG-14-001.pdf) states "partners are contributing under 20 percent of the CCiCap development costs for their spaceflight systems".[1]

That suggests a range of ~$120-220M for total partner contributions.  Some of the variance appears to be due to fuzziness valuing non-cash contributions from partners; some appears to based on future numbers (imprecise value at that time); some likely due to the difference in time between the hearing and the NASA IG report (additional insight or inclusion of optional Boeing and SNC milestones added in July 2013); maybe some due to inclusion of CCDev1 and CCDev2 numbers; and possibly some unclear division of contributions between base vs. optional period.  (Although I think all numbers referenced are for the base period).

In all, still rather squishy.  And my head hurts.  Trying to get a clear picture and parse-interpret public sources is like trying to nail Jello to the ceiling.  For example, from the original CCiCap SAA's (Aug 2012):

- Boeing milestone #19 Apr-2014, Critical Design Review (originally the last Boeing milestone): "Provide NASA documentation that a cumulative investment of [redacted] has been funded."  However, there are three other earlier milestones marked as "Includes investment criteria." (Integrated System Review, Phase 1 Safety Review Board, and Pilot-in-the-loop Demonstration).  Unclear whether the latter milestones indicate specific investment points/amounts, or whether it is more of a "when it's over we'll prove it".

- SNC milestone #5 Jul-2013, Investment Financing: "SNC co-investment plan completed for period."  Also, in the proposal, "Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) will invest [redacted] through orbital flight and an additional [redacted] from its industrial partners. Prior Team investment is [redacted]."  Unclear what the "period" is in milestone #5 (I hope and expect it is the CCiCap base period), or whether total previous SNC & Team investment is being counted.

- SpaceX milestone #10 Dec-2013, Review of Upgraded Falcon 9: "The SpaceX contribution value includes the Falcon 9 upgrade development work performed during the period from CCICap authority to proceed through the first flight of the upgraded Falcon 9." As a success criteria, "Verification that SpaceX financial commitments for Falcon 9 upgrades made at milestone 2 have been met."[2]  Not sure how you would value F9v1.1 development work from CCiCap award Aug-2012 through Sep-2013 (CASSIOPE first F9v1.1 flight).  Part of the certification effort?

- SpaceX milestone #14 Apr-2014, In-Flight Abort Test: "SpaceX's contribution value will be satisfied by provision of the launch vehicle and spacecraft test articles and related launch services." As a success criteria,  "Verification that SpaceX financial commitments for the In-Flight Abort Test made at milestone 2 have been met."[2]  How do you value that (cost or market value and opportunity cost)?  I don't know, but I bet it is significant, and that SpaceX wants that recognized at the highest figure they can get.  That alone could account for a significant chunk of the total calculated partner contributions.[3]


[1] NASA IG also states "For comparison, partner contributions for the cargo development program were roughly 50 percent."  THen again, CRS and COTS awards were concurrent.  CCtCap is offering similar with post-certification missions, but less guarantees in terms of number of missions.
[2] SpaceX milestone #2 "Financial and Business Review".
[3] Boeing was ready to book two Atlas V's in August 2012 for tests in 2014-2015 (one uncrewed orbital test, one crewed orbital test) if they got a sufficient CCiCap award, which they obviously did not.  (They eliminated a max-q abort test from the plan, which would have required another Atlas V.)  So you're SpaceX asking "What's one of those Atlas V test launches and spacecraft worth (specifically, the max-q abort test)? $100M? $200M?  Are we getting screwed here?"
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/18/2014 01:24 pm
Rep Johson said 11% based on committee staff calculations (always thought that was a bit too precise); Gerstenmaier qualified "on the order of" 10-20%.

Thanks for the additionnal information. Do you have a reference for those percentages?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/18/2014 08:12 pm
THe Rep. Edwards and Gerstenmaeir numbers are from the House Hearing (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg76234/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg76234.pdf) report you referenced: Rep. Edwards 11% from prepared statement, pg 15;  Gerstenmaeir "on that order" of 10-20% from Q&A with Rep. Brooks, pg. 44.  The NASA IG "under 20%" comes from NASA IG report IG-14-001 (http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY14/IG-14-001.pdf) Nov 2013, pg. 19.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 02/26/2014 01:36 pm
Latest 60-day Report on Commercial Crew Program has been published:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_ROI_Report_Feb_2014.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_ROI_Report_Feb_2014.pdf)

Contains this update on current milestones for each participant:

CCiCap Milestone Change Process
February 25, 2014

NASA signed the Commercial Crew integrated Capability (CCiCap)–funded Space Act Agreements in August 2012. Over the course of these agreements, as with most contracts, modifications have been occasionally needed. The CCiCap agreements have evolved as development and test efforts have progressed, enabling our partners to refine their plans. These refinements have resulted in several changes to the milestones listed in the original agreements. NASA also made a determination in August 2013 to fund a small portion of the optional milestones to reduce risk, thus increasing the number of total milestones and agreement value. These refinements and updates are why the milestone totals shown above in the thermometer graphic have changed over time.

When a change to the initial agreement is needed, both NASA and the respective industry partner must agree to the change. On the NASA side, the Commercial Crew Program Office assesses all changes. For minor changes, such as changes to milestone dates, the Program Office can approve the change and a memo for record is generated to document the change. For more significant changes, such as the addition of optional milestones, the Program Office provides recommendations for approval to NASA HQ for final disposition. If approved by NASA HQ, an amendment is negotiated and posted at http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=38 (http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=38). Thus, the current agreement with each partner is slightly different from the version that was initially signed a year and a half ago. To catch everyone up on the current status of partner milestones within each agreement, the below tables provide a snapshot of the current status.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/26/2014 01:53 pm
Looks like nobody is actually ahead. Every company has milestones that will be completed in the third quarter of CY2014 (i.e., this summer).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/26/2014 08:00 pm
Looks like nobody is actually ahead.
Differing milestone completion percentages.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 02/26/2014 08:22 pm
I meant that everybody will be done at the same time in the third quarter. In any event, the number of milestones isn't representative of who is ahead. For example, even if SNC had completed all of its milestones, it would still be behind Boeing and SpaceX.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/26/2014 08:30 pm
SpaceX (and Blue Origin!) are the only ones that will do a pad abort test this year. They may even do an in-flight abort test this year. To say the milestones are not a good proxy for how "ahead" one group is compared to another is an understatement.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lurker Steve on 02/26/2014 08:59 pm
I meant that everybody will be done at the same time in the third quarter. In any event, the number of milestones isn't representative of who is ahead. For example, even if SNC had completed all of its milestones, it would still be behind Boeing and SpaceX.

SNC has those 2 milestones for advancing the TRL levels (M9 / M9a).
That's the main measure that I see them behind the other 2.
I think it's important that those get closed out in Q2.

If they fly the ETA again this summer as scheduled, then I think they could easily close the gap.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 02/27/2014 12:42 am
I meant that everybody will be done at the same time in the third quarter. In any event, the number of milestones isn't representative of who is ahead. For example, even if SNC had completed all of its milestones, it would still be behind Boeing and SpaceX.

Agree.  One of the most important milestones is CDR, and one of the objectives of CCiCap was on completion to have two providers at CDR.
- Boeing was Apr-2014; now shows Q3-2014
- SpaceX was Mar-2014; now shows Q2-2014
- SNC undefined; "Incremental Design Review #1" complete last October
Other than that a few changes which look like a few other milestones have been split-spread-slipped.  (Hard to tell in some cases as the milestones are not documented in any SAA or amendment.)  SpaceX Dragon Primary Structure Qualification milestone was Jan-2014 and is now Q2-2014.  That may account for some slip in the pad abort and in-flight abort tests.

A couple other bits:
- All have submitted second set of CPC deliverables.  The final set is due in Jun IIRC as part of CCtCap proposals.
- FAA issued a ruling on NASA astronauts performing crew functions last December (I had not seen that previously).  Short answer: Yes, including piloting the vehicle in an emergency; for details see here (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-12-02/html/2013-28405.htm[).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/27/2014 09:19 am
When accessing who is ahead remember the finishing post - successful re-entry after delivering astronauts to the ISS.

I suspect that SNC and SpaceX are on different laps.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/11/2014 07:03 pm
Here is the 700 pages FY 2015 NASA Budget estimate which was released today:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_2015_Budget_Estimates.pdf

NASA is considrering extending CCiCap, see page 427:

Quote from: Page 427 of the FY 2015 NASA Budget Estimate
NASA is evaluating whether to extend CCiCap milestones through FY 2015. Competition is an important component of the commercial crew program. Competition is a key to controlling costs over the long term and NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has opined that competition should be maintained until safety confidence is achieved.

NASA is considering extending CCiCap. See above.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 03/21/2014 12:53 pm
SpaceX (and Blue Origin!) are the only ones that will do a pad abort test this year. They may even do an in-flight abort test this year. To say the milestones are not a good proxy for how "ahead" one group is compared to another is an understatement.

Ares-I had an actual test flight in Ares-X, so I don't think the ability to put hardware in the air should be the sole indicator of progress. But I agree, the milestones are not the same across the board so they aren't a good indicator in a vacuum either.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 03/21/2014 02:22 pm
SpaceX (and Blue Origin!) are the only ones that will do a pad abort test this year. They may even do an in-flight abort test this year. To say the milestones are not a good proxy for how "ahead" one group is compared to another is an understatement.

Ares-I had an actual test flight in Ares-X, so I don't think the ability to put hardware in the air should be the sole indicator of progress. But I agree, the milestones are not the same across the board so they aren't a good indicator in a vacuum either.
Emphasis mine.
Wait until Jim has read your statement.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 03/21/2014 02:25 pm
Should I have said it was off an STS stockpile 4 seg RMSRV with a dummy US going suborbital? If that's what you're getting at it does not change my point.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/21/2014 02:46 pm
Should I have said it was off an STS stockpile 4 seg RMSRV with a dummy US going suborbital? If that's what you're getting at it does not change my point.
Yeah, it does. It had very little to do with Ares I. Unless SpaceX uses left-over solid rockets for its abort tests (and doesn't plan on using them for actual operational aborts), the comparison is ridiculous.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/21/2014 02:56 pm
Ares-I had an actual test flight in Ares-X, so I don't think the ability to put hardware in the air should be the sole indicator of progress.
Ares-X has almost nothing in common with Ares-I. The rocket motor was different (4 segment instead of 5), there was no upper stage. The 4 and 5 segment boosters might look similar on the outside, but from what I understand the internal geometry of the solid propellant has to be very different.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 03/21/2014 10:50 pm
You literally just said exactly what I wrote.

My point was putting any hardware up, whether its hobbled together test vehicles or pad abort tests are not indicative of progress by themselves.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/22/2014 12:25 am
Well, Ares I-x /was/ still much better than just more powerpoints and CAD drawings, although it was ridiculously expensive for being just cobbled together parts.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 03/22/2014 05:57 pm
Well, Ares I-x /was/ still much better than just more powerpoints and CAD drawings, although it was ridiculously expensive for being just cobbled together parts.
It was a pointless waste of money.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Hauerg on 03/22/2014 06:12 pm
Yes it was. But to the public it looked like progress.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 03/22/2014 08:30 pm
Ares-I was cancelled but to NOT fly Ares-X would have cost more money in contract termination fees than just flying the thing. That's why they went ahead with the launch.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/22/2014 08:35 pm
Well the above discussion may have no linkage to the thread title anyway, seeing that none of the CCiCAP bidders are doing an Ares-I-X style flight.....

.....so back to the topic, shall we?  ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 03/25/2014 08:12 pm
Bolden blogs about the importance of fully funding commercial crew for FY 2015:
http://blogs.nasa.gov/bolden/2014/03/25/bringing-space-launches-back-to-america/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/21/2014 02:21 pm
Quote
NASA has named Kathy Lueders Commercial Crew Program manager; no longer "interim." She replaced Ed Mango.
https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/458245608709836800
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-selects-commercial-crew-program-manager/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 04/24/2014 02:08 am
Commercial crew return on investment report:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_ROI_Report_April2014.pdf
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: USFdon on 04/24/2014 05:24 pm
On page 2 of that report, is it just me or does that Dream Chaser on top of the Atlas V in the wind tunnel have a SRB attached? I though they were big on having no solids or could this be verifying that they could add them for higher energy missions for the distant future?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 04/24/2014 05:27 pm
On page 2 of that report, is it just me or does that Dream Chaser on top of the Atlas V in the wind tunnel have a SRB attached? I though they were big on having no solids or could this be verifying that they could add them for higher energy missions for the distant future?

Good catch - I extracted the image from the PDF:
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BuzzumFrog on 04/24/2014 05:57 pm
On page 2 of that report, is it just me or does that Dream Chaser on top of the Atlas V in the wind tunnel have a SRB attached? I though they were big on having no solids or could this be verifying that they could add them for higher energy missions for the distant future?

Good catch - I extracted the image from the PDF:

I've been lurking around for a few months, but I couldn't resist chiming in here.  At the Spacecraft Technology Expo in Long Beach last month, ULA's booth had models of both the Boeing CST-100 and the Dreamchaser mounted on the Atlas 5.  The single SRB was present on the Dreamchaser model in the same position as in this photo.  I can't recall the configuration for the CST-100, but I think it was two SRBs.

Why would they have just 1?  Would it be to oppose and cancel out the Dreamchaser's lifting force in the lower atmosphere?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 04/24/2014 06:43 pm
On page 2 of that report, is it just me or does that Dream Chaser on top of the Atlas V in the wind tunnel have a SRB attached? I though they were big on having no solids or could this be verifying that they could add them for higher energy missions for the distant future?

Good catch - I extracted the image from the PDF:

I've been lurking around for a few months, but I couldn't resist chiming in here.  At the Spacecraft Technology Expo in Long Beach last month, ULA's booth had models of both the Boeing CST-100 and the Dreamchaser mounted on the Atlas 5.  The single SRB was present on the Dreamchaser model in the same position as in this photo.  I can't recall the configuration for the CST-100, but I think it was two SRBs.

Why would they have just 1?  Would it be to oppose and cancel out the Dreamchaser's lifting force in the lower atmosphere?

Atlas V has launched three times with 1 SRB before, so it would be because it is needed to lift DC to orbit.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/24/2014 06:55 pm
Why would they have just 1?  Would it be to oppose and cancel out the Dreamchaser's lifting force in the lower atmosphere?
Atlas flight control system can deal with asymmetric / unbalanced thrusts from non-symmetrically disposed SRBs.

Key issue with flying an unshrouded payload is to "null" out aerodynamic forces/loads to prevent bending/deviation. You could do that in different ways, but you don't want to add new dynamic inputs to flight dynamics. So as long as it has a constant effect like with the asymmetric SRB, and it doesn't have too great an aeroload vector/bending, then the flight dynamics can work.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 04/24/2014 07:03 pm
Wonder how much the SRBs will drive up the cost for launching the DC...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 04/24/2014 07:41 pm
From the CCiCAP selection statement, I remember that DC was considered as having a chance of using no solids. But CST-100 was at least a solid and any performance grows would risk the need for two. So my guess is that both went over their reserves and needed an extra solid. My calculation is that performance to an 51.6deg 300km circular orbit (normal insertion), is around 10.5tonne for 402; 12.5tonnes for 412; and 14.3tonnes for a 422. A Falcon 9 v1.1 is 15.3 tonnes. All numbers according to NLS II site.
Thus, it would seem that at least for this, SpaceX has more mass margin than CST-100 and DC.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 04/24/2014 09:08 pm
Wonder how much the SRBs will drive up the cost for launching the DC...

I wonder if (a) maybe it's only for the unmanned OTV test flight and (b) if it's for the operational version too, what are the implications not only for cost but also safety?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 04/24/2014 09:21 pm
Wonder how much the SRBs will drive up the cost for launching the DC...

I wonder if (a) maybe it's only for the unmanned OTV test flight and (b) if it's for the operational version too, what are the implications not only for cost but also safety?
I don't believe that it's too much issue. In no time during the SRB duration, by itself, would have a T/W>1 for the single version. I don't remember the numbers for two. But easy to run away from in any case. The most delicate issue would be asymmetric thrust. But clearly, while not ideal, NASA deems them acceptable. And then you have to compare Atlas V flight history with Falcon 9 v1.1. As a fan, I don't might li. But if minimum risk should be the measure, Probably CST-100 on Atlas V is the choice. At least it has the strongest companies behind. Of course you might believe that is better to give chance to the yound boys. And I might concur. But lowest ex ante risk is that combo.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 04/24/2014 10:16 pm
From the CCiCAP selection statement, I remember that DC was considered as having a chance of using no solids. But CST-100 was at least a solid and any performance grows would risk the need for two. So my guess is that both went over their reserves and needed an extra solid. My calculation is that performance to an 51.6deg 300km circular orbit (normal insertion), is around 10.5tonne for 402; 12.5tonnes for 412; and 14.3tonnes for a 422. A Falcon 9 v1.1 is 15.3 tonnes. All numbers according to NLS II site.
Thus, it would seem that at least for this, SpaceX has more mass margin than CST-100 and DC.

I wouldn't use the NLS II numbers, they do not take into account the first stage reuse - Something SpaceX wants to do. Use their own numbers - and those seem to indicated that F9v1.1 has a LEO performance somewhere between Atlas V 412 and 422.

So DC should still be able to fly on a F9v1.1. CST-100 might be a problem, if it indeed required 2 SRBs.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/24/2014 10:28 pm
From the CCiCAP selection statement, I remember that DC was considered as having a chance of using no solids. But CST-100 was at least a solid and any performance grows would risk the need for two. So my guess is that both went over their reserves and needed an extra solid. My calculation is that performance to an 51.6deg 300km circular orbit (normal insertion), is around 10.5tonne for 402; 12.5tonnes for 412; and 14.3tonnes for a 422. A Falcon 9 v1.1 is 15.3 tonnes. All numbers according to NLS II site.
Thus, it would seem that at least for this, SpaceX has more mass margin than CST-100 and DC.

I wouldn't use the NLS II numbers, they do not take into account the first stage reuse - Something SpaceX wants to do. Use their own numbers - and those seem to indicated that F9v1.1 has a LEO performance somewhere between Atlas V 412 and 422.

So DC should still be able to fly on a F9v1.1. CST-100 might be a problem, if it indeed required 2 SRBs.

So this means DC should be able to use F9v1.1 with first-stage reuse and CST-100 might require an expendable F9v1.1 -- which is still likely much cheaper than Atlas V, in addition to not having Russian engines.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 04/25/2014 12:54 am
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/25/2014 01:01 am
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9.  If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas.  SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100.  Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 04/25/2014 01:16 am
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9.  If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas.  SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100.  Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.


[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 04/25/2014 01:22 am
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?
I understand what you mean but Boeing has already stated that they planned on studying the viability of launching on an F9. And if NASA decided they wanted / needed 2 vehicles, Dragon and (insert name here) for whatever reason, why wouldn't SpaceX sell their launcher if needed?

As well as charge for Pad 39A as that's where the F9 will launch with crews from.  After all, it's important to note that Boeing and SNC are building vehicles, not launchers. And while both are offering an integrated system, they will only own the vehicles but will have to buy the launchers and launch pad access from ULA. They may as well buy a cheaper launcher that will already have a functioning crew pad. Or not, I suppose you could spin this a few ways. And you can certainly argue the need of the Atlas V for crew launch redundancy.

But again, this only makes sense if NASA decides they want 2 vehicles. If they do not, then I agree, SpaceX would just assume take it all. And why not? To the victor go the spoils.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: RonM on 04/25/2014 01:23 am
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9.  If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas.  SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100.  Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.


[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]

Well, if NASA pays for a DC or CST-100 mission, SpaceX might as well get some of the pie by launching it on a F9.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 04/25/2014 01:29 am

But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9.  If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas.  SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100.  Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.


[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]

Most people seem to assume that the final down-select will (unfortunately) be to one provider. So if that is DC or CST-100, why would be bad for SpaceX to launch it? If you can't have the whole pie, at least get a piece if it.

Does that answer your question? It seems pretty obvious.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JazzFan on 04/25/2014 01:30 am
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

If SpaceX loses out on CCiCAP, then any piece of the pie brings in revenue and continues to further Musk's exploration and company growth plans.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/25/2014 03:18 am
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9.  If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas.  SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100.  Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.


[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]

Possibly the Monopolies Commission stepped in and split SpaceX in two.  Dragon Transport Inc. started launching on Blue Origin rockets.  SpaceX LV therefore looked for some customers and found CST-100.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/25/2014 03:29 am
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9.  If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas.  SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100.  Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.


[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]

Your question was why would SpaceX agree to launch DC or CST-100.  I (and several others) gave reasons it would be good for SpaceX to do so.  You gave a reason it would be bad for SpaceX to do so.  Your reason is valid, but that doesn't mean the reasons we gave that it would be good are not valid.

It's a trade-off.  There are some positives for SpaceX to launch DC and CST-100 and some negatives.

So, your question has most certainly been answered.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 04/26/2014 07:26 pm
Possibly the Monopolies Commission stepped in and split SpaceX in two. 

Can't split a privately held company.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/26/2014 07:46 pm
Possibly the Monopolies Commission stepped in and split SpaceX in two. 

Can't split a privately held company.

Wrong.  Whether the company is private or not has nothing to do with whether it can be order split for violations of antitrust laws.  It's the courts that decide if there was a violation and if so what the remedy will be.  The courts can order just about anything they want.  They can order a company to sell off parts of its business to others if they want to.  The courts could even order the whole company be seized by the government if they wanted to.  That's extremely unlikely to happen, of course, but it's all at the discretion of the courts.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: llanitedave on 04/27/2014 05:58 am
SpaceX is a very, very long way from any anti-trust laws.  The courts can't just "do what they want", they have to apply laws to claims and evidence that are litigated before them.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/27/2014 07:39 am
SpaceX is a very, very long way from any anti-trust laws.  The courts can't just "do what they want", they have to apply laws to claims and evidence that are litigated before them.

You didn't read the context of the "do what they want" quote.  The context was as a remedy if the court finds antitrust violations.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 04/27/2014 03:15 pm
Court ordered split ups of SpaceX and other nonsense are very much off-topic. Stick to the spirit of the thread title please. Thank you.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 04/27/2014 04:57 pm
Court ordered split ups of SpaceX and other nonsense are very much off-topic. Stick to the spirit of the thread title please. Thank you.

Yes.

On the topic of why SpaceX might want to launch other company vehicles... seems like several good reasons in different scenarios.

If Dragon is flying CC, and Dream Chaser also made it, there is good PR value. DC is cool.. I would think SpaceX would be less keen for CST-100 business though.

If Dragon isn't flying CC then it makes good business sense to fly either competitor.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 04/27/2014 05:37 pm
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?

DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9.  If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas.  SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100.  Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.


[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]

I don't believe Bigelow will initiate one of his stations until he has two US crewed capsules available.

It would be best if these use separate launchers, but...

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/27/2014 11:34 pm
I don't believe Bigelow will initiate one of his stations until he has two US crewed capsules available.

That doesn't make sense.  Of course Bigelow would prefer to have two providers.  But if one provider exists and has a low enough price point, it would be foolish of Bigelow to refuse to engage in any operations that can generate revenue and instead just continue to bleed money just because they'd prefer two providers.

On the other hand, Bigelow might use it as an excuse for not launching a station.  So far, there's been no evidence Bigelow has any real customers with the kind of money they need with any real willingness to buy Bigelow's services, aside from a small-scale technology demo from NASA.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 04/30/2014 01:49 am
Ok, so as has been posted, SpaceX will unveil Dragon 2 on May 29th. What impact will the current crisis with Russia, especially considering the "trampoline" comment, have on the selection process?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/30/2014 01:55 am
The question is did the contents Elon's speech at news conference on Friday trigger Rogozin's 'trampoline' tweet.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 04/30/2014 01:59 am
The question is did the contents Elon's speech at news conference on Friday trigger Rogozin's 'trampoline' tweet.
No, that would be the latest round of EU and US Hi-Tech Export sanctions that he was responding to.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/30/2014 02:30 am
The question is did the contents Elon's speech at news conference on Friday trigger Rogozin's 'trampoline' tweet.
No, that would be the latest round of EU and US Hi-Tech Export sanctions that he was responding to.

Its good news that Elon's speech wasn't cause.
The bad news is that ISS has now been directly effected by the political events.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/01/2014 01:20 am
House draft appropriation bill proposes $785M for commercial crew for FY 2015. See link below:

USA Today says commercial crew would get $785M under the proposed bill:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/30/nasa-commercial-crew-program-house-appropriations/8527815/

Quote from: USA Today article
A key House Appropriations subcommittee voted unanimously Wednesday to approve a spending plan that would provide $785 million for the Commercial Crew Program in fiscal 2015.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 05/01/2014 01:44 am
That's less than the number on the bill pre markup I think. Certainly less than the Administration request. What was the fate of the supplemental? Axed I expect.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 05/01/2014 01:51 am
House draft appropriation bill proposes $785M for commercial crew for FY 2015. See link below:

USA Today says commercial crew would get $785M under the proposed bill:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/30/nasa-commercial-crew-program-house-appropriations/8527815/

Quote from: USA Today article
A key House Appropriations subcommittee voted unanimously Wednesday to approve a spending plan that would provide $785 million for the Commercial Crew Program in fiscal 2015.
This is great news, I'm glad the House is starting to support the program.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/01/2014 02:12 am
That's less than the number on the bill pre markup I think. Certainly less than the Administration request. What was the fate of the supplemental? Axed I expect.

There was no prior number as far as I know. The House and Senate usually meet somewhere in the middle. Hopefully the Senate will propose $850M (as the President requested) and they will meet in the middle at $818M.

Republicans have called the supplemental DOA from the outset. Democrats knew it was DOA when they proposed it. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 05/01/2014 02:17 am
That's less than the number on the bill pre markup I think. Certainly less than the Administration request. What was the fate of the supplemental? Axed I expect.

There was no prior number as far as I know. The House and Senate usually meet somewhere in the middle. Hopefully the Senate will propose $850M (as the President requested) and they will meet in the middle at $818M.

Republicans have called the supplemental DOA from the outset. Democrats knew it was DOA when they proposed it.

Yes, but they requested cash on top of that and it would have gone over a billon for FY 015 right?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 05/01/2014 04:44 am
A Federal judge has issued an injunction on ULA re: RD-180's

http://m.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/elon-musks-spacex-granted-injunction-in-rocket-launch-suit-against-lockheed-boeing/2014/04/30/4b028f7c-d0cd-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 05/01/2014 07:35 am
A Federal judge has issued an injunction on ULA re: RD-180's

http://m.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/elon-musks-spacex-granted-injunction-in-rocket-launch-suit-against-lockheed-boeing/2014/04/30/4b028f7c-d0cd-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html
I didn't expect that to happen. I wonder how this will effect Boeing's and Sierra Nevada's bids.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/01/2014 01:35 pm
That's less than the number on the bill pre markup I think. Certainly less than the Administration request. What was the fate of the supplemental? Axed I expect.

There was no prior number as far as I know. The House and Senate usually meet somewhere in the middle. Hopefully the Senate will propose $850M (as the President requested) and they will meet in the middle at $818M.

Republicans have called the supplemental DOA from the outset. Democrats knew it was DOA when they proposed it.

Yes, but they requested cash on top of that and it would have gone over a billon for FY 015 right?

Yes but that was in the supplemental which has been called DOA as soon as it was released. The supplemental funds were to accelerate the commercial crew program.  I never took the supplemental request seriously. It was just pre-midterm election postering.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 05/01/2014 03:50 pm
Let's not go into motivations of something that is OFF TOPIC for this thread.  Trimmed.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 05/05/2014 02:33 am
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo)


The one takeaway I got is that Elon says he needs a minimum of 4 flights per year and a full compliment of astronauts (28?) for 20 million per seat.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 05/05/2014 07:09 am
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo)


The one takeaway I got is that Elon says he needs a minimum of 4 flights per year and a full compliment of astronauts (28?) for 20 million per seat.

Which probably means with two flights a year and 3 astronauts each he would not be cheaper than Sojus. Who can be surprised at this launch rate?

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 05/05/2014 12:20 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo)


The one takeaway I got is that Elon says he needs a minimum of 4 flights per year and a full compliment of astronauts (28?) for 20 million per seat.

Excellent video story,  but parts of it seem many months old or what's presented isn't correct. 
For Example: The recent Boeing number of passengers is different etc.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 05/05/2014 12:27 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo)


The one takeaway I got is that Elon says he needs a minimum of 4 flights per year and a full compliment of astronauts (28?) for 20 million per seat.

Which probably means with two flights a year and 3 astronauts each he would not be cheaper than Sojus. Who can be surprised at this launch rate?

The Crew program was designed for two flights.   One early milestones was to have a 2nd market lined up for the Commercial market.   Maybe someone else could confirm this.

The down select is going to be a real popcorn event.



Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/05/2014 04:30 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo)


The one takeaway I got is that Elon says he needs a minimum of 4 flights per year and a full compliment of astronauts (28?) for 20 million per seat.

That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/05/2014 04:36 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo)


The one takeaway I got is that Elon says he needs a minimum of 4 flights per year and a full compliment of astronauts (28?) for 20 million per seat.

Which probably means with two flights a year and 3 astronauts each he would not be cheaper than Sojus. Who can be surprised at this launch rate?

The Crew program was designed for two flights.   One early milestones was to have a 2nd market lined up for the Commercial market.   Maybe someone else could confirm this.

The down select is going to be a real popcorn event.

There is no milestones related to having a commercial market. But it does help youre business case if you have one.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 05/05/2014 04:53 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo)


The one takeaway I got is that Elon says he needs a minimum of 4 flights per year and a full compliment of astronauts (28?) for 20 million per seat.

That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.
Still better than sending it to Russia.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 05/05/2014 05:54 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo)


The one takeaway I got is that Elon says he needs a minimum of 4 flights per year and a full compliment of astronauts (28?) for 20 million per seat.

That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.
That's 140M per flight. If they can do two flights for 160M with four crew each that's still 40M per seat. Even at 200M per flight (with four crew) is only 50M per seat. Still cheaper than Soyuz.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 05/05/2014 06:11 pm
That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.
Confused about how you get to those numbers.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/05/2014 10:34 pm
That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.
Confused about how you get to those numbers.

He gets that number by assuming that the cost of four flights with 7 astronauts each is exactly the same as the cost of two flights with four astronauts each.  Which is completely nuts, so I understand your confusion about where he came up with it.

Edit: as others have pointed out, even if it's $200 million per flight for two flights per year instead of $140 million per flight, it comes to less than Russia's price.  You have to really stretch to try to get the numbers to come out to being equal to or greater than the Russian price.

Not to mention that on Dragon three more astronauts, or a bunch of supplies, get to come along for free.  ISS might be able to handle a few more people for a couple of weeks.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/06/2014 01:53 pm
That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.
Confused about how you get to those numbers.

He gets that number by assuming that the cost of four flights with 7 astronauts each is exactly the same as the cost of two flights with four astronauts each.  Which is completely nuts, so I understand your confusion about where he came up with it.

Edit: as others have pointed out, even if it's $200 million per flight for two flights per year instead of $140 million per flight, it comes to less than Russia's price.  You have to really stretch to try to get the numbers to come out to being equal to or greater than the Russian price.

Not to mention that on Dragon three more astronauts, or a bunch of supplies, get to come along for free.  ISS might be able to handle a few more people for a couple of weeks.

I am assuming that the price per year is fixed at $560M regardless how many missions you fly during the year. It's a bit of a worst case scenario, I admit. But I get the feeling that the worst case scenario and the best case scenario aren't that far off.

For the comparaison to be fair, you would also have to calculate how much the extra cargo (100kg per extra seat) is worth. But saying that seats are $20M per seat by making unrealistic assumptions is also misleading. So chances are the price will be closer to $70M per seat than it will be to $20M per seat.  If you factor in the extra cargo space, it goes down to $64M which is less than Soyuz which is a good thing.

P.S. Extra cargo = 100 kg / 20,000 kg x $1,600M (based on SpaceX's CRS prices)= $8M per 100kg. Thus 6 empty seats per year replaced by 6 x 100kg of cargo = 6 x $8M =$48M per year for the extra cargo.  $560M less $48M = $512M / 8 seats = $64M per seat.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 05/06/2014 03:52 pm
I am assuming that the price per year is fixed at $560M regardless how many missions you fly during the year.
Unsubstantiated.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 05/06/2014 04:19 pm

That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.
Confused about how you get to those numbers.

He gets that number by assuming that the cost of four flights with 7 astronauts each is exactly the same as the cost of two flights with four astronauts each.  Which is completely nuts, so I understand your confusion about where he came up with it.

Edit: as others have pointed out, even if it's $200 million per flight for two flights per year instead of $140 million per flight, it comes to less than Russia's price.  You have to really stretch to try to get the numbers to come out to being equal to or greater than the Russian price.

Not to mention that on Dragon three more astronauts, or a bunch of supplies, get to come along for free.  ISS might be able to handle a few more people for a couple of weeks.

I am assuming that the price per year is fixed at $560M regardless how many missions you fly during the year. It's a bit of a worst case scenario, I admit. But I get the feeling that the worst case scenario and the best case scenario aren't that far off.

For the comparaison to be fair, you would also have to calculate how much the extra cargo (100kg per extra seat) is worth. But saying that seats are $20M per seat by making unrealistic assumptions is also misleading. So chances are the price will be closer to $70M per seat than it will be to $20M per seat.  If you factor in the extra cargo space, it goes down to $64M which is less than Soyuz which is a good thing.

P.S. Extra cargo = 100 kg / 20,000 kg x $1,600M (based on SpaceX's CRS prices)= $8M per 100kg. Thus 6 empty seats per year replaced by 6 x 100kg of cargo = 6 x $8M =$48M per year for the extra cargo.  $560M less $48M = $512M / 8 seats = $64M per seat.
You can't make that reasoning. Else, you would have to assume that to fly ten missions per year it would cost 560M. There are certain fixed cost and some per mission costs, plus some discreet jumps, like requiring a new pad for more than the maximum rate of a single one. 560M means four missions. And must probably assume the Cargo Dragon contract. The human certification extra costs and particular tooling and design support for the crewed version would be part of the fixed costs, as would be the crew access tower and ancillary GSE. But most of the rocket (human rating requires extra paperwork and care) and Dragon infrastructure is already there.
As I stated, 200M for two flights would mean a marginal cost of just 80M per extra mission. And would still mean 50M per seat. Which I consider the upper bound in 2010 dollars.
Also there's the payload calculation. People has relatively little weight. You can stuff a lot more payload than 100kg per passenger that you don't take. In particular, there's. Lot of extra capacity and packing volume. So in the end I would guess that a standard flight would carry 4 pax + 400kg of payload.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 05/06/2014 05:06 pm
SpaceX specific version of the BB/Bloomberg CC piece. Adds some new footage.

http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2014-05-05/how-elon-musk-plans-to-win-the-galaxy (http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2014-05-05/how-elon-musk-plans-to-win-the-galaxy)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/06/2014 05:12 pm
I am assuming that the price per year is fixed at $560M regardless how many missions you fly during the year.
Unsubstantiated.

Of course. That's what an assumption is.  But I don't know what percentage is fixed cost. So I have assumed 100% for purpose of being conservative. I was trying to make the point that the cost would be closer to $70M than $20M per seat if you make more realistic assumptions. I have also assumed that SpaceX doesn't get any funds from Bigelow to offset the fact that there is only two flights per year. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/06/2014 05:25 pm
That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.

Confused about how you get to those numbers.

He gets that number by assuming that the cost of four flights with 7 astronauts each is exactly the same as the cost of two flights with four astronauts each.  Which is completely nuts, so I understand your confusion about where he came up with it.

Edit: as others have pointed out, even if it's $200 million per flight for two flights per year instead of $140 million per flight, it comes to less than Russia's price.  You have to really stretch to try to get the numbers to come out to being equal to or greater than the Russian price.

Not to mention that on Dragon three more astronauts, or a bunch of supplies, get to come along for free.  ISS might be able to handle a few more people for a couple of weeks.

I am assuming that the price per year is fixed at $560M regardless how many missions you fly during the year. It's a bit of a worst case scenario, I admit. But I get the feeling that the worst case scenario and the best case scenario aren't that far off.

For the comparaison to be fair, you would also have to calculate how much the extra cargo (100kg per extra seat) is worth. But saying that seats are $20M per seat by making unrealistic assumptions is also misleading. So chances are the price will be closer to $70M per seat than it will be to $20M per seat.  If you factor in the extra cargo space, it goes down to $64M which is less than Soyuz which is a good thing.

P.S. Extra cargo = 100 kg / 20,000 kg x $1,600M (based on SpaceX's CRS prices)= $8M per 100kg. Thus 6 empty seats per year replaced by 6 x 100kg of cargo = 6 x $8M =$48M per year for the extra cargo.  $560M less $48M = $512M / 8 seats = $64M per seat.
You can't make that reasoning. Else, you would have to assume that to fly ten missions per year it would cost 560M. There are certain fixed cost and some per mission costs, plus some discreet jumps, like requiring a new pad for more than the maximum rate of a single one. 560M means four missions. And must probably assume the Cargo Dragon contract. The human certification extra costs and particular tooling and design support for the crewed version would be part of the fixed costs, as would be the crew access tower and ancillary GSE. But most of the rocket (human rating requires extra paperwork and care) and Dragon infrastructure is already there.
As I stated, 200M for two flights would mean a marginal cost of just 80M per extra mission. And would still mean 50M per seat. Which I consider the upper bound in 2010 dollars.
Also there's the payload calculation. People has relatively little weight. You can stuff a lot more payload than 100kg per passenger that you don't take. In particular, there's. Lot of extra capacity and packing volume. So in the end I would guess that a standard flight would carry 4 pax + 400kg of payload.

Yes I agree. I was trying to make the point that the cost would be more than $20M and probably closer to $70M. But I agree that $50M per seat sounds like a much more realistic estimate. But it remains an estimate. Assuming that the cost per year would be the same is more conservative. In any event, if it comes to less than $70M, it's still a good deal for NASA.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/07/2014 04:58 pm
It looks like the House wants to force NASA to downselect to one. Hopefully, the Senate will not have such a provision. The Report is still in draft form.

The House would force downselection to one provider under CCtCap:

Quote from: pages 71 and 72 of the Report
Commercial crew.—The Committee has provided NASA with substantial resources for the commercial crew program (CCP). CCP appropriations have often exceeded the program’s authorized levels and have increased in each of the last four fiscal years despite declining topline spending levels, sequestration and previously expressed concerns about the effective management of Federal investments in the program.

The Committee’s fiscal year 2015 recommendation provides $785,000,000 for the CCP, an increase of $89,000,000 above fiscal year 2014. These funds shall support one industry partner’s advancement through the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) process. The Committee believes that this recommendation strikes the appropriate balance between support for the program’s underlying goal and caution against management approaches that many in the Congress do not endorse. Consistent with prior direction, NASA shall take all steps necessary to incentivize further private investment in the program, including, to the maximum extent possible, taking the industry partners’ level of proposed private investment into account as a selection criterion for CCtCap.

Finally, each CCtCap proposer has now provided NASA with the flight price that would be charged if that proposer ultimately were to conduct missions to the International Space Station (ISS). Those prices will determine how much, if any, savings the CCP will generate compared to Soyuz transportation prices. While this information is currently subject to the CCtCap procurement blackout, NASA shall brief the Committee on expected flight pricing as soon as the blackout period is concluded.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 05/07/2014 05:10 pm
It looks like the House wants to force NASA to downselect to one. Hopefully, the Senate will not have such a provision. The Report is still in draft form.

The House would force downselection to one provider under CCtCap:

Quote from: pages 71 and 72 of the Report
Commercial crew.—The Committee has provided NASA with substantial resources for the commercial crew program (CCP). CCP appropriations have often exceeded the program’s authorized levels and have increased in each of the last four fiscal years despite declining topline spending levels, sequestration and previously expressed concerns about the effective management of Federal investments in the program.

The Committee’s fiscal year 2015 recommendation provides $785,000,000 for the CCP, an increase of $89,000,000 above fiscal year 2014. These funds shall support one industry partner’s advancement through the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) process. The Committee believes that this recommendation strikes the appropriate balance between support for the program’s underlying goal and caution against management approaches that many in the Congress do not endorse. Consistent with prior direction, NASA shall take all steps necessary to incentivize further private investment in the program, including, to the maximum extent possible, taking the industry partners’ level of proposed private investment into account as a selection criterion for CCtCap.

Finally, each CCtCap proposer has now provided NASA with the flight price that would be charged if that proposer ultimately were to conduct missions to the International Space Station (ISS). Those prices will determine how much, if any, savings the CCP will generate compared to Soyuz transportation prices. While this information is currently subject to the CCtCap procurement blackout, NASA shall brief the Committee on expected flight pricing as soon as the blackout period is concluded.
Meh, of course the House would say stuff like that.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/07/2014 08:32 pm
I like how they say that they increased it from last year all the while side stepping the fact that never met the President's requested amount from the program's inception delaying it by a couple years. We could be flying by next year... sigh... ???
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: bad_astra on 05/07/2014 08:53 pm
When you need to pat yourself on the back and can't reach it, just redefine where the back begins. Either way, if the down select gets astronauts back in a domestic vehicle fast, good enough.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/07/2014 09:01 pm
I doubt that the Senate's version will have a requirement to downselect. Furthermore, the CJS appropriation bill is unlikely to be passed prior to CCtCap being awarded. Lastly Wolf is retiring and may not be in place by the time the CJS appropriation bill becomes law. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 05/07/2014 10:27 pm
Concerning the downselect, this is still just a committee draft so there's a lot of points when it can change and unless SpaceX, Boeing, or SNC are incredibly confident they will be selected as the sole source then all 3 will have lobbyists out suggesting the sole provider language be dropped.

What I found interesting in that though is this:
"Finally, each CCtCap proposer has now provided NASA with the flight price that would be charged if that proposer ultimately were to conduct missions to the International Space Station (ISS)."

I may just be behind the curve but have we heard before that all three have already made official price estimates?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 05/08/2014 12:15 am
Concerning the downselect, this is still just a committee draft so there's a lot of points when it can change and unless SpaceX, Boeing, or SNC are incredibly confident they will be selected as the sole source then all 3 will have lobbyists out suggesting the sole provider language be dropped.

What I found interesting in that though is this:
"Finally, each CCtCap proposer has now provided NASA with the flight price that would be charged if that proposer ultimately were to conduct missions to the International Space Station (ISS)."

I may just be behind the curve but have we heard before that all three have already made official price estimates?
I believe the next part of that reference you selected, was that congress expects to be apprized of those prices after the blackout period is over. But essentially, yes. Prices should have been in all participants proposals delivered to NASA a few months ago. NASA just can't release them as they are all proprietary to the bidders, until after they make a selection.

Although Elon doesn't seem to have an issue throwing out numbers when asked, depending on # of crew on # of flights.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 05/10/2014 03:32 pm
First,  I think you would be surprised but I suspect all the companies would prefer a down select.  Maybe SpaceX because they are going regardless so some money may be better.  These companies know there is not enough money so that more than one company just means less money, longer time, etc.

No one gets to go along free to the ISS.

Let's look at the situation.  At this point competition is a farace and quite frankly, as a tax payer, probably a waste of money.  For all practical purposes there are two viable companies - Boeing and SpaceX (sorry, but that is the reality in level of maturity).  The Atlas 5 is one of the biggest drivers of cost for its missions and that is not going to get cheaper with competion (though who knows how the whole SpaceX-ULA thing might play out).  SpaceX is developing their boosters, have external customers, might be under bidding to get the business...but bottom line it won't change much either.  If you don't down select in CCtCAP you will waste a lot of money and time because then the companies - and NASA - will have to spend large amounts of time and money to review another proposal.  Also because of the nature of contracts there is overhead with closing out one contract and start up for the new one.  That is time, nor money, that we don't have.    Also note, I think the companies have ponied up certain sums of mney in the next phase assuming they get the ISS contracts.  For example (made up numbers), say Boeing proffered $50M in tCAP.  If it is going to be a couple of years they then down select, they would be less likely to put that much money.  So they go to say $20M.  That is financially sounds for a company but doesn't really help the long term prospects of getting our astronauts in space.

If the US had unlimited money it would be great to fund 2.  And if you funded these two you could (perhaps, just one scenario) is get Boeing to provide ISS services and SpaceX could continue on and really forge a commercial market.  But the reality is we do not have that money.  The costs of either company exceeds what is being budgeted (and if you don't think the ISS program and astronauts won't push for significant upgrades starting in CCtCAp you are kidding yourself).    Since there is not enough money, the money that has already been spent on SNC and Blue Origins will be a jobs program at best.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 05/10/2014 03:50 pm
For all practical purposes there are two viable companies - Boeing and SpaceX (sorry, but that is the reality in level of maturity). 

IF Sierra Nevada follows through on the orbital test flight of the OTV-1 currently under construction, it's hard to say that SNC isn't equally viable.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/10/2014 03:52 pm
First,  I think you would be surprised but I suspect all the companies would prefer a down select.  Maybe SpaceX because they are going regardless so some money may be better.  These companies know there is not enough money so that more than one company just means less money, longer time, etc. [...]

Shotwell has recently mentionned that SpaceX would prefer competition to be maintained. Competition makes sense for CCtCap for the same reason that it makes sense for CRS. I am encouraged by the fact that new entrants will be allowed for the 2017-2024 CRS2 contracts. In my opinion, astronauts shouldn't be allowed to offer suggestions for improvements under CCtCap. Each companies has already hired astronauts that are directly involved in their respective programs.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/10/2014 04:11 pm
For all practical purposes there are two viable companies - Boeing and SpaceX (sorry, but that is the reality in level of maturity). 

IF Sierra Nevada follows through on the orbital test flight of the OTV-1 currently under construction, it's hard to say that SNC isn't equally viable.

And considering that both SpaceX and Boeing offer capsules, and Sierra Nevada is offering a runway-landing spacecraft, I'd say that NASA - if it was possible - would really like the Dream Chaser to be one of the available choices.

No doubt SNC would need the most of amount of time and money, but I would not be surprised if NASA were to do a 1.5 down-select that Dream Chaser would be the "0.5".
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 05/10/2014 04:28 pm
I don't think any of the competitors would object to a down-select to two providers, as long as they are one of the two. :)

IMO, A down-select to 1 (or 1.5) seems very counter-intuitive at this point. Narrow the field to 2 instead, to allow the maximum probability of success.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 05/10/2014 04:33 pm
For all practical purposes there are two viable companies - Boeing and SpaceX (sorry, but that is the reality in level of maturity). 

IF Sierra Nevada follows through on the orbital test flight of the OTV-1 currently under construction, it's hard to say that SNC isn't equally viable.

And considering that both SpaceX and Boeing offer capsules, and Sierra Nevada is offering a runway-landing spacecraft, I'd say that NASA - if it was possible - would really like the Dream Chaser to be one of the available choices.

No doubt SNC would need the most of amount of time and money, but I would not be surprised if NASA were to do a 1.5 down-select that Dream Chaser would be the "0.5".
I agree. I believe SpaceX gets the majority of funds to possibly accelerate their program and SNC gets what's left to continue and be available a bit later. After all, we have not seen the SNC proposal. Although they need to retire the most risk with reentry and abort among others, depending on how they have designed for efficient post flight turn-around and re-use, the economics, post development, may be highly desirable.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 05/10/2014 04:40 pm
I don't think any of the competitors would object to a down-select to two providers, as long as they are one of the two. :)

IMO, A down-select to 1 (or 1.5) seems very counter-intuitive at this point. Narrow the field to 2 instead, to allow the maximum probability of success.
Ha, agreed WRT first part.

As for 1.5, that's more of a funding profile concept. You're still selecting 2 but since they are different systems with different lead times to market, it's reasonable to accelerate at least one system to maturity with funds available and at least keep your second selector moving forward to operationally compete a little thereafter.

Reality is there are 2 phases of competition. Phase 1 is to get selected. NASA has the information they need for that selection. Phase 2 is operations. Who's operating efficiently, maintaining cost profiles, delivering on their promised vehicle - mission capabilities.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 05/10/2014 11:43 pm
For all practical purposes there are two viable companies - Boeing and SpaceX (sorry, but that is the reality in level of maturity). 

IF Sierra Nevada follows through on the orbital test flight of the OTV-1 currently under construction, it's hard to say that SNC isn't equally viable.

IF won't help them for tCAP and it is likely they will just fall further behind.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 05/10/2014 11:43 pm
First,  I think you would be surprised but I suspect all the companies would prefer a down select.  Maybe SpaceX because they are going regardless so some money may be better.  These companies know there is not enough money so that more than one company just means less money, longer time, etc. [...]

In my opinion, astronauts shouldn't be allowed to offer suggestions for improvements under CCtCap. Each companies has already hired astronauts that are directly involved in their respective programs.

It is called the Joint Test Team in tCAP.  it WILL happen,
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sdsds on 05/10/2014 11:57 pm
It would be really helpful if someone could summarize what's known about the current state of Atlas V human rating efforts. Has the NASA-funded work towards that been completed? Extra points for answers using acronyms like EDS, DER, and PRA... ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/11/2014 12:27 am
First,  I think you would be surprised but I suspect all the companies would prefer a down select.  Maybe SpaceX because they are going regardless so some money may be better.  These companies know there is not enough money so that more than one company just means less money, longer time, etc. [...]

In my opinion, astronauts shouldn't be allowed to offer suggestions for improvements under CCtCap. Each companies has already hired astronauts that are directly involved in their respective programs.

It is called the Joint Test Team in tCAP.  it WILL happen,

That's why they should have stuck to SAAs. In the FY 2015 Budget, NASA said that it was thinking of extending CCiCap through FY 2015. Hopefully that will happen.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 05/11/2014 01:07 am
It would be really helpful if someone could summarize what's known about the current state of Atlas V human rating efforts. Has the NASA-funded work towards that been completed? Extra points for answers using acronyms like EDS, DER, and PRA... ;)

Yes, that would be nice. And we does ULA expect to fly the first Atlas V with dual engine Centaur?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 05/11/2014 06:18 pm
It would be really helpful if someone could summarize what's known about the current state of Atlas V human rating efforts. Has the NASA-funded work towards that been completed? Extra points for answers using acronyms like EDS, DER, and PRA... ;)

Yes, that would be nice. And we does ULA expect to fly the first Atlas V with dual engine Centaur?

There were only small milestones for this in CCiCAP.  Work is ongoing but main work isn in CCtCAP.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/12/2014 01:49 am
Here is a bit more on the downselect proposal:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/05/09/cjs-spending-bill-passes-full-house-appropriations-committee/

Quote
“I will confidently predict that if this policy recommendation of a downselect becomes the policy of the United States, you will find that you have saved neither money nor time,” said Jeff Greason, CEO of XCOR Aerospace. La Branche said that this issue was an “ongoing discussion” that will later involve negotiations with the Senate when it crafts its appropriations bill in the coming weeks.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/19/2014 11:57 pm
Nothing new here except the mention of BO.

 http://www.nasa.gov/content/from-wind-tunnel-tests-to-software-reviews-nasas-commercial-crew-partners-continue-to/index.html#.U3qYO2f7Kl1
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 05/20/2014 09:28 pm
Ms Shotwell is rather explicit there will be a down select in Sept, and either SpaceX, Boeing or SNC will get the bulk of the funds. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKoq2vFlSZk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKoq2vFlSZk)

Around 16 minutes mark.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 05/21/2014 01:21 pm
Even if it's likely I don't think she is privy to any decision on that as of yet.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 05/21/2014 06:01 pm
Even if it's likely I don't think she is privy to any decision on that as of yet.

I agree. I don't think that NASA has decided yet either.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 05/23/2014 01:50 am
No one "really knows".  And those that do are (hopefully) not stupid enough to divulge any information.  Its in black out.  The Senate still has to pass a bill and then comes conference. 

iCap was 2 1/2.  That is to say SpaceX and Boeing got one full share and SNC got 1/2.

The FAR is going to cause a down-select.  But I hope we can get either 2 or 1 1/2.

VR
RE327
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/30/2014 08:08 am
There are now 2 vehicles targeting late 2016 manned launches, DC & Dragon 2. I get the impression both are going fly then regardless of CC funding.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/30/2014 08:24 am
I stand corrected regarding launch dates being depended on CC funding.

This quote courtesy of NBC Dragon 2 article.

"If all goes well, and if NASA continues funding development, Musk said the Dragon V2's first uncrewed flight to orbit could take place by the end of 2015. The first orbital launch with test pilots aboard could follow in 2016, he said, leaving plenty of time to meet NASA's 2017 deadline."
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/30/2014 08:41 pm
Now that we've seen Dragon V2, or whatever its called, and have previously seen a CST-100 type mockup and clues about Dream Chaser, which one wins?

I'm left wondering about Dragon V2, which seems full of risky elements like propulsive landing and non-standard crew flight controls.  I would have been happier to see something closer to a stock Dragon cargo capsule outfitted with seats and an LAS.  Why didn't SpaceX go with what it has already proven in flight?

I personally don't like Dream Chaser right now, but it has nothing to do with the basic design (which actually seems quite strong, especially if they are using Lockheed Martin avionics).  It has to do with ridiculous secrecy about the crash landing, etc.

CST-100 seems to me to potentially look like a safer bet than Dragon to a risk-averse NASA.  But doesn't Boeing already have enough NASA contracts with the SLS core and the SLS upper stages?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 05/30/2014 08:47 pm
I personally don't like Dream Chaser right now, but it has nothing to do with the basic design (which actually seems quite strong, especially if they are using Lockheed Martin avionics).  It has to do with ridiculous secrecy about the crash landing, etc.
I'd probably argue that SNC has been the least secretive. They've provided a lot of development updates and information about their vehicle. Boeing has only trickled out information, and SpaceX have only today told us what vehicle they're even competing with.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 05/30/2014 09:20 pm
I'm left wondering about Dragon V2, which seems full of risky elements like propulsive landing and non-standard crew flight controls.  I would have been happier to see something closer to a stock Dragon cargo capsule outfitted with seats and an LAS.  Why didn't SpaceX go with what it has already proven in flight?

That's what the "DragonFly" test bed will prove.

And even if propulsive landing proves to be unreliable, the design can just as easily do propulsive-assisted parachute landing, or parachute only landing. The spacecraft will be able to do all 3 modes, if needed.

As far as the flight controls - I would treat all of the interior as subject to change - clearly the least polished aspect that was put on display.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/30/2014 09:26 pm
I'm left wondering about Dragon V2, which seems full of risky elements like propulsive landing and non-standard crew flight controls.  I would have been happier to see something closer to a stock Dragon cargo capsule outfitted with seats and an LAS.  Why didn't SpaceX go with what it has already proven in flight?

CST-100 seems to me to potentially look like a safer bet than Dragon to a risk-averse NASA.

Dragon V2 has some new things and some things that are retained from V1.  That's versus CST-100 that has no previous version to retain anything from.  I'd say that is a factor in favor of Dragon over CST-100 in terms of risk.

In terms of "non-standard crew flight controls", there is no standard.  It's different from 1960s and 1970s designs for spacecraft controls, that's true.  Dragon has four big multi-function displays plus physical buttons and a center stick.  I fail to see how that's a risk.  Multi-function displays are widely used today.  In aviation, more and more functionality has been moving into multi-function displays over the years, and Dragon is in line with that trend.  And all the critical functions are controlled by physical controls as a backup for the multi-function displays.  The multi-function displays are redundant with one another, and with modern technology such things are extremely reliable.  I'd consider Dragon's crew flight controls to be very low risk -- less risky than legacy systems with lots of physical switches and single-purpose displays that can have wiring problems, get stuck, etc.

I agree that propulsive landing is a new feature, and there is potential risk there.  It's really the only area where there's potentially more risk than CST-100, in my opinion.  But SpaceX is going to be doing a lot of testing with Dragonfly to retire that risk.  And they still carry the parachute system from Dragon V1.  Propulsive landing is just an added option.  And parachutes aren't without risk either.  They can fail to deploy properly.  With parachutes, there's less control over exactly where the vessel lands.  With water landing, it doesn't matter so much exactly where it sets down, but then you have the risk of being in the water, where there's the potential to flip over, fill with water, or even sink.  With proper testing with Dragonfly, by the time Dragon V2 actually carries crew to and from orbit, I just can't see it as being riskier than the parachutes of CST-100.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: bad_astra on 05/30/2014 09:35 pm
Dragon 2's ability to land anywhere restores the medical evac function that was useful for X-38's planned ability to also essentially land anywhere. I like all three spaceships. Hell, I like all spaceships, who doesn't, but Dragon 2 just has it all, from what I see.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Will on 05/30/2014 11:06 pm
Now that we've seen Dragon V2, or whatever its called, and have previously seen a CST-100 type mockup and clues about Dream Chaser, which one wins?

I'm left wondering about Dragon V2, which seems full of risky elements like propulsive landing and non-standard crew flight controls.  I would have been happier to see something closer to a stock Dragon cargo capsule outfitted with seats and an LAS.  Why didn't SpaceX go with what it has already proven in flight?

I personally don't like Dream Chaser right now, but it has nothing to do with the basic design (which actually seems quite strong, especially if they are using Lockheed Martin avionics).  It has to do with ridiculous secrecy about the crash landing, etc.

CST-100 seems to me to potentially look like a safer bet than Dragon to a risk-averse NASA.  But doesn't Boeing already have enough NASA contracts with the SLS core and the SLS upper stages?

 - Ed Kyle

I think SNC is the least likely survivor. The prime contractor has the least relevant experience, horizontal landing adds complexity and limits where you can land, and hybrid propulsion is evidently riskier than it might appear at first glance.

Propulsive landing is relatively new, but SpaceX can retire a lot of that risk with Dragonfly. It can retire abort risk more easily than Boeing, because it can run more tests of pad abort and max-q abort at lower marginal cost. And at the moment, SpaceX seems closer to flight on their abort tests.

The big advantage that Boeing has over SpaceX is their heritage experience and the greater demonstrated reliability of the Atlas V.

It's a tough call. At the moment, I think SpaceX has the advantage, but it could easily change if they fall behind in their launch rate or lose even one launcher.




Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 05/30/2014 11:40 pm
It's a tough call. At the moment, I think SpaceX has the advantage, but it could easily change if they fall behind in their launch rate or lose even one launcher.

Which is another way of saying that downselect or picking a winner at this stage would be statistically and scientifically about as solid as and excercise in tasseography.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/30/2014 11:44 pm
The big advantage that Boeing has over SpaceX is their heritage experience and the greater demonstrated reliability of the Atlas V.

I think Ukraine turned Atlas V from an asset to a liability as far as commercial crew is concerned.  Whether or not engine supply from Russia is ever disrupted, it has suddenly become a big doubt in everyone's mind.  If the downselect is to one supplier, it's hard to see NASA wanting to have that one supplier dependent on engines that might stop coming because of some future crisis.

Also, by 2017 when the first commercial flights of NASA astronauts are to begin, there very likely will have been quite a few more Falcon 9 flights.  That greatly reduces the edge of Atlas V in terms of its track record.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/30/2014 11:46 pm
It's a tough call. At the moment, I think SpaceX has the advantage, but it could easily change if they fall behind in their launch rate or lose even one launcher.

Which is another way of saying that downselect or picking a winner at this stage would be statistically and scientifically about as solid as and excercise in tasseography.

It has nothing to with statistics or science, but that doesn't mean we can't reasonable judge the odds at something other than even.

I'd give five-to-one odds that if there's a downselect to one provider that one is SpaceX.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 05/30/2014 11:47 pm
The only thing that's clear to me at this point is that all three contenders are producing a lot more "bang for the buck" than SLS/Orion, and all three have more potential to open up access to space for a reasonable cost than the budget busting SLS program.  As a US taxpayer who believes that human spaceflight is a worthwhile investment, I'd be happy to see all of the above survive but if it comes down to tough choices, I hope we don't sacrifice the great potential of all three commercial crew systems in order to preserve an enormously expensive legacy jobs program that has no clearly defined mission.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Will on 05/31/2014 12:01 am
The big advantage that Boeing has over SpaceX is their heritage experience and the greater demonstrated reliability of the Atlas V.

I think Ukraine turned Atlas V from an asset to a liability as far as commercial crew is concerned.  Whether or not engine supply from Russia is ever disrupted, it has suddenly become a big doubt in everyone's mind.  If the downselect is to one supplier, it's hard to see NASA wanting to have that one supplier dependent on engines that might stop coming because of some future crisis.

Also, by 2017 when the first commercial flights of NASA astronauts are to begin, there very likely will have been quite a few more Falcon 9 flights.  That greatly reduces the edge of Atlas V in terms of its track record.


Right. But to launch in 2017, you need to sign a contact earlier than that. I gather that normally if you want to launch in 2017, you need to select a launcher no later than 2015, to be able to make sure that payload and launcher will play nicely together, unless an identical spacecraft has already been integrated with that launcher.

More Falcon 9 flights will narrow the edge in favor of Atlas V, as long as fewer of them fail than Atlas Vs. If not, not.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 05/31/2014 12:42 am
As regards the fully propulsive landings, those are way down the road. Remember the CC video presentation showing a Crew Dragon chutes and rockets landing?

http://youtu.be/vW3K3TfQbSI
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/31/2014 01:15 am
The only thing that's clear to me at this point is that all three contenders are producing a lot more "bang for the buck" than SLS/Orion, and all three have more potential to open up access to space for a reasonable cost than the budget busting SLS program.  As a US taxpayer who believes that human spaceflight is a worthwhile investment, I'd be happy to see all of the above survive but if it comes down to tough choices, I hope we don't sacrifice the great potential of all three commercial crew systems in order to preserve an enormously expensive legacy jobs program that has no clearly defined mission.

I completely agree.  We could have all three of the commercial contenders plus lots of money for BEO exploration if we would just cut SLS and Orion.  That's the downselect I'd like to see.

It's not going to happen, though.  SLS may eventually be cancelled before it flies, but not before one, and probably two, of the commercial crew options is cut.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 05/31/2014 01:24 am
For NASA's use, i.e. 2 flights to the ISS a year, CST-100 looks like the safest bet. The more accurate propulsive landing and the reusability of the LAS are things that probably only pay off if you fly more regularily. But isn't one goal of commercial crew to kick-start new markets for HSF?

Propulsive landing is just an added option.

It's gonna be a hard landing on land without it, but I guess survivable.

..horizontal landing limits where you can land..

Well yes and no. You cannot land on water but on land you have far more options.

I hope we don't sacrifice the great potential of all three commercial crew systems in order to preserve an enormously expensive legacy jobs program that has no clearly defined mission.

If the ISS ends in 2020, where's NASA's mission for commercial crew?

Orion is the only program I'm certain will survive the next 5 years.

But I agree of course, if there is a slight chance any of the 3 programs will live on after the ISS, it should be funded before anything else in HSF.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/31/2014 01:33 am
The big advantage that Boeing has over SpaceX is their heritage experience and the greater demonstrated reliability of the Atlas V.

I think the word you really mean is "legacy", not "heritage", since the CST-100 is a completely new spacecraft design - there is no "heritage" at all.  At least SpaceX can point to the Dragon V2 commonality with the current and former cargo-only versions, which does provide "heritage".

What Boeing does have is a "legacy" of building good space hardware, but since so much of that depends on people, and not buildings, there is not much direct "legacy" that could be applied to the CST-100.  And people can be hired away, as SpaceX has been doing (Sierra Nevada too no doubt), so "legacy" to a certain degree can be bought and moved around within the aerospace community.

Quote
It's a tough call. At the moment, I think SpaceX has the advantage, but it could easily change if they fall behind in their launch rate or lose even one launcher.

To me it's pretty clear that SpaceX is so very far ahead of both Boeing and Sierra Nevada that they could have a test failure and not be worried.  And NASA won't be awarding the winners based on a fully tested vehicle, but on a evaluation process that is likely looking at the probability that the designs are safe and the companies have the ability to certify the vehicles and perform the contracted services.  I think SpaceX will do well in that evaluation, as they have current operational experience that NASA can reference.

So assuming SpaceX is a lock for #1 position, who for #2?

Just based on the progress Boeing and Sierra Nevada have been making in public, it would have to be Sierra Nevada - they are already flying hardware, whereas Boeing has only revealed how nice it will be to sit inside of the CST-100.  Sierra Nevada has already contracted for a Atlas V flight in 2016, but I don't think Boeing has, so yet more reason to see that Sierra Nevada has more program momentum than Boeing does.

However Boeing is a big company, and if they decide to put resources on the CST-100 to ensure it wins then they will be a formidable opponent.  The question is whether they are putting enough resources to win over Sierra Nevada... and if they are, it's not very apparent.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/31/2014 03:44 am
The only thing that's clear to me at this point is that all three contenders are producing a lot more "bang for the buck" than SLS/Orion, and all three have more potential to open up access to space for a reasonable cost than the budget busting SLS program.  As a US taxpayer who believes that human spaceflight is a worthwhile investment, I'd be happy to see all of the above survive but if it comes down to tough choices, I hope we don't sacrifice the great potential of all three commercial crew systems in order to preserve an enormously expensive legacy jobs program that has no clearly defined mission.
I don't see it as a budget buster, because NASA is spending less per year for SLS/Orion than it spent for Shuttle.  It is spending 35% of that total for commercial crew annually, but that is for a system that will only weigh about 10% as much as the SLS lifting capability to LEO, never mind that SLS/Orion is going to deep space which commercial crew will not.  By these measures, SLS/Orion is actually more bang for the buck.  But I support both endeavors, because both are different animals meant for different missions.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 05/31/2014 04:15 am
I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that down-select would favor SpaceX. That's more to do with the internet's bias towards that company and its marketing than what NASA will actually pick. They weren't even awarded the highest amount last round. It would be great if they were picked because precision landed pods sounds cool but I'm not counting on it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 05/31/2014 04:32 am
... never mind that SLS/Orion is going to deep space which commercial crew will not.  By these measures, SLS/Orion is actually more bang for the buck.

Provided there's some money to be found for payloads and missions, so we can actually operate the thing. 

Quote
But I support both endeavors, because both are different animals meant for different missions.

Half the problem is that NASA doesn't have a clearly defined mission beyond servicing ISS for the next 10 years or so.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/31/2014 05:58 am
If the ISS ends in 2020, where's NASA's mission for commercial crew?

If there's any human spaceflight program at all by NASA, it will need to get crew to and from orbit.  That's the mission for commercial crew.  I hope we can finally get past the old idea that docking in orbit is somehow bad so we have to put our crew on mega-launchers that only rarely fly just to avoid docking in orbit.

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that down-select would favor SpaceX. That's more to do with the internet's bias towards that company and its marketing than what NASA will actually pick. They weren't even awarded the highest amount last round. It would be great if they were picked because precision landed pods sounds cool but I'm not counting on it.

SpaceX wasn't awarded the highest amount because they didn't ask for as much in their proposal as Boeing did.  SpaceX can do more with less.  That's a point in favor of SpaceX winning the downselect, not a point against it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 05/31/2014 06:33 am



SpaceX wasn't awarded the highest amount because they didn't ask for as much in their proposal as Boeing did.  SpaceX can do more with less.  That's a point in favor of SpaceX winning the downselect, not a point against it.
I kinda feel that statement falls into Space X has a secret sauce territory. I haven't seen any evidence of them doing "more with less" or that they've any magical powers that other have escaped other aerospace companies. They may have just low balled their request because they didn't think they would get any more than that amount when competing with a company that's been involved with human spaceflight for decades. We're not privy to the total amount invested in any of the vehicles as I understand the company is required to partially pay for the developments.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/31/2014 06:49 am
SpaceX wasn't awarded the highest amount because they didn't ask for as much in their proposal as Boeing did.  SpaceX can do more with less.  That's a point in favor of SpaceX winning the downselect, not a point against it.
I kinda feel that statement falls into Space X has a secret sauce territory. I haven't seen any evidence of them doing "more with less" or that they've any magical powers that other have escaped other aerospace companies. They may have just low balled their request because they didn't think they would get any more than that amount when competing with a company that's been involved with human spaceflight for decades. We're not privy to the total amount invested in any of the vehicles as I understand the company is required to partially pay for the developments.

Well, SpaceX is getting less money from CCiCap, but they're doing both a launch abort test and an in-flight max-Q abort test, neither of which Boeing is doing with their CST-100.

Maybe that's because Boeing is making more profit or because SpaceX is sinking a bunch of their own money into it, but from NASA's point of view, they're paying less and getting more.  That's a point in favor of SpaceX in the downselect decision, regardless of why it's the case.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 05/31/2014 10:18 am
I agree that propulsive landing is a new feature, and there is potential risk there.  It's really the only area where there's potentially more risk than CST-100, in my opinion.  But SpaceX is going to be doing a lot of testing with Dragonfly to retire that risk.  And they still carry the parachute system from Dragon V1.  Propulsive landing is just an added option.  And parachutes aren't without risk either.  They can fail to deploy properly.  With parachutes, there's less control over exactly where the vessel lands.  With water landing, it doesn't matter so much exactly where it sets down, but then you have the risk of being in the water, where there's the potential to flip over, fill with water, or even sink.  With proper testing with Dragonfly, by the time Dragon V2 actually carries crew to and from orbit, I just can't see it as being riskier than the parachutes of CST-100.

For the dangers of water landings, just look at SpaceX CRS-3, which reportedly took 11 hours to be recovered.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 05/31/2014 10:21 am
I think SNC is the least likely survivor. The prime contractor has the least relevant experience, horizontal landing adds complexity and limits where you can land, and hybrid propulsion is evidently riskier than it might appear at first glance.

Yeah, but if VG/SS2 ever finally get to flying passengers, the experience with that will go up extremely quickly. Much faster than spaceflight rates.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 05/31/2014 01:02 pm
The only thing that's clear to me at this point is that all three contenders are producing a lot more "bang for the buck" than SLS/Orion, and all three have more potential to open up access to space for a reasonable cost than the budget busting SLS program.  As a US taxpayer who believes that human spaceflight is a worthwhile investment, I'd be happy to see all of the above survive but if it comes down to tough choices, I hope we don't sacrifice the great potential of all three commercial crew systems in order to preserve an enormously expensive legacy jobs program that has no clearly defined mission.

I'd prefer to see all 3 survive, even if it meant the cancellation of SLS/Orion.
This is not the thread to discuss the details, but the enormous costs associated with SLS are too huge to preserve at the expense of the 3 contending spacecraft providers, especially when 1 of them will also provide a heavy and super heavy LV.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrianNH on 05/31/2014 02:34 pm
Doing an abort test does not necessarily mean that you are ahead.   Blue Origin did a pad abort test almost 2 years ago and I don't see anyone arguing that they are ahead of the others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgEt-R2FNEA
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 05/31/2014 03:09 pm
For NASA's use, i.e. 2 flights to the ISS a year
Just to pick nits, wouldn't it be closer to 4 flights a year? They're 6 month expeditions but they overlap quite a bit.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Will on 05/31/2014 06:04 pm
For NASA's use, i.e. 2 flights to the ISS a year
Just to pick nits, wouldn't it be closer to 4 flights a year? They're 6 month expeditions but they overlap quite a bit.

I would expect Russia would continue to do Soyuz flights as well.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 05/31/2014 07:13 pm
For NASA's use, i.e. 2 flights to the ISS a year
Just to pick nits, wouldn't it be closer to 4 flights a year? They're 6 month expeditions but they overlap quite a bit.

The current arrangement with expeditions staggered quarterly seems to work well.

It would make sense for Russia and the US to make a quid pro quo exchange, so that CC carries up one Russian, with the Soyuz in the following quarter carrying up one American or American partner.

Alternative is that both US & Russia will need to switch to switching their whole crew of three / four every six months (or to make more than two flights per year).

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Will on 05/31/2014 07:44 pm
For NASA's use, i.e. 2 flights to the ISS a year
Just to pick nits, wouldn't it be closer to 4 flights a year? They're 6 month expeditions but they overlap quite a bit.

The current arrangement with expeditions staggered quarterly seems to work well.

It would make sense for Russia and the US to make a quid pro quo exchange, so that CC carries up one Russian, with the Soyuz in the following quarter carrying up one American or American partner.

Alternative is that both US & Russia will need to switch to switching their whole crew of three / four every six months (or to make more than two flights per year).

Cheers, Martin

That's pretty much what we did when STS was still flying.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/31/2014 09:00 pm
Doing an abort test does not necessarily mean that you are ahead.   Blue Origin did a pad abort test almost 2 years ago and I don't see anyone arguing that they are ahead of the others.

You're right that an abort test by itself doesn't mean one party is ahead overall if the other party is way ahead in some other way.  In the case of Blue Origin, they don't have a launch vehicle that has made it to orbit, or anywhere close to orbit.  That puts them far behind the other three, each of which has a launch vehicle that has done at least a few successful operational missions to orbit.

The pad and in-flight abort tests are big plusses for SpaceX over CST-100 and DC.  Do those others have some area in which they are so far ahead that it negates being behind in the abort tests?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 05/31/2014 09:06 pm
What if instead of NASA just saying they only need two flights a year and asking for bids on that, they said they had X dollars a year they were willing to spend and asked how many flights per year they could get for that?  Or if they asked for bids that included prices for 2, 3, 4, ... 50 flights per year?  If the marginal costs of additional flights were low, couldn't NASA find value in more than 2 flights a year?

Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 06/01/2014 01:43 am

Doing an abort test does not necessarily mean that you are ahead.   Blue Origin did a pad abort test almost 2 years ago and I don't see anyone arguing that they are ahead of the others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgEt-R2FNEA
Boilerplate capsule with customized solids for test. It was not a capsule nor were those the actual abort engines. That's a huge difference from doing an actual flight abort, from the actual pad, with flight hardware.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 06/01/2014 02:33 am
Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?


I have had the same thought!  You'd think that would be what we want to move toward as we build on our presence in low Earth orbit. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 06/01/2014 03:16 am

Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?


I have had the same thought!  You'd think that would be what we want to move toward as we build on our presence in low Earth orbit.
Small tip: think of what each visiting vehicle requires in attitude changes, orbital boosts, actual vehicle i pact, etc. Now think of the effects on microgravity. Now add that each VV eats about two to three days crew. And you'd see why they don't want many visits and also why they'd rather increase CRS-2 payload requirement per launch rather than allow more launches.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 06/01/2014 03:18 am
Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?


And then the microgravity environment of the station would be appalling.  Remember that every-time a vehicle docks, the entire structure of the station shakes, and you have to orient it in certain ways.  That effects experiments that need to be left alone, just adding flights to station to drive up the flight rates will diminish ISS science returns.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/01/2014 03:41 am

Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?


I have had the same thought!  You'd think that would be what we want to move toward as we build on our presence in low Earth orbit.
Small tip: think of what each visiting vehicle requires in attitude changes, orbital boosts, actual vehicle i pact, etc. Now think of the effects on microgravity. Now add that each VV eats about two to three days crew. And you'd see why they don't want many visits and also why they'd rather increase CRS-2 payload requirement per launch rather than allow more launches.

And then the microgravity environment of the station would be appalling.  Remember that every-time a vehicle docks, the entire structure of the station shakes, and you have to orient it in certain ways.  That effects experiments that need to be left alone, just adding flights to station to drive up the flight rates will diminish ISS science returns.

The fact that each visiting vehicle requires two to three days of ISS crew time just says ISS hasn't developed a system that scales for handling visiting vehicles.  There's no fundamental reason they couldn't do so.

As to the ISS having to be re-oriented for visiting vehicles, that also sounds like a solvable problem.

About vibrations: with vehicles docking rather than berthing, vibrations could be diminished.  There's no lower limit on how much they could be diminished.  And experiments could be isolated from the vibrations of the station itself.

It comes down to a question of what the purpose of the ISS is.  Is it just a dead-end outpost for zero-gravity experiments that cannot stand vibrations?  Or is it also meant as a step toward more routine human presence in space?  Can we not find a way to grow our presence in space without sacrificing all microgravity research?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 06/01/2014 03:55 am
Maybe what it shows is that ISS support was a poor basis for trying to foster a new commercial human spaceflight industry then.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/01/2014 04:10 am
Maybe what it shows is that ISS support was a poor basis for trying to foster a new commercial human spaceflight industry then.
Any port in a storm. Nothing else has worked.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 06/01/2014 04:23 am
I don't see it as a budget buster, because NASA is spending less per year for SLS/Orion than it spent for Shuttle.

I'm not sure the comparison with Shuttle make sense...

Quote
It is spending 35% of that total for commercial crew annually, but that is for a system that will only weigh about 10% as much as the SLS lifting capability to LEO,

It's not for "a" system, it's for 3 different systems. And the lifting capability is irrelevant if the mission doesn't need it.

Quote
never mind that SLS/Orion is going to deep space which commercial crew will not. 

No, it's not going to deep space, it's going to lunar orbit. For deep space missions you'll need a habitat module and in space propulsion, it's a complete different set of technologies from SLS/Orion, and it's not being worked on, so deep space is a pipe dream.

If you really want to do deep space, you'll want to reuse the deep space hardware to keep the cost down, which means the deep space ship needs to go back to Earth orbit after the mission is done, at which point any commercial crew spacecraft can be used to ferry the crew, this makes Orion redundant.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 06/01/2014 04:36 am
If you really want to do deep space, you'll want to reuse the deep space hardware to keep the cost down, which means the deep space ship needs to go back to Earth orbit after the mission is done, at which point any commercial crew spacecraft can be used to ferry the crew, this makes Orion redundant.

If at all it will go back to EML-2. Direct reentry from there or BEO in general makes sense,  you safe lots of fuel.

Edit: Although compared to the fuel you need for the rest of the mission its probably peanuts.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/01/2014 04:40 am
No, it's not going to deep space, it's going to lunar orbit.

lunar orbit is about 1000x deeper into space than humans have gone in the last 50 years.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/01/2014 05:49 am
If you really want to do deep space, you'll want to reuse the deep space hardware to keep the cost down, which means the deep space ship needs to go back to Earth orbit after the mission is done, at which point any commercial crew spacecraft can be used to ferry the crew, this makes Orion redundant.

If at all it will go back to EML-2. Direct reentry from there or BEO in general makes sense,  you safe lots of fuel.

Edit: Although compared to the fuel you need for the rest of the mission its probably peanuts.

You can still do aerobraking, but brake to help establish orbit.  Then you don't need much propellent and you still get to keep your spaceship for your next mission.  And you don't have to optimize your spaceship to survive re-entry and landing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 06/01/2014 08:06 am
No, it's not going to deep space, it's going to lunar orbit.

lunar orbit is about 1000x deeper into space than humans have gone in the last 50 years.

Yes, but what is the cause of this sorry state of HSF? Could it be that all the budget was tied up by a super expensive LEO transportation system and there's no money left for anything else? At least last time they did this the goal was to reduce the cost of access to LEO, this time around they don't even pretend this is the goal.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 06/01/2014 01:41 pm


Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?


I have had the same thought!  You'd think that would be what we want to move toward as we build on our presence in low Earth orbit.
Small tip: think of what each visiting vehicle requires in attitude changes, orbital boosts, actual vehicle i pact, etc. Now think of the effects on microgravity. Now add that each VV eats about two to three days crew. And you'd see why they don't want many visits and also why they'd rather increase CRS-2 payload requirement per launch rather than allow more launches.

And then the microgravity environment of the station would be appalling.  Remember that every-time a vehicle docks, the entire structure of the station shakes, and you have to orient it in certain ways.  That effects experiments that need to be left alone, just adding flights to station to drive up the flight rates will diminish ISS science returns.

1.The fact that each visiting vehicle requires two to three days of ISS crew time just says ISS hasn't developed a system that scales for handling visiting vehicles.  There's no fundamental reason they couldn't do so.

2.As to the ISS having to be re-oriented for visiting vehicles, that also sounds like a solvable problem.

3.About vibrations: with vehicles docking rather than berthing, vibrations could be diminished.  There's no lower limit on how much they could be diminished.  And experiments could be isolated from the vibrations of the station itself.

4.It comes down to a question of what the purpose of the ISS is.  Is it just a dead-end outpost for zero-gravity experiments that cannot stand vibrations?  Or is it also meant as a step toward more routine human presence in space?  Can we not find a way to grow our presence in space without sacrificing all microgravity research?
0) Fix your quotes, second one is from Ronsmitheiii.
1) some of the thing they need time for is practice for procedures and contingencies, loading and unloading, checking comm and VV performance, etc. ISS is a very expensive lab. Not a VV hub, and it was too expensive as it is, adding more capabilities and automation is beyond current budgets and expected life.
2) you clearly don't understand orbital mechanics. Each orbit takes some 90min. So, you have to come exactly on se same plane. Even a few meters of difference would mean that if you were coming slightly to port, then 20minutes later you'd be on the same line, which might intersect the station (i.e. Crash). And you can only go from below to catch or above is you were further ahead.
But then there's the issue of the station's attitude. If you let an orbiting object to itself, and let's say that at a certain time there's a fore side, and a nadir side, 1/4 of and orbit later, fore would be pointing to nadir, the former nadir would be now fore. That's because while you orbit there's no force to change your attitude.
Now, once you mix this problems, you'll see why  VV have to come from either from fore and slightly above or from aft and slightly below. And the station has to keep doing active attitude adjustments and keepings. So it can be solved.
3) yes there is and you're mixing concepts. Berthing is done with the arm, and is as gentle as possible. And yet it shakes (slightly) the station. For docking, you basically have to ram the vehicle in the station. Even LIDS was worse than berthing. And as long as you have the Russians with their drogue and probe, the US side is the "gentle" side.
4) go read about the ISS, is a microgravity laboratory. Period. There's no discussion about it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/01/2014 03:24 pm
Quote
It is spending 35% of that total for commercial crew annually, but that is for a system that will only weigh about 10% as much as the SLS lifting capability to LEO,
It's not for "a" system, it's for 3 different systems. And the lifting capability is irrelevant if the mission doesn't need it.
NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.  The lifting capability is relevant if someone is trying to compare commercial crew with SLS/Orion, which happens far too often on these forums.
Quote
Quote
never mind that SLS/Orion is going to deep space which commercial crew will not. 
No, it's not going to deep space, it's going to lunar orbit. For deep space missions you'll need a habitat module and in space propulsion, it's a complete different set of technologies from SLS/Orion, and it's not being worked on, so deep space is a pipe dream.
For the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth.  Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too.  Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".
Quote
If you really want to do deep space, you'll want to reuse the deep space hardware to keep the cost down, which means the deep space ship needs to go back to Earth orbit after the mission is done, at which point any commercial crew spacecraft can be used to ferry the crew, this makes Orion redundant.
Sit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 06/01/2014 04:58 pm
And if BFR is available? Then that becomes the (insert tonnage) gorilla in the room.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/01/2014 05:11 pm
Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?


I have had the same thought!  You'd think that would be what we want to move toward as we build on our presence in low Earth orbit. 

As the other posts are saying science research and gateway activities are best done at different spacestations.

For a LEO to space gateway spacestation try orbiting a Bigelow spacestation as the habitat module.  Attach a docking module with six docking ports.  One to the habitat module, one for the escape capsule, two for visiting vehicles from Earth and two for space transfer vehicles.  A robotic arm to move cargo from the Earth vehicles to the transfer vehicles will be useful.

As trade improves the gateway can provide its customers with electrical power whilst they are docked, say 3kW each.  The transfer vehicles will soon require refuelling, for a suitable price.  Food, water and air may also be purchased.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/01/2014 06:02 pm


Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?


I have had the same thought!  You'd think that would be what we want to move toward as we build on our presence in low Earth orbit.
Small tip: think of what each visiting vehicle requires in attitude changes, orbital boosts, actual vehicle i pact, etc. Now think of the effects on microgravity. Now add that each VV eats about two to three days crew. And you'd see why they don't want many visits and also why they'd rather increase CRS-2 payload requirement per launch rather than allow more launches.

And then the microgravity environment of the station would be appalling.  Remember that every-time a vehicle docks, the entire structure of the station shakes, and you have to orient it in certain ways.  That effects experiments that need to be left alone, just adding flights to station to drive up the flight rates will diminish ISS science returns.

1.The fact that each visiting vehicle requires two to three days of ISS crew time just says ISS hasn't developed a system that scales for handling visiting vehicles.  There's no fundamental reason they couldn't do so.

2.As to the ISS having to be re-oriented for visiting vehicles, that also sounds like a solvable problem.

3.About vibrations: with vehicles docking rather than berthing, vibrations could be diminished.  There's no lower limit on how much they could be diminished.  And experiments could be isolated from the vibrations of the station itself.

4.It comes down to a question of what the purpose of the ISS is.  Is it just a dead-end outpost for zero-gravity experiments that cannot stand vibrations?  Or is it also meant as a step toward more routine human presence in space?  Can we not find a way to grow our presence in space without sacrificing all microgravity research?

0) Fix your quotes, second one is from Ronsmitheiii.

You're confused.  My quotes already show the second one is from Ronsmytheiii.  No fix needed.

1) some of the thing they need time for is practice for procedures and contingencies, loading and unloading, checking comm and VV performance, etc. ISS is a very expensive lab. Not a VV hub, and it was too expensive as it is, adding more capabilities and automation is beyond current budgets and expected life.

If lots of vehicles are visiting, they don't need to practice procedures for every one.  They can be standardized.  And if the vehicles are carrying mainly crew, there's not much loading or unloading to do.  Checking comm and vehicle performance can easily be automated, and in any event shouldn't make more than a few minutes.

I still see no reason this problem couldn't be fixed fairly inexpensively.

2) you clearly don't understand orbital mechanics. Each orbit takes some 90min. So, you have to come exactly on se same plane. Even a few meters of difference would mean that if you were coming slightly to port, then 20minutes later you'd be on the same line, which might intersect the station (i.e. Crash). And you can only go from below to catch or above is you were further ahead.
But then there's the issue of the station's attitude. If you let an orbiting object to itself, and let's say that at a certain time there's a fore side, and a nadir side, 1/4 of and orbit later, fore would be pointing to nadir, the former nadir would be now fore. That's because while you orbit there's no force to change your attitude.
Now, once you mix this problems, you'll see why  VV have to come from either from fore and slightly above or from aft and slightly below. And the station has to keep doing active attitude adjustments and keepings. So it can be solved.

The incoming vehicle could ignore the ISS attitude as it makes its approach.  Then, once it's 10 meters away, it could stop and from there maneuver around to the docking hatch.  Before the 10 meter point, the station attitude doesn't matter.  After the 10 meter point, it doesn't matter how the vehicle arrived there, the vicinity of the station is effectively an intertial frame.

3) yes there is and you're mixing concepts. Berthing is done with the arm, and is as gentle as possible. And yet it shakes (slightly) the station. For docking, you basically have to ram the vehicle in the station. Even LIDS was worse than berthing. And as long as you have the Russians with their drogue and probe, the US side is the "gentle" side.

No, I'm not mixing concepts.  Berthing requires moving the arm, and that can't help but move the rest of the station in reaction.  So berthing has a fundamental amount of station movement that can't be avoided.  Docking has no lower limit of how much effect it has on the station.  By coming in arbitrarily slowly, you can have an arbitrarily low impact on the station.

I'm not claiming that current berthing procedures are worse that current docking procedures, just that docking in principle could be made to have arbitrarily little effect on the station.

4) go read about the ISS, is a microgravity laboratory. Period. There's no discussion about it.

That's just silly.  Of course it can be discussed.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 06/01/2014 06:11 pm
For NASA's use, i.e. 2 flights to the ISS a year
Just to pick nits, wouldn't it be closer to 4 flights a year? They're 6 month expeditions but they overlap quite a bit.

The current arrangement with expeditions staggered quarterly seems to work well.

It would make sense for Russia and the US to make a quid pro quo exchange, so that CC carries up one Russian, with the Soyuz in the following quarter carrying up one American or American partner.

Alternative is that both US & Russia will need to switch to switching their whole crew of three / four every six months (or to make more than two flights per year).

Cheers, Martin

That's pretty much what we did when STS was still flying.

Yup, part of why I think this is realistic and practical for both parties.

On a background note, if they're going to bar the junction between Russian & US segments, and stop cooperating on vehicle attitude, etc, then this would be unworkable. But then the station itself will become unworkable.

Short of splitting the station up, they can't stop working together.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 06/01/2014 08:32 pm
If you really want to do deep space, you'll want to reuse the deep space hardware to keep the cost down, which means the deep space ship needs to go back to Earth orbit after the mission is done, at which point any commercial crew spacecraft can be used to ferry the crew, this makes Orion redundant.

If at all it will go back to EML-2. Direct reentry from there or BEO in general makes sense,  you safe lots of fuel.

Edit: Although compared to the fuel you need for the rest of the mission its probably peanuts.

You can still do aerobraking, but brake to help establish orbit.  Then you don't need much propellent and you still get to keep your spaceship for your next mission.  And you don't have to optimize your spaceship to survive re-entry and landing.

Aerobraking, in particular for human missions, comes with its own problems. A fuel depot at EML-2 with a crew transfer vehicle between LEO and EML-2 could be an alternative to direct reentry, but all exploration architectures I've seen so far use Orion, with or without SLS.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 06/01/2014 09:22 pm
All this fuel depot, SLS, LEO gateway etc stuff is relevant to CCiCAP topic how?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/01/2014 11:21 pm
All this fuel depot, SLS, LEO gateway etc stuff is relevant to CCiCAP topic how?

With the cancelling of the ISS the Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo craft will be flying fuel to the propellant depot and people to the LEO gateway.

I wonder, does NASA need to add an extra milestone to each of the CCiCap SAA to cover producing high plans to fly
a. propellant to a propellant depot?
b. cargo to one or more new spacestations?
c. people to one or more new spacestations?

If the spacestations are in a different orbit then say the maximum mass of cargo may change.  Extra handling equipment may be needed at the launch pad or adding to the spacecraft.

It does not matter if NASA owns the spacestations or leases time on them.  It will still have to get the astronauts there.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 06/01/2014 11:39 pm
Quote from: A_M_Swallow link=topic=28699.msg

With the cancelling of the ISS the Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo craft will be flying fuel to the propellant depot and people to the LEO gateway.

I wonder, does NASA need to add an extra milestone to each of the CCiCap SAA to cover producing high plans to fly
a. propellant to a propellant depot?
b. cargo to one or more new spacestations?
c. people to one or more new spacestations?


no, without ISS, there is no need for commercial crew or cargo.  And there is no LEO gateway in the plans

There is no need for add an extra milestone such:
a.  there are no new spacestations
b.  NASA isn't doing a depot
c.  Anyways, flying to crew or cargo to the ISS is enough to demonstrate capabilities to do it to other stations

To answer savuporo, fuel depot, SLS, LEO gateway etc stuff is not relevant to CCiCAP.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/02/2014 05:53 pm

no, without ISS, there is no need for commercial crew or cargo.  And there is no LEO gateway in the plans

{snip}

The SLS is too small to go to Mars by itself, you have admitted the Russians are killing off the ISS so that combination only makes sense if the US Government is shutting down human space flight.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 06/03/2014 06:41 am
NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.

Says who? Elon Musk already went on record to say they only need $500 million to complete Dragon V2, if this is true then there's more than enough funding left to fund another system to completion.

Quote
For the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth.  Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too.  Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".

Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.

Quote
Sit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described. 

It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 06/03/2014 09:42 am
Says who? Elon Musk already went on record to say they only need $500 million to complete Dragon V2, if this is true then there's more than enough funding left to fund another system to completion.

Less even.

Quote from: Elon Musk
So far, it's probably been $400M or $500M and it'll probably be that amount more to get through first flight. Something on the order of a billion dollars.

For the spacecraft itself, it's going to be probably something on the order of 70% to 80% NASA funded, but for the rocket it's not NASA funded at all. The development of Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, all of that, that's 100% private. If you say, what's the total cost of development has been, including the rocket and the spacecraft, it's probably something closer to 50/50 NASA and private. - transcript. (http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-dragon-2-unveil-qa-2014-05-29)

Not too shabby.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/03/2014 03:35 pm
NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.
Says who?
Several Congressmen have been calling for a down-select to one, to speed up the program and save money.  Even those who support multiple contracts, such as the National Space Society, have called for a down-select to two.  In my mind, it only makes sense for NASA to buy what it needs, which is one crew carrying system to ISS.  The Air Force doesn't have F-35 and F-32.  It eliminated "Monica" through a down select.
Quote
Quote
For the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth.  Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too.  Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".
Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.
Captured asteroid rendezvous is the current plan.  An EML space station is contemplated for the future.  EML is a lot closer than 1% to Mars in terms of delta-v.  It's closer to escape velocity than it is to lunar orbit. 
Quote
Quote
Sit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described. 
It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.
Where will this high ISP method come from?  If it is an LH2/LOX stage, it will require a more than doubling of the upper stage propellant mass initially lifted out of LEO.  In other words, it will require doubling the number of SLS launches.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/03/2014 03:52 pm
The Senate CJS Appropriations subcommittee just passed today its own appropriation bill which proposes $805M for commercial crew. Shelby says that there is language requiring more transparency from the commercial crew and cargo programs but he didn't say anything about downselection. We will have to wait to see what kind of language is in the report to the Senate's CJS Appropriation bill. But I would be very surprised if the Senate's report calls for a downselection.

See this thread for more info:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34827.msg1208984#msg1208984
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Will on 06/03/2014 05:29 pm
NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.
Says who?
Several Congressmen have been calling for a down-select to one, to speed up the program and save money.  Even those who support multiple contracts, such as the National Space Society, have called for a down-select to two.  In my mind, it only makes sense for NASA to buy what it needs, which is one crew carrying system to ISS.  The Air Force doesn't have F-35 and F-32.  It eliminated "Monica" through a down select.
Quote
Quote
For the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth.  Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too.  Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".
Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.
Captured asteroid rendezvous is the current plan.  An EML space station is contemplated for the future.  EML is a lot closer than 1% to Mars in terms of delta-v.  It's closer to escape velocity than it is to lunar orbit. 
Quote
Quote
Sit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described. 
It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.
Where will this high ISP method come from?  If it is an LH2/LOX stage, it will require a more than doubling of the upper stage propellant mass initially lifted out of LEO.  In other words, it will require doubling the number of SLS launches.

 - Ed Kyle

The most we could afford is funding two companies up to the first unmanned flight, and then mothballing the loser in case the winner is grounded by an operational failure, or gets unreasonable when it's time to renew their contract.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/03/2014 05:52 pm
NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.
Says who?
Several Congressmen have been calling for a down-select to one, to speed up the program and save money.  Even those who support multiple contracts, such as the National Space Society, have called for a down-select to two.  In my mind, it only makes sense for NASA to buy what it needs, which is one crew carrying system to ISS.  The Air Force doesn't have F-35 and F-32.  It eliminated "Monica" through a down select.
Quote
Quote
For the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth.  Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too.  Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".
Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.
Captured asteroid rendezvous is the current plan.  An EML space station is contemplated for the future.  EML is a lot closer than 1% to Mars in terms of delta-v.  It's closer to escape velocity than it is to lunar orbit. 
Quote
Quote
Sit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described. 
It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.
Where will this high ISP method come from?  If it is an LH2/LOX stage, it will require a more than doubling of the upper stage propellant mass initially lifted out of LEO.  In other words, it will require doubling the number of SLS launches.

 - Ed Kyle

The most we could afford is funding two companies up to the first unmanned flight, and then mothballing the loser in case the winner is grounded by an operational failure, or gets unreasonable when it's time to renew their contract.

It seems like you can easily afford 2 if CRS and Commercial Crew use the same systems. It seems like the manned systems can double for unmanned cargo pretty easily. You get the added benefit of Cargo doing downmass as well, not just trash disposal. The manned systems, being recovered, are potentially reusable. CRS and Commercial Crew should just be combined with combined budget used to fund 2 Crew/Cargo vehicles. This of course introduces the problem of shifting parameters in an open competition. You can leave the existing Crew competition alone while modifying CRS2 to be a Cargo vehicle with backup Crew capability. If CRS + CC is potentially 3 systems with 2 Cargo vehicles and 1 CC vehicle, you can maintain the same number of systems and associated costs by shifting to 1 Cargo vehicle and 2 CC vehicles. This maintains 2 way competition for crew flights and 3 way competition for cargo flights as CC vehicles will carry some cargo regardless(even without a dedicated unmanned version).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: savuporo on 06/03/2014 06:09 pm
Really have to apologize for off topic here, but

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/

Well worth reading for all the commenters here, especially the "Lessons learned" parts. Some lessons appear to be promptly forgotten in the CCiCAP.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/03/2014 06:46 pm
NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.
Says who?
Several Congressmen have been calling for a down-select to one, to speed up the program and save money.  Even those who support multiple contracts, such as the National Space Society, have called for a down-select to two.  In my mind, it only makes sense for NASA to buy what it needs, which is one crew carrying system to ISS.  The Air Force doesn't have F-35 and F-32.  It eliminated "Monica" through a down select.
Unlike EELV, where both were kept.

Now, for the moment ... what if both JSF were kept. Say like one "hot", the other "standby". It would cost more right? Like Atlas V and Delta IV.

So when F-35 goes hideously overbudget, or has ... other issues ... one could give Monica a second thought.

Now, which is waste, and which is proper policy? How about "second engine" for JSF in a certain key congressional district?
Or RD-180 and Russian imperialism screwing up a Atlas V "perfect world", which they are still trying to wait out.

What is the value of an option? When do you exercise/foreclose on them? Are we as much fooling ourselves by not having options as by having them?

Perhaps the better question is even larger - markets and bootstrapping them. Even if there isn't a viable "second" market beyond govt for HSF, the presence of so much potential (Bigelow, DragonLab, ISS research projects, F9R, cubesat volume, ...) for forward financing such in place, that the government "overbuy" of more CC providers than one isn't such a big deal.

In terms of "over buy", there are annually many billions in every sector much less justified by either side in government for decades. One man's security is another man's waste. Or pork.

BTW, its usually the case that government is supposed to "forward finance" such regardless of ROI, unlike businesses ... because economics predicts at least an acceptable GDP growth indirectly from such. Retrograde governments typically shrink when they avoid taking these kind of risks, as they cede markets to other less moronic governments that snap them up.

By the way, China has an overwhelming grasp on photovoltaics - the problem with the US wasn't Solyndra but being lobbied for decades in the energy sector by big oil to not more slowly, wisely, prudently, incrementally invest as a hedge to oil/other energy sources, to always preserve dominance in an emerging market. Net effect either way to big oil was the same. By losing the option, we ceded the game.

More options is wiser for that reason. However, the so-called "old space" needs to act as rational players and likewise "buy in" to hedge here. Unlike big oil. Govts have to think longer term than next fiscal quarter. Or next Russian aggression. Policy.
Quote
Quote
For the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth.  Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too.  Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".
Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.
Captured asteroid rendezvous is the current plan.  An EML space station is contemplated for the future.  EML is a lot closer than 1% to Mars in terms of delta-v.  It's closer to escape velocity than it is to lunar orbit. 
Which will doubtlessly require logistics like ISS currently does, and not sortie like Apollo/Saturn. Extending outward.
Quote
Quote
Sit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described. 
It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.
Where will this high ISP method come from?  If it is an LH2/LOX stage, it will require a more than doubling of the upper stage propellant mass initially lifted out of LEO.  In other words, it will require doubling the number of SLS launches.
The ROI for any US like this is really hard for any commercial provider. You have DCSS, Centaur, and foreign options, most recently India finally. Am not surprised SpaceX didn't go that way, their economics are dominated by a common engine/propellant approach thus CH4 not LH2.

Russia sold off KVD to india with the intent that India would be the "low price" leader - is there any sense in vending an on orbit high deltaV follow-on propulsion to a already present payload previously launched by a reusable kerolox vehicle? Best of both worlds so to speak?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/03/2014 07:24 pm
Really have to apologize for off topic here, but

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/

Well worth reading for all the commenters here, especially the "Lessons learned" parts. Some lessons appear to be promptly forgotten in the CCiCAP.

From "Conclusions", page 107
Quote
With this initial success achieved, the direction of commercial enterprise in space still contains unforeseen market potential. As Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christensen observed in his book The Innovator’s Dilemma, “Not only are the market applications for disruptive technologies unknown at the time of their development, they are unknowable.” What is known
at this stage is that COTS has played an important and demonstrable role in the burgeoning commercial space transportation market.
How do traditional primes deal with the "unknowable"?  What do we budget for this vs "knowable"? Trades?

Is IVF an "unknowable"? Or just typical IRD? Boundary?

Quote
In its 2013 Annual Report, the NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) led by Vice Admiral Joseph W. Dyer, USN (Ret.) included statements emphasizing the success of the COTS program. The report pointed out that it “was not simply the use of fixed-price Space Act Agreements that led to the Program’s success, although that helped to enable the successful outcome. Rather, NASA did a number of things right along the way, such as maintaining excellent program management, appointing well-qualified technical representatives [as project executives], providing the right amount of insight, requesting the right amount of information, and having the right number of Government attendees at
industry meetings.

Didn't Jim say there was too many NASA attendees at these meetings?

Page 45, "Augmentation"
Good read of the "incentivization" of COTS that came out of the Augustine Committee. It seems that it was essential to keep from slipping schedule. This is the item that the House Science reps bludgeon Commercial Crew about as being a mistake with COTS.

Looks otherwise. Remembering much of the bitter words exchanged over this, that weren't recorded for posterity. At a time when we have a greater incentive to  launch astros from US, I cannot imagine with this coming out now that it will be easy from the joint markup of Congress to not fully fund commercial crew.

All you have to do is reference this, go back to the COTS discussions, read them their own words. Ouch!

Add:
And I wonder if there was a missed opportunity here as well. Perhaps COTS-D could have been funded for a fraction of the cost and ahead of the Crimean crisis become operational. It probably would have missed the "recoverable" aspects of F9R and Dragon 2 - my guess would have been a disposable LAS more like HMX suggested for Dragon 1 given timing.

But they would have had to shell out a 0.5B more, even though it would have net saved $1.3B end-to-end accumulative in the total trade. And no SpaceX vs ULA battle. How dumb!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 06/03/2014 07:44 pm
not sure about CCSC but CATALYST has multiple threads here.

This is midthread but should get you started?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33840.msg1201009#msg1201009
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Will on 06/04/2014 12:32 am
NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.
Says who?
Several Congressmen have been calling for a down-select to one, to speed up the program and save money.  Even those who support multiple contracts, such as the National Space Society, have called for a down-select to two.  In my mind, it only makes sense for NASA to buy what it needs, which is one crew carrying system to ISS.  The Air Force doesn't have F-35 and F-32.  It eliminated "Monica" through a down select.
Quote
Quote
For the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth.  Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too.  Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".
Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.
Captured asteroid rendezvous is the current plan.  An EML space station is contemplated for the future.  EML is a lot closer than 1% to Mars in terms of delta-v.  It's closer to escape velocity than it is to lunar orbit. 
Quote
Quote
Sit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described. 
It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.
Where will this high ISP method come from?  If it is an LH2/LOX stage, it will require a more than doubling of the upper stage propellant mass initially lifted out of LEO.  In other words, it will require doubling the number of SLS launches.

 - Ed Kyle

The most we could afford is funding two companies up to the first unmanned flight, and then mothballing the loser in case the winner is grounded by an operational failure, or gets unreasonable when it's time to renew their contract.

It seems like you can easily afford 2 if CRS and Commercial Crew use the same systems.

They won't be able to have two spacecraft systems each doing both roles. Dragon is volume constrained and ISS cargo tends to be bulky: the last three Dragon missions carried only 3.1 t in pressurized cargo, total. The other manned candidates have the same problem. You can use something like the Dragon for part of the cargo mission as long as you have something roomier like Cygnus to carry the rest, or visits become more frequent than is good for the microgravity research role of ISS. Or better yet, something like an HTV with a stretched propulsion module, launched on an Atlas.

But that, or any of the optimized ISS cargo spacecraft, is not going to share a lot of commonality with any of the Commercial Crew Vehicle Candidates.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/04/2014 12:44 am
What is the value of an option? When do you exercise/foreclose on them? Are we as much fooling ourselves by not having options as by having them?
By that argument, NASA should be building two SLS/Orion systems, two JWST's, and two International Space Stations.

The long used method is to study the options - even to a "fly off" phase if needed, then down-select to the best.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/04/2014 01:20 am
What is the value of an option? When do you exercise/foreclose on them? Are we as much fooling ourselves by not having options as by having them?
By that argument, NASA should be building two SLS/Orion systems, two JWST's, and two International Space Stations.

The long used method is to study the options - even to a "fly off" phase if needed, then down-select to the best.

 - Ed Kyle
None of these were competitively bid, so that's silly.

Back to the JSF analogy you suggested, "fly off" clearly did not allow enough study to assess.

In this age, we have enough data to do a better assessment and control the engagement differently.

Point still stands.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/04/2014 01:24 am
NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.
Says who?
Several Congressmen have been calling for a down-select to one, to speed up the program and save money.  Even those who support multiple contracts, such as the National Space Society, have called for a down-select to two.  In my mind, it only makes sense for NASA to buy what it needs, which is one crew carrying system to ISS.  The Air Force doesn't have F-35 and F-32.  It eliminated "Monica" through a down select.
Quote
Quote
For the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth.  Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too.  Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".
Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.
Captured asteroid rendezvous is the current plan.  An EML space station is contemplated for the future.  EML is a lot closer than 1% to Mars in terms of delta-v.  It's closer to escape velocity than it is to lunar orbit. 
Quote
Quote
Sit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described. 
It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.
Where will this high ISP method come from?  If it is an LH2/LOX stage, it will require a more than doubling of the upper stage propellant mass initially lifted out of LEO.  In other words, it will require doubling the number of SLS launches.

 - Ed Kyle

The most we could afford is funding two companies up to the first unmanned flight, and then mothballing the loser in case the winner is grounded by an operational failure, or gets unreasonable when it's time to renew their contract.

It seems like you can easily afford 2 if CRS and Commercial Crew use the same systems.

They won't be able to have two spacecraft systems each doing both roles. Dragon is volume constrained and ISS cargo tends to be bulky: the last three Dragon missions carried only 3.1 t in pressurized cargo, total. The other manned candidates have the same problem. You can use something like the Dragon for part of the cargo mission as long as you have something roomier like Cygnus to carry the rest, or visits become more frequent than is good for the microgravity research role of ISS. Or better yet, something like an HTV with a stretched propulsion module, launched on an Atlas.

But that, or any of the optimized ISS cargo spacecraft, is not going to share a lot of commonality with any of the Commercial Crew Vehicle Candidates.

Cygnus ORB-D1: 700 kg
Cygnus ORB-1: 1261 kg
Cygnus ORB-2: 1650 kg

total: 3611 kg
average: 1203 kg
max:1650 kg

COTS Demo Flight 2: 525 kg
SpaceX CRS-1: 905 kg
SpaceX CRS-2: 677 kg
SpaceX CRS-3: 1430 kg

total: 3,537 kg
average: 884 kg
max: 1430 kg

Based on the operational history, it would require 50% more flights which is significant but the max payload demonstrated is similar to Cygnus' upcoming ORB-2 mission(15% difference). This was presumeably enabled by the Falcon 9 v1.1 upgrade of which Cygnus is getting an upgrade as well(ORB-3?). A recoverable capsule of a certain mass will of course be smaller than one that is not restrained by recoverability. Therefore, I would propose the following scenario to maintain competition, minimize redundant systems, not interfere with the current competition's requirements and allow for optimized systems.

CRS-2: continues as is but down-selects to 1 provider/system for cargo. No requirement for recoverable downmass. Gets ~2/3 of cargo work.

CCDev: continues as is but down-selects to 1 provider/system for crew. Gets ~2/3 of crew work.

CCCDev(Commercial Crew/Cargo Dev): a competition for a unified system able to transport both crew and cargo in a manned operating mode and an unmanned operating mode. To maintain competition and redundancy, this is not open to the CCDev winner or CRS-2 winner. It will do roughly 1/3 of the crew work and 1/3 of the cargo work(including downmass).

There is two possibilities. 2 systems are awarded because one system won both CCDev and CRS-2 on merit with regards to their respective requirements and another system won CCCDev. Either that or 3 systems are awarded with each system winning a different competition.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF on 06/04/2014 02:18 am
Down mass is vital for certain science experiments. You will not see that requirement going away.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/04/2014 02:51 am
Down mass is vital for certain science experiments. You will not see that requirement going away.

Down mass is covered by the Crew/Cargo hybrid vehicle that can be recovered in its cargo variant and by crew flights with spare space on the downhill. It simply wouldn't be a requirement for a CRS cargo dedicated vehicle to allow for better optimized up-mass as is currently the case with Cygnus.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 06/04/2014 04:14 am
I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 06/04/2014 08:25 am
I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.

I was thinking that, as well. However, such a pod needs to be human rated, but also disposable.

Doesn't seem to fit SpaceX's MO.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: InfraNut2 on 06/04/2014 09:50 am
I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.

I was thinking that, as well. However, such a pod needs to be human rated, but also disposable.

Doesn't seem to fit SpaceX's MO.

Cheers, Martin

I have advocated it too as a very good way to adapt dragon to ISS logistics needs. But to give a different version of Martins SpaceX MO argument: The SpaceX development plan already contains several big higher prioriy tasks so it will be hard to fit it in internally, especially wrt manpower, but also cost.

I think what is needed here is a partnered company developing, manufacturing and supporting the cargo pod. Kind of what SpaceHab was for the shuttle. This frees up SpaceX resources while still providing an excellent logistics solution, albeit likely at a higher price point depending on what company is the partner and the way it is procured. The alternative is likely no pod in the ISS lifetime. BTW: you can build on the partnership to provide mission modules for for example cis-lunar use, alternative logistics carriers and similar things that there are not enough of a market for yet to justify allocating in-house resources to.

An even better solution would be a cargo pod + reusable tug solution a la parom, but that would require the more extensive developoment of the tug. To gain some initial experience with such a solution without a full tug development, one could modify a (flown) dragon by putting a second docking port with rendezvous sensors on the bottom, plus optionally but preferably a fuel transfer system prototype and/or extra fuel tanks. A new purpose-made tug could be based on the subsystems of any existing cargo carrier, but put together in a new way with a few things added. See the parom (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/parom.html) for a good example of what is needed. The only significant things I have thought of so far I would like to change about the parom is to put the thrusters out on booms to avoid pluming payloads or station and to give extra RCS leverage for roll control and such -- and use international standard docking ports and  more modern subsystems where applicable.

Importantly: a tug can serve many additional uses beyond cargo transfer.  It could also be an additional propulsion solution for ISS, but you might have to add a bit more thrusters and fuel tanks to better serve that use. It could also fetch launched modules for adding on to ISS, fetch fuel pods for any kind of refueling or fetch modules+stages for assembling deep space spaceships, gateways etc.  It also makes it easy to add launch providers or partners to international and other cooperative projects: Anyone that has or can add can add a 3-axis stabilization kit to their upper stage can participate. Also the cargo capacity for each launch is much increased by eliminating the need to launch an integrated tug with each and every delivery. This is especially vitally important for introducing small/medium reusable launchers into the market, one of which could evolve to become a second source for really affordable launches besides SpaceX in the long term, which is vital and unlikely to be provided by any traditional launch provider.

But: there is a chicken and egg problem here: A sustainable space infrastructure is far from optimal without this kind of reusable "proximity" tugs, but it is hard to justify development based on any single first use. It can be overcome with a combination of reuse of existing technology from existing logistics carriers end other relevant sources to reduce costs plus some cash infusion from either a visionary angel investor like Bigelow (*) or a government agency like NASA.

(*) Bigelow has actually started developing tugs, but the preliminary designs are neither as general-purpose nor as reusable as such tugs should be to fit into a wider sustainable space infrastructure.

edit: added much stuff about tugs
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 06/04/2014 10:37 am
What is the value of an option? When do you exercise/foreclose on them? Are we as much fooling ourselves by not having options as by having them?
By that argument, NASA should be building two SLS/Orion systems, two JWST's, and two International Space Stations.

The long used method is to study the options - even to a "fly off" phase if needed, then down-select to the best.

 - Ed Kyle

or just do like the last down select the 2.5

This time do a 1.5 with the 1/2 as a backup.    Lock in some milestones with "time" as the driver. If the first (full share) doesn't make the time milestone, at that point the program increases funding to the backup. 

That is real competition and the program should be strong enough at this point to make this call.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 06/04/2014 12:21 pm
I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.

I was thinking that, as well. However, such a pod needs to be human rated, but also disposable.

Doesn't seem to fit SpaceX's MO.

Cheers, Martin
The Cygnus PCM is 3.07m. Could it fit inside the trunk for this purpose? Ditch the service module and add a battery pack if needed.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 06/04/2014 01:56 pm
I think they should continue funding all 3.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/04/2014 03:35 pm
I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.



Good idea.  The secondary payload pod is basically a box with lights, fan, connectors and a door.  (The Dragon does the flying.)  Two versions can be made.  Version one has a docking port.  Version two has a berthing port.  The customer buys and uses which ever pod the mission needs.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 06/04/2014 04:53 pm
Really have to apologize for off topic here, but

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/ (http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/)

Well worth reading for all the commenters here, especially the "Lessons learned" parts. Some lessons appear to be promptly forgotten in the CCiCAP.

Quote
Because these were partnerships, not traditional contracts, NASA leveraged its $800M COTS program budget with partner funds. This resulted in two new U.S. medium-class launch vehicles and two automated cargo spacecraft and demonstrated the efficiency of such partnerships.

This statement implies that government funds were used in the development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, which is patently false. Musk is on record as stating that roughly 50% of the launch "system" costs was funded by NASA funds, but when you break it apart to launch vehicle and spacecraft he states that the launch vehicle funding is 100% SpaceX and zero% USGov funds, while 70% to 75% USGov funds were for the spacecraft.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 06/05/2014 01:36 am
I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.

I was thinking that, as well. However, such a pod needs to be human rated, but also disposable.

Doesn't seem to fit SpaceX's MO.

Cheers, Martin
The Cygnus PCM is 3.07m. Could it fit inside the trunk for this purpose? Ditch the service module and add a battery pack if needed.

It was discuss on some of the Inspiration Mars threads. The original Cygnus PCM will fitted in an extended Dragon trunk. The service module is not required, as the PCM will be powered by the Dragon and batteries aboard. Think of the PCM as unpresurized cargo to be retrieved from the trunk to the ISS with the SSRMS.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/05/2014 02:11 am
Really have to apologize for off topic here, but

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/ (http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/)

Well worth reading for all the commenters here, especially the "Lessons learned" parts. Some lessons appear to be promptly forgotten in the CCiCAP.

Quote
Because these were partnerships, not traditional contracts, NASA leveraged its $800M COTS program budget with partner funds. This resulted in two new U.S. medium-class launch vehicles and two automated cargo spacecraft and demonstrated the efficiency of such partnerships.

This statement implies that government funds were used in the development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, which is patently false. Musk is on record as stating that roughly 50% of the launch "system" costs was funded by NASA funds, but when you break it apart to launch vehicle and spacecraft he states that the launch vehicle funding is 100% SpaceX and zero% USGov funds, while 70% to 75% USGov funds were for the spacecraft.

In the COTS report there is a diagram showing how much the US Government paid and how much the companies put in.  See "Commercial Orbital Transportation Services - A New Era in Spaceflight". NASA/SP-2014-617 Chapter 8 page 95.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF on 06/05/2014 02:26 am
Really have to apologize for off topic here, but

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/ (http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/)

Well worth reading for all the commenters here, especially the "Lessons learned" parts. Some lessons appear to be promptly forgotten in the CCiCAP.

Quote
Because these were partnerships, not traditional contracts, NASA leveraged its $800M COTS program budget with partner funds. This resulted in two new U.S. medium-class launch vehicles and two automated cargo spacecraft and demonstrated the efficiency of such partnerships.

This statement implies that government funds were used in the development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, which is patently false. Musk is on record as stating that roughly 50% of the launch "system" costs was funded by NASA funds, but when you break it apart to launch vehicle and spacecraft he states that the launch vehicle funding is 100% SpaceX and zero% USGov funds, while 70% to 75% USGov funds were for the spacecraft.

In the COTS report there is a diagram showing how much the US Government paid and how much the companies put in.  See "Commercial Orbital Transportation Services - A New Era in Spaceflight". NASA/SP-2014-617 Chapter 8 page 95.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf)

You are both probably correct.  At this point only an internal audit could determine exactly where the COTS funds were spent.  But I could easily see directing all of one source of funding to one specific project to keep the accounting simple.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 06/05/2014 07:52 am
In the COTS report there is a diagram showing how much the US Government paid and how much the companies put in.  See "Commercial Orbital Transportation Services - A New Era in Spaceflight". NASA/SP-2014-617 Chapter 8 page 95.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf)

It also shows that the total COTS cost for the Dragon/Falcon9 'launch system'  was US$ 850 million and the total COTS cost for the Antares/Cygnus 'launch system'  was US$ 1015 million. So, the more 'established'  company (Orbital) was 19% more expensive than the less 'established' company.
Note: COTS relates to the development of the vehicles AND flying the demo missions. All CRS-labeled missions fall under the CRS contract, which is not a part of COTS.

On the one hand we have Orbital that develops a launcher and upmass-only cargo spacecraft with two demo-launches including one demo mission of the spacecraft, berthing to the ISS.
On the other hand we have SpaceX that develops a launcher and upmass-and-downmass cargo spacecraft with three demo launches including two demo missions of the spacecraft with the latter of those two missions berthing to ISS.

Which is better value for money? I have a personal preference but since this is not a - insert name from a certain Hawthorne company here - thread. Whoops... gotta run  8)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 06/05/2014 12:30 pm
You have to admit that OSC was late in the game, and the "savings" from the Wallops subsidy wasn't. Personally, when you look at the amount of anomalies and LV+Spacecraft attributable delays, OSC has had a better performance than SPX. But I believe the particular combo of OSC amazing integration and rationality with SPX disruptive innovation, have gotten the best of both world. Even if you look at later proposals, Cygnus is proposed for lots of missions. I'm just afraid that CCtCap will lose this with a down select to one.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 06/05/2014 12:57 pm
You have to admit that OSC was late in the game, and the "savings" from the Wallops subsidy wasn't. Personally, when you look at the amount of anomalies and LV+Spacecraft attributable delays, OSC has had a better performance than SPX.
Orbital already had very substantial experience in building both spacecraft AND launchers. SpaceX had only Falcon 1 experience for launchers and NO experience building spacecraft. Thus, SpaceX having more anomalies of LV and spacecraft comes as really no surprise as their learning curve was significantly steeper in the COTS period than it was for Orbital.

Even if you look at later proposals, Cygnus is proposed for lots of missions.
Correct. But alternative missions are proposed for Dragon as well: Red Dragon, DragonLab, CRS Dragon.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: dcporter on 06/05/2014 01:10 pm
upmass-only cargo spacecraft

This is one of the arguments that gives us SpaceX fans a bad name. The bulk-tanker upmass vehicle is a crucial station need, and optimizing for it makes for a very different spacecraft than the Dragon. Cygnus is awesome and necessary. Dragon cargo is awesome and necessary. Happy days.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/05/2014 01:44 pm
To do CRS2 OSC may need to replace the Russian engines.  That adds to the costs.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 06/05/2014 02:59 pm
To do CRS2 OSC may need to replace the Russian engines.  That adds to the costs.

AIUI, now that they've merged with ATK a solid lower stage is being considered. Keeps it in house and solves their Ukraine core sourcing as well.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 06/06/2014 10:31 am
upmass-only cargo spacecraft

This is one of the arguments that gives us SpaceX fans a bad name. The bulk-tanker upmass vehicle is a crucial station need, and optimizing for it makes for a very different spacecraft than the Dragon. Cygnus is awesome and necessary. Dragon cargo is awesome and necessary. Happy days.
Respectfully, I disagree. I'm as much a fan of Orbital as I am a fan of SpaceX. It's just that I have a personal preference with regards to value-for-money. Note the word 'personal'.
The primary reason for Cygnus being a much different spacecraft than Dragon is not optimizing up-mass. The primary reason is the fact that Cygnus is upmass-only. Cygnus does not need to return to Earth in one piece; it doesn't need a heatshield and an aerodynamically stable shape. Dragon, on the other hand, does need that and thus requires a completely different basic form and construction.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: notsorandom on 06/06/2014 05:22 pm
upmass-only cargo spacecraft

This is one of the arguments that gives us SpaceX fans a bad name. The bulk-tanker upmass vehicle is a crucial station need, and optimizing for it makes for a very different spacecraft than the Dragon. Cygnus is awesome and necessary. Dragon cargo is awesome and necessary. Happy days.
Respectfully, I disagree. I'm as much a fan of Orbital as I am a fan of SpaceX. It's just that I have a personal preference with regards to value-for-money. Note the word 'personal'.
The primary reason for Cygnus being a much different spacecraft than Dragon is not optimizing up-mass. The primary reason is the fact that Cygnus is upmass-only. Cygnus does not need to return to Earth in one piece; it doesn't need a heatshield and an aerodynamically stable shape. Dragon, on the other hand, does need that and thus requires a completely different basic form and construction.
Dragon also needs a rocket roughly twice as powerful as Cygnus does to ride up hill.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/06/2014 06:38 pm
upmass-only cargo spacecraft

This is one of the arguments that gives us SpaceX fans a bad name. The bulk-tanker upmass vehicle is a crucial station need, and optimizing for it makes for a very different spacecraft than the Dragon. Cygnus is awesome and necessary. Dragon cargo is awesome and necessary. Happy days.
Respectfully, I disagree. I'm as much a fan of Orbital as I am a fan of SpaceX. It's just that I have a personal preference with regards to value-for-money. Note the word 'personal'.
The primary reason for Cygnus being a much different spacecraft than Dragon is not optimizing up-mass. The primary reason is the fact that Cygnus is upmass-only. Cygnus does not need to return to Earth in one piece; it doesn't need a heatshield and an aerodynamically stable shape. Dragon, on the other hand, does need that and thus requires a completely different basic form and construction.
Dragon also needs a rocket roughly twice as powerful as Cygnus does to ride up hill.

And they are doing it for half as much money!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 06/06/2014 08:52 pm
Orbital's contract is for 1.9 billion and SpaceX's is for 1.6 billion. If we count the COTS money as well, the numbers are Orbital with about 2.2 billion and SpaceX with about 2.0 billion. So they're doing it for about 10% less.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 06/06/2014 10:32 pm
Orbital's contract is for 1.9 billion and SpaceX's is for 1.6 billion. If we count the COTS money as well, the numbers are Orbital with about 2.2 billion and SpaceX with about 2.0 billion. So they're doing it for about 10% less.

You're picking and choosing the numbers to slant them toward what you want the numbers to say.

COTS was a sunk cost by the time CRS came around.  You didn't count all the development money that went into components that were re-used for Cygnus, which were also sunk costs.  So it is reasonable to exclude COTS when looking at CRS cost numbers.

And you're also ignoring the fact that SpaceX is doing 12 missions to 8 by Cygnus.  That's not really comparing apples to apples.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 06/06/2014 11:58 pm
Ok, we'll exclude the COTS numbers. SpaceX is doing it for 15% less.

NASA simply contracted both companies to haul 20 mT to the station. The number of trips required to complete the task is irrelevant at best. Unless someone is trying to slant numbers towards what they want them to say.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 06/07/2014 12:05 am
Actually, the services are slightly different. Cygnus has more volume and is 100% pressurized, and can do waste disposal. Dragon has unpressurized upmass and disposal and pressurized upmass and return. Only pressurized upmass is comparable. And we're not getting into the custom services costs.
It was a Dutch auction system and SpaceX was first and Cygnus third. That's also another way to look at it.
But just let's be clear that while somewhat overlapping neither is offering exactly the same service.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 06/20/2014 08:28 pm
Not much direct news as the blackout period remains but I thought the announcements as of late were...interesting.

So, in a span of a week or so, SNC buys one company and contracts yet another. One to design and build the tools that the DC will use to be moved around for build-out and integration and the other mainly for ECLSS and propulsion for DC.

While at the same time Boeing announces it will shortly send out 60 day notices, as required by law, for 250 layoffs....IF they are not selected by NASA. But the timing seems off, as when Boeing claims to be doing this does not seem to line up with any committed "down-select" announcement date from NASA.

So, one company is growing their commitment and one is narrowing their commitment. Hm.

It was also revealed that while SNC already ordered a one-off AtlasV for an orbital test flight, the proposed Crew Access Tower design out at ULAs' Cape Pad is currently designed for the CST-100. 

Well...that's that.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/23/2014 02:14 am
This time do a 1.5 with the 1/2 as a backup.    Lock in some milestones with "time" as the driver. If the first (full share) doesn't make the time milestone, at that point the program increases funding to the backup. 

Yes, but the idea that there can be fractional CCtCap awards should be shot and buried; it is misleading and erroneous.  Based on the published RFP and FAR there cannot be a ".5" or any fractional CCtCap award.  Every awardee will be committed to fulfilling the terms of the contract in whole, which includes among other things achieving certification, crewed test flights, and a pricing commitment for follow-on missions.

All other things equal, the only legally allowable variable NASA has to work with between CCtCap awardees is time and the consequent funding profile (negotiated with each awardee based on milestones).  In short, every CCtCap awardee will be committed to child birth, as will NASA to every CCtCap awardee; the only question is the gestation period.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/23/2014 11:59 pm
With the restrictions on use of Russian made engines by both the US and Russian Governments the RFP will need changing to require the bidders to show how their equipment can be made compliant.  The RFP will also need changing to reflect the increased financial reporting information Congress demands.  It could easily take until FY16 before NASA is ready to make the awards.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/24/2014 06:18 am
The biggest plus Dragon V2 has over DC and CST100 is being able to take large unpressuried items in its trunk. NASA has already put this good use and I doubt they would want to lose this ability.
Ironically having D V1 means NASA doesn't need D V2.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 06/24/2014 06:56 am
Musk did say they'd transition away from DV1 in a few years. Depending on their  definition of "few" that could mean at the start of CRS-2, making both cargo and crew DV2 based.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/24/2014 02:33 pm
Musk said that they would have both in parallel for a few years:
Quote from: Elon Musk
Over time we expect Dragon version one to be phased out, but we're going to carry both of them in parallel for at least a few years.

http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-dragon-2-unveil-qa-2014-05-29
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 06/24/2014 03:29 pm
The biggest plus Dragon V2 has over DC and CST100 is being able to take large unpressuried items in its trunk. NASA has already put this good use and I doubt they would want to lose this ability.
Ironically having D V1 means NASA doesn't need D V2.


This was being discussed earlier. Is this a confirmed capability? Dragon V2 trunk is different from V1.

Also, it will be pretty much impossible to access at Node 2 Fwd. Node 2 Zenith will probably work.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sublimemarsupial on 06/24/2014 03:42 pm
The biggest plus Dragon V2 has over DC and CST100 is being able to take large unpressuried items in its trunk. NASA has already put this good use and I doubt they would want to lose this ability.
Ironically having D V1 means NASA doesn't need D V2.


This was being discussed earlier. Is this a confirmed capability? Dragon V2 trunk is different from V1.


Elon directly said it could carry trunk cargo during the Dragon V2 Reveal Q&A:

From the transcript:

"I think, something around - if you really cram stuff in - about a ton of pressurized cargo and two to three tons of unpressurized cargo... It will carry trunk cargo."
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 06/24/2014 03:45 pm
The biggest plus Dragon V2 has over DC and CST100 is being able to take large unpressuried items in its trunk. NASA has already put this good use and I doubt they would want to lose this ability.
Ironically having D V1 means NASA doesn't need D V2.


This was being discussed earlier. Is this a confirmed capability? Dragon V2 trunk is different from V1.


Elon directly said it could carry trunk cargo during the Dragon V2 Reveal Q&A:

From the transcript:

"I think, something around - if you really cram stuff in - about a ton of pressurized cargo and two to three tons of unpressurized cargo... It will carry trunk cargo."

Thanks.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 06/24/2014 04:50 pm
The biggest plus Dragon V2 has over DC and CST100 is being able to take large unpressuried items in its trunk. NASA has already put this good use and I doubt they would want to lose this ability.
Ironically having D V1 means NASA doesn't need D V2.

You know, I hate to say it, but that comment can be interprated in SOOO many ways...

But seriously, I can't really see how the Cream Chaser could bring up external stores, unless they set up a trunk with a tunnel and blast deflectors for their engines.

The CST-100 and Orion, on the other hand, could use a stackable trunk with a consumables extension on the side of the trunk to the capsule.  They've already shown illustrations of such an arrangement in the past.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/25/2014 12:51 am
Ok, we'll exclude the COTS numbers. SpaceX is doing it for 15% less.

NASA simply contracted both companies to haul 20 mT to the station. The number of trips required to complete the task is irrelevant at best. Unless someone is trying to slant numbers towards what they want them to say.

Unfortunately the CRS contract is not quite that simple and "it" (what SpaceX and OSC are providing) is variable and price is not simply based on "20 mT to the station".  Based on the CRS RFP and contracts, "it" may be based on per-kg or per-mission pricing and also varies depending on whether it is pressurised-up or -down, and whether it is pressurized- or unpressurized-down disposal.

The specifics of the CRS contract pricing or what is being payed to OSC and SpaceX are redacted and impossible to divine, other than a "minimum value" at initial CRS contract award.  All of which tells us very little as to what is being paid for "it".  In any case, to state that "SpaceX is doing it for 15% less." without basis is as erroneous and as arguable an attempt to "slant numbers" as any other.


edit: p.s. Sorry for the digression, but this meme needs to be killed, which has been hashed over in other threads, and which has nothing to do with CCDev, CCiCap, or CCtCap.  Back to CCiCap/CCtCap please...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 06/27/2014 02:29 pm
An update, CCiCap has been extended to March 31, 2015 for SNC and SpaceX in order to give them more time to complete their remaining milestones:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/41043commercial-crew-partners-get-extension
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrianNH on 06/27/2014 04:37 pm
The article says that the pad abort is the 14th and final milestone.  I think that the milestones include the launch abort as well.

Has anyone heard anything about the other 2 SpaceX pending milestones - the Integrated Critical Design Review and the Dragon Primary Structure Qualification?

Also, anyone know the latest status on the DreamChaser and CST-100 milestones?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: StarryKnight on 06/27/2014 06:23 pm
The article says that the pad abort is the 14th and final milestone.  I think that the milestones include the launch abort as well.

Has anyone heard anything about the other 2 SpaceX pending milestones - the Integrated Critical Design Review and the Dragon Primary Structure Qualification?

Also, anyone know the latest status on the DreamChaser and CST-100 milestones?
If the pad abort is the final milestone, then an abort during launch would not have been a milestone. You wouldn't launch a rocket to demonstrate an abort under max Q if you haven't already proven that the capsule can survive an abort under less strenuous initial conditions. You could forgo the pad abort and jump straight to the launch abort. But once you do that, there's not much to prove in then doing the pad abort.

As for the status of the other two vehicles' milestones, the article says that DC needs more time to complete their milestones, but CST-100 will complete its milestones on time this August. I have no idea what the specific milestones are that are remaining for any of the vehicles.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sublimemarsupial on 06/27/2014 06:30 pm
The article says that the pad abort is the 14th and final milestone.  I think that the milestones include the launch abort as well.

Has anyone heard anything about the other 2 SpaceX pending milestones - the Integrated Critical Design Review and the Dragon Primary Structure Qualification?

Also, anyone know the latest status on the DreamChaser and CST-100 milestones?
If the pad abort is the final milestone, then an abort during launch would not have been a milestone. You wouldn't launch a rocket to demonstrate an abort under max Q if you haven't already proven that the capsule can survive an abort under less strenuous initial conditions. You could forgo the pad abort and jump straight to the launch abort. But once you do that, there's not much to prove in then doing the pad abort.

As for the status of the other two vehicles' milestones, the article says that DC needs more time to complete their milestones, but CST-100 will complete its milestones on time this August. I have no idea what the specific milestones are that are remaining for any of the vehicles.

The in-flight abort is the final SpaceX milestone, the pad abort is before it. Compare the milestones here:

SpaceX:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/04/01/spacex-commercial-crew-milestones-status/

Boeing:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/04/01/boeing-commercial-crew-milestones-status/

SNC:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/02/26/sierra-nevada-commercial-crew-milestones-status/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 06/27/2014 06:30 pm
If the pad abort is the final milestone, then an abort during launch would not have been a milestone. You wouldn't launch a rocket to demonstrate an abort under max Q if you haven't already proven that the capsule can survive an abort under less strenuous initial conditions. You could forgo the pad abort and jump straight to the launch abort. But once you do that, there's not much to prove in then doing the pad abort.

Not quite -- a pad abort demonstrates the ability of the abort system to boost the capsule to a sufficient altitude and range so that its recovery system (parachute, propulsive, or other) can fully activate and land the capsule softly at a safe distance from the pad.  A max-q abort doesn't demonstrate that.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrianNH on 06/27/2014 06:41 pm
I should have worded that more carefully.  I meant "I don't think that the pad abort is the final milestone because I believe that a MAX-Q abort is also one of the ccicap milestones."
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: darkenfast on 06/28/2014 02:17 am
Do Boeing's milestones not include an abort test?  I don't see one in the list linked above.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/28/2014 02:31 am
Do Boeing's milestones not include an abort test?  I don't see one in the list linked above.

No.  IIRC they said they had two flight tests in the original CCiCap proposal, one being a flight abort test, but they were removed due to funding constraints.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/28/2014 02:43 am
Has anyone heard anything about the other 2 SpaceX pending milestones - the Integrated Critical Design Review and the Dragon Primary Structure Qualification?

The SpaceX integrated CDR (milestone #13) was apparently conducted in April (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2014/release-20140519b.html); no idea if it is considered complete.  Other than that there appears to be three milestones remaining: (#12) Dragon primary structure qualification*; (#11) pad abort test; (#14) in-flight abort test.


* Not sure but there has been no mention by NASA that the Dragon structure qualification bas been completed, so I assume not.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/01/2014 12:50 am
Article from Parabolic Arc.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/06/30/remaining-milestones-nasas-commercial-crew-partners/#more-52735

The last paragraph was interesting.

Quote
Officials at SpaceX and Sierra Nevada have both said they would press on with the development of their vehicles even if they don’t receive funding in the next round. Boeing, on the other hand, has said it will need to carefully evaluate whether it will continue building CST-100 if additional NASA funding does not come through. Boeing is reported to have committed the least amount of its own money to commercial crew compared with its competitors.


Edit/Lar: Made the fact that it's a quote more obvious by using "quote" tags...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 07/01/2014 10:00 pm
Article from Parabolic Arc.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/06/30/remaining-milestones-nasas-commercial-crew-partners/#more-52735

The last paragraph was interesting.

Quote
Officials at SpaceX and Sierra Nevada have both said they would press on with the development of their vehicles even if they don’t receive funding in the next round. Boeing, on the other hand, has said it will need to carefully evaluate whether it will continue building CST-100 if additional NASA funding does not come through. Boeing is reported to have committed the least amount of its own money to commercial crew compared with its competitors.


Edit/Lar: Made the fact that it's a quote more obvious by using "quote" tags...

Boeing is reported to have committed the least amount of its own money to commercial crew compared with its competitors.

Reported, no factual information other than the old information (2012 ?)  Some real numbers would be of interest.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 07/01/2014 10:45 pm
Article from Parabolic Arc.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/06/30/remaining-milestones-nasas-commercial-crew-partners/#more-52735

The last paragraph was interesting.

Quote
Officials at SpaceX and Sierra Nevada have both said they would press on with the development of their vehicles even if they don’t receive funding in the next round. Boeing, on the other hand, has said it will need to carefully evaluate whether it will continue building CST-100 if additional NASA funding does not come through. Boeing is reported to have committed the least amount of its own money to commercial crew compared with its competitors.


Edit/Lar: Made the fact that it's a quote more obvious by using "quote" tags...
Boeings' position has been consistent in that they most likely would not close the business case outside of NASA and therefore would likely not continue development without them. Closing the business case and percentage of private-investment has certainly been one of the tenets of CC. What we don't know is how NASA will ultimately weigh this in the larger context of safety, costs and schedule.

Currently, SpaceX is the only one who will complete both a pad and in-flight abort under this currently funded round of CC. Which means, IMO, that Boeing will need a much larger budget allotment then SpaceX for the next round if they were to be chosen since Boeing would need to purchase at least 2 Atlas Vs for the in-flight abort test and orbital flight test.

So if NASA has $800 Million-ish for the next round and say SpaceX needs $400Million-ish to have a fully integrated and certified service ready to go in 2016ish (2017), then how much more would Boeing need if they haven't even done the abort scenarios yet?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 07/02/2014 12:25 am
Currently, SpaceX is the only one who will complete both a pad and in-flight abort under this currently funded round of CC. Which means, IMO, that Boeing will need a much larger budget allotment then SpaceX for the next round if they were to be chosen since Boeing would need to purchase at least 2 Atlas Vs for the in-flight abort test and orbital flight test.

So if NASA has $800 Million-ish for the next round and say SpaceX needs $400Million-ish to have a fully integrated and certified service ready to go in 2016ish (2017), then how much more would Boeing need if they haven't even done the abort scenarios yet?

And DreamChaser has!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 07/02/2014 12:33 am
And DreamChaser has!
Sorry missing something... "And DreamChase has!"... what?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 07/02/2014 12:34 am
And DreamChaser has!
Sorry missing something... "DreamChase has!"... what?

Launched and tested on an Atlas.

DreamChaser has already purchased the Atlas launch vehicle and scheduled their flight test.
Boeing hasn't even come close. And they can't just order up a new Atlas. Those things take time to build and there are no spares. By the time Boeing can get an Atlas in the chute and schedule their test flight Dreamchaser will already be long back on the ground, having completed theirs.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 07/02/2014 12:38 am
And DreamChaser has!
Sorry missing something... "DreamChase has!"... what?
Launched and tested on an Atlas.

Sorry for being dense (or ironic- or humor-challenged), but still be missing something.  When did DreamChaser launch or test on an Atlas?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 07/02/2014 12:38 am
Article from Parabolic Arc.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/06/30/remaining-milestones-nasas-commercial-crew-partners/#more-52735

The last paragraph was interesting.

Quote
Officials at SpaceX and Sierra Nevada have both said they would press on with the development of their vehicles even if they don’t receive funding in the next round. Boeing, on the other hand, has said it will need to carefully evaluate whether it will continue building CST-100 if additional NASA funding does not come through. Boeing is reported to have committed the least amount of its own money to commercial crew compared with its competitors.


Edit/Lar: Made the fact that it's a quote more obvious by using "quote" tags...
Boeings' position has been consistent in that they most likely would not close the business case outside of NASA and therefore would likely not continue development without them. Closing the business case and percentage of private-investment has certainly been one of the tenets of CC. What we don't know is how NASA will ultimately weigh this in the larger context of safety, costs and schedule.

Currently, SpaceX is the only one who will complete both a pad and in-flight abort under this currently funded round of CC. Which means, IMO, that Boeing will need a much larger budget allotment then SpaceX for the next round if they were to be chosen since Boeing would need to purchase at least 2 Atlas Vs for the in-flight abort test and orbital flight test.

So if NASA has $800 Million-ish for the next round and say SpaceX needs $400Million-ish to have a fully integrated and certified service ready to go in 2016ish (2017), then how much more would Boeing need if they haven't even done the abort scenarios yet?

They aren't required to use the same LV for the tests as for launch. SpaceX is using F9 because it's well, cheap.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 07/02/2014 12:53 am
And DreamChaser has!
Sorry missing something... "DreamChase has!"... what?
DreamChaser has already purchased the Atlas launch vehicle and scheduled their flight test.
Boeing hasn't even come close. And they can't just order up a new Atlas. Those things take time to build and there are no spares. By the time Boeing can get an Atlas in the chute and schedule their test flight Dreamchaser will already be long back on the ground, having completed theirs.

Got it.  Thanks.  However, without knowing the T&C's of the arrangement, I wouldn't count on a DreamChaser Atlas flight test at this time.  From Sierra Nevada Reserves Atlas Rocket for Dream Chaser Test Flight (http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39248sierra-nevada-reserves-atlas-rocket-for-dream-chaser-test-flight), SpaceNews, Jan 23 2014:
Quote
“It is a confirmed launch date. It’s a confirmed payment on the launch to start the process working,” Sirangelo told reporters at a press conference.

“What happens after the [NASA] contract award happens or not happens we’ll decide then, but we are moving forward on the program for this one,” he added.
In short, TBD.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: CJ on 07/02/2014 02:03 am

If the pad abort is the final milestone, then an abort during launch would not have been a milestone. You wouldn't launch a rocket to demonstrate an abort under max Q if you haven't already proven that the capsule can survive an abort under less strenuous initial conditions. You could forgo the pad abort and jump straight to the launch abort. But once you do that, there's not much to prove in then doing the pad abort.

As for the status of the other two vehicles' milestones, the article says that DC needs more time to complete their milestones, but CST-100 will complete its milestones on time this August. I have no idea what the specific milestones are that are remaining for any of the vehicles.

The in-flight abort is the final SpaceX milestone, the pad abort is before it. Compare the milestones here:

SpaceX:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/04/01/spacex-commercial-crew-milestones-status/

Boeing:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/04/01/boeing-commercial-crew-milestones-status/

SNC:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/02/26/sierra-nevada-commercial-crew-milestones-status/
[/quote]

Thank you very much for those links.

I'm confused as heck (and googling has been of no help) so could someone here let me know why only SpaceX has abort tests as milestones? SNC and Boeing don't have either pad abort or Max-Q abort tests listed at all for milestones.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 07/02/2014 02:07 am
I'm confused as heck (and googling has been of no help) so could someone here let me know why only SpaceX has abort tests as milestones?

Because they bid to do it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/02/2014 02:56 am
I'm confused as heck (and googling has been of no help) so could someone here let me know why only SpaceX has abort tests as milestones?

Because they bid to do it.

Yes, and there was a set amount of money that was available to fund all three CCiCap participants.  No doubt NASA spent a lot of time figuring out what combination of funding would get all three vehicles as far as possible prior to the next funding event.

Sierra Nevada received $212.5M, which got them through flying their test article and doing Main Propulsion and other testing.

Boeing received $460M, the most of the three, which gets them through their Critical Design Review (CDR) Board.

SpaceX received $440M, but likely since they were using the cargo version of their Dragon as their starting point, their last milestones are the Integrated Critical Design Review (CDR) and an In-Flight Abort Test with the Dragon V2 vehicle Elon Musk unveiled recently.

Note that both Sierra Nevada and SpaceX were funded to the point that they could do some actual vehicle tests, but Boeing won't have a test or production vehicle ready as part of their funding.  It will be interesting to see if that influences the CCtCap awards.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: CJ on 07/02/2014 03:46 am
I'm confused as heck (and googling has been of no help) so could someone here let me know why only SpaceX has abort tests as milestones?

Because they bid to do it.

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that SpaceX being the only one to have abort tests as milestones was SpaceX's idea?

Because they bid to do it.

Yes, and there was a set amount of money that was available to fund all three CCiCap participants.  No doubt NASA spent a lot of time figuring out what combination of funding would get all three vehicles as far as possible prior to the next funding event.

Sierra Nevada received $212.5M, which got them through flying their test article and doing Main Propulsion and other testing.

Boeing received $460M, the most of the three, which gets them through their Critical Design Review (CDR) Board.

SpaceX received $440M, but likely since they were using the cargo version of their Dragon as their starting point, their last milestones are the Integrated Critical Design Review (CDR) and an In-Flight Abort Test with the Dragon V2 vehicle Elon Musk unveiled recently.

Note that both Sierra Nevada and SpaceX were funded to the point that they could do some actual vehicle tests, but Boeing won't have a test or production vehicle ready as part of their funding.  It will be interesting to see if that influences the CCtCap awards.

Bolding mine.

Boeing got the most money, but doesn't have to come up with a test or production vehicle? What on earth was the reasoning for that?

In general regarding my (limited) understanding of CCiCAP, I can easily see why the three companies have different milestones, due to having different design concepts (for example, it'd make no sense for DC to have a parachute test milestone, or Dragon a glide test) but... they gave the most money to the company that, from the look of it, has done the least?

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 07/02/2014 04:00 am
If I'm reading you right, you're saying that SpaceX being the only one to have abort tests as milestones was SpaceX's idea?

Yes.. but I expect the others offered to do it, but the price they offered to do it at was too high.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/02/2014 04:20 am
{snip}
Bolding mine.

Boeing got the most money, but doesn't have to come up with a test or production vehicle? What on earth was the reasoning for that?

In general regarding my (limited) understanding of CCiCAP, I can easily see why the three companies have different milestones, due to having different design concepts (for example, it'd make no sense for DC to have a parachute test milestone, or Dragon a glide test) but... they gave the most money to the company that, from the look of it, has done the least?


Boeing was upgrading the Atlas V as well as developing the CST-100.  NASA had to pay for both.

Will the human rating of the Atlas V be finished at the end of CCiCap?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: CJ on 07/02/2014 05:46 am
Boeing was upgrading the Atlas V as well as developing the CST-100.  NASA had to pay for both.

Will the human rating of the Atlas V be finished at the end of CCiCap?

Ah, you're right! Thanks for that, it makes more sense to me now.

I wonder if this is part of why SNC received less; they're using the same LV, so benefit from the money channeled through Boeing for Atlas 5 human rating.

I'd hope the human rating is done by the end of CCiCAP, assuming the RD-180 is still available.  I do wonder, though, how one human-rates a rocket with SRBs? I've seen videos of SRB failures of unmanned launchers, and they are sudden and very violent. Could the emergency detection system detect such a failure in time to make an abort survivable?

[/quote]
If I'm reading you right, you're saying that SpaceX being the only one to have abort tests as milestones was SpaceX's idea?

Yes.. but I expect the others offered to do it, but the price they offered to do it at was too high.

I think the problem I'm having stems in part from the fact that I've requested plenty of bids for various projects. In my case, I had everything specced out in advance,  so the bids were to do pretty much the exact same thing, so that probably biased my thinking.  However, in other circumstances, such as someone wanting a home built who doesn't have firm designs, they might request bids where the contractor lays out a design, which might be more analogous to what's going on in the commercial crew program.

I wonder when we'll hear more regarding the downselect.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/02/2014 06:23 am
{snip}
Bolding mine.

Boeing got the most money, but doesn't have to come up with a test or production vehicle? What on earth was the reasoning for that?

You have to look at this from a complete perspective.  Boeing no doubt had a very strong initial proposal, since they have a lot of history and experience with complex aerospace projects.  Based on that they were no doubt rated as the lowest risk, which likely played into their award size.  Sierra Nevada likely was rated as the highest risk, and thus received the lowest award amount.

Quote
In general regarding my (limited) understanding of CCiCAP, I can easily see why the three companies have different milestones, due to having different design concepts (for example, it'd make no sense for DC to have a parachute test milestone, or Dragon a glide test) but... they gave the most money to the company that, from the look of it, has done the least?

There is a document that NASA released that explained their reasoning - I think you should Google it (I'm time limited, but maybe someone can point you too it).

Quote
Boeing was upgrading the Atlas V as well as developing the CST-100.  NASA had to pay for both.

No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing.  And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.

If you want to see what Boeings milestones are here is the CCiCap Announcement Summary:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672130main_CCiCap%20Announcement.pdf
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 07/02/2014 12:48 pm
{snip}
Bolding mine.

Boeing got the most money, but doesn't have to come up with a test or production vehicle? What on earth was the reasoning for that?

You have to look at this from a complete perspective.  Boeing no doubt had a very strong initial proposal, since they have a lot of history and experience with complex aerospace projects.  Based on that they were no doubt rated as the lowest risk, which likely played into their award size.  Sierra Nevada likely was rated as the highest risk, and thus received the lowest award amount.

Quote
In general regarding my (limited) understanding of CCiCAP, I can easily see why the three companies have different milestones, due to having different design concepts (for example, it'd make no sense for DC to have a parachute test milestone, or Dragon a glide test) but... they gave the most money to the company that, from the look of it, has done the least?

There is a document that NASA released that explained their reasoning - I think you should Google it (I'm time limited, but maybe someone can point you too it).

Quote
Boeing was upgrading the Atlas V as well as developing the CST-100.  NASA had to pay for both.

No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing.  And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.

If you want to see what Boeings milestones are here is the CCiCap Announcement Summary:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672130main_CCiCap%20Announcement.pdf

The avionic upgrade needed to human rate Centaur is Boeing, they are heavily involved in the upgrade.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Roy_H on 07/02/2014 04:27 pm
SpaceX originally had bid for about 30 milestones, when the funding got cut in half the last half of the milestones were lopped off. I assume a similar process for Boeing and SNC. I expect that some of the remaining SpaceX milestones will be converted over to the next round of funding under CCtCAP and the remainder absorbed by SpaceX so they will be internal only.

Since all milestones are created by the contractor, it is up to Boeing to decide if they want pad abort and maxQ abort. This would be negotiated with NASA and NASA may decide that only one (say pad abort) would be required.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 07/02/2014 04:51 pm
Apollo-Saturn did not have a max-q abort test.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sublimemarsupial on 07/02/2014 05:07 pm
Apollo-Saturn did not have a max-q abort test.

Not sure if any of them were at max-q, but apollo had four in flight abort tests in addition to to two pad abort tests.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 07/02/2014 05:58 pm
Well, that's the whole point of competition. If SpaceX is the only one of the 3 that does both a pad and MaxQ abort, (successfully) for whatever reason, they would be seen as having reduced the most risk, at least with regards to Abort capabilities. I would think that would give them extra points on whatever complex weighting chart NASA is using for down-selections.

And, if I have this right, their DragonFly program to reduce propulsive landing risk is being funded internally and not by NASA, that's another nice competitive value-add, so a few more "Checks" on NASA's down-select chart.

I'm just observing what can be observed in the blackout period but IMO I see little chance that SpaceX is not part of the down-select. (of course as long as there is no catastrophic design flaw found) The real question is who gets the second slot. (Yes, I believe there will be 2 selections with a possible 3rd unfunded invitation to continue development with their own investments for future selection potential)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 07/02/2014 08:05 pm
Apollo-Saturn did not have a max-q abort test.

Little Joe II had several with the Apollo CSM.

But you're right, Saturn didn't - who in their right mind would ditch a rocket that big doing something that can be done with a smaller vehicle. Same way Orion is using the modified Peacekeeper and not SLS for Inflight abort.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 07/02/2014 10:26 pm


No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing.  And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.

But in this case Boeing would be the customer for the rocket. And as a customer with special needs they would be responsible for having those needs met, even if it means paying Lockheed or ULA to meet them.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Roy_H on 07/02/2014 11:50 pm


No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing.  And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.

But in this case Boeing would be the customer for the rocket. And as a customer with special needs they would be responsible for having those needs met, even if it means paying Lockheed or ULA to meet them.

But those special needs have to do with payload mass and mounting to the upper stage, not man-rating the Atlas 5. Separate issues.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 07/03/2014 12:34 am


No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing.  And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.

But in this case Boeing would be the customer for the rocket. And as a customer with special needs they would be responsible for having those needs met, even if it means paying Lockheed or ULA to meet them.

But those special needs have to do with payload mass and mounting to the upper stage, not man-rating the Atlas 5. Separate issues.
Same issue. Boeing and SNC require a manrated rocket. Lockheed isn't providing this additional work for free, the required planning and modifications to Atlas V are being paid for by Boeing/SNC, not Lockheed.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 07/03/2014 12:38 am


No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing.  And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.

But in this case Boeing would be the customer for the rocket. And as a customer with special needs they would be responsible for having those needs met, even if it means paying Lockheed or ULA to meet them.

But those special needs have to do with payload mass and mounting to the upper stage, not man-rating the Atlas 5. Separate issues.
Same issue. Boeing and SNC require a manrated rocket. Lockheed isn't providing this additional work for free, the required planning and modifications to Atlas V are being paid for by Boeing/SNC, not Lockheed.
As I imagine is the same for the design and build of the crew access tower.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 07/09/2014 12:11 am
Latest 60-day report on Commercial Spaceflight now available:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_ROI_Report_July_2014_Final_TAGGED_2.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_ROI_Report_July_2014_Final_TAGGED_2.pdf)

Includes the following milestone update:

Commercial Transportation Systems—Moving Forward

NASA’s industry partners continue to move forward with their Commercial Crew integrated Capability (CCiCap) efforts, successfully completing milestones and working toward the culmination of their CCiCap Space Act Agreements. The Boeing Company is scheduled to complete its milestones later this summer. NASA has agreed to extend the terms of the Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) agreements to March 2015 allowing for completion of work associated with remaining flight testing—SpaceX an in-flight abort test and SNC a free flight test of a Dream Chaser test vehicle. Over the past two months, several milestones are of interest:

• Successfully Completed Milestones

  • Boeing Software Critical Design Review
  • SNC Wind Tunnel Testing
  • SNC Main Propulsion and Reaction Control System Risk
  • Reduction and Technology Readiness Level Advancement Testing

• Upcoming Milestones

  • Boeing Critical Design Review Board
  • Boeing Phase 2 Spacecraft Safety Review
  • SNC Risk Reduction and Technology Readiness
  • Level Advancement Testing
  • SNC Reaction Control System Testing—Incremental Test #1
  • SpaceX Dragon Primary Structure Qualification

NASA’s Commercial Crew Development (CCDev2) partner, Blue Origin, is working toward completing its final unfunded milestone, the Space Vehicle Subsystem Interim Design Review planned for later this summer.

NASA and industry partners also recently completed the Certification Products Contract, the first phase in the certification process that will allow U.S. commercial transportation systems to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station. Under the contract, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX completed reviews detailing how each company plans to meet NASA’s safety and performance requirements. Later this year NASA will award the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract(s), the second and final phase of the certification process.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Roy_H on 07/09/2014 01:25 am
I find the report has a couple of statements about SpaceX that I find curious. First the previous report stated that SpaceX was working on milestone 13 Integrated Critical Design Review, and now this one states they are working on M12, Dragon Primary Structure Qualification. I guess both of these are running in parallel and M13 hasn't been completed yet. Second there is a new milestone 18 on the graphic, anyone know what this is?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Roy_H on 07/09/2014 01:39 am
Decided to copy my comment from the SpaceX In-Flight LAS Abort Test to here:

This extension to the end of March 2015 is very disappointing.  Now a year late. The D2 unveil was billed as actual flight hardware with Elon stating that that particular capsule was destined for orbit. It  was completely bare inside except for the temporarily mounted seats and (I assume mock-up) flight control panel. Lots of work on interior to be done. However, does the interior have to be finished for the abort tests? I think not. Since the capsule shown was for orbit, I think this implies that the abort capsule was previously built and should therefore be further on to completion. All this leads me to believe that the abort capsule is almost complete, and on hold, waiting for DragonFly test results.

It occurred to me that maybe the abort capsule IS Dragonfly. Is that possible? Test as Dragonfly first before using it as the abort vehicle?

Hopefully this delay is not on the critical path to CCtCap certification. Any insight to CCiCap and CCtCap running in parallel? AIUI CCiCap completion is a pre-requisit to CCtCap funding, so I am wondering if this delay in completing milestones could delay CCtCap.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 07/09/2014 02:23 am
Not a big fan of that big fat pseudo analog thermometer graphic, especially since it's misleading in my view. Some milestones are more important than others.At the completion of these series of milestones, whose vehicle will be closer to launchability? That's what really matters, although I readily grant Boeing is ahead on the paper milestones...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 07/09/2014 09:05 am
Decided to copy my comment from the SpaceX In-Flight LAS Abort Test to here:

This extension to the end of March 2015 is very disappointing.  Now a year late. The D2 unveil was billed as actual flight hardware with Elon stating that that particular capsule was destined for orbit. It  was completely bare inside except for the temporarily mounted seats and (I assume mock-up) flight control panel.

It's just a wild guess by you that the seats and control panel are mock-ups and temporary.  There's no evidence of all of that.

Lots of work on interior to be done.

Again, just a guess by you.

However, does the interior have to be finished for the abort tests? I think not. Since the capsule shown was for orbit, I think this implies that the abort capsule was previously built and should therefore be further on to completion.

Just another guess.

All this leads me to believe that the abort capsule is almost complete, and on hold, waiting for DragonFly test results.

That's a conclusion based on guess upon guess.  I don't see any real reason to think that.

It occurred to me that maybe the abort capsule IS Dragonfly. Is that possible? Test as Dragonfly first before using it as the abort vehicle?

At best, possible but highly speculative.

Hopefully this delay is not on the critical path to CCtCap certification. Any insight to CCiCap and CCtCap running in parallel? AIUI CCiCap completion is a pre-requisit to CCtCap funding, so I am wondering if this delay in completing milestones could delay CCtCap.

What says CCiCap completion is a pre-requisite to CCtCap funding?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Roy_H on 07/09/2014 10:13 am
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this is an UPDATE thread, no speculation allowed!
You did, however, prompt me to try to find the statement about CCiCap being a pre-requisite to CCtCap. Had to go re-read this http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=50 and it turns out I was wrong about that. I must have been thinking about CCDev being required for CCiCap.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/09/2014 02:51 pm
It's actually a discussion thread (there is no update thread).

Completing CPC (the first phase of certification) or its equivalent is a requirement in order to bid for CCtCap . But CCP was recently completed by all three commercial crew companies (see link below). For CCiCap, NASA is hoping that SpaceX and Boeing will be at CDR level prior to CCtCap being awarded in September. So getting to CDR is more important than the LAS tests, I would say, but it's not required to be completed prior to CCtCap.

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/may/nasa-and-industry-complete-first-phase-to-certify-new-crew-transportation-systems/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Roy_H on 07/09/2014 06:33 pm
yg1968; Thankyou for your clarification of CCtCap qualification.

I am aware this is not an Update thread, my point was I thought it was OK to speculate in a Discussion thread.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 07/12/2014 09:37 pm
Not a big fan of that big fat pseudo analog thermometer graphic, especially since it's misleading in my view. Some milestones are more important than others.At the completion of these series of milestones, whose vehicle will be closer to launchability? That's what really matters, although I readily grant Boeing is ahead on the paper milestones...

its a milestone charted what more do you want?

any way you wish to chart the # of completed milestones its going to look the same.

interesting; DC is completing milestones far faster then SpaceX yet they have less funding to work with.

just know what the spin reply for this will be....go for it, ready :D
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: dcporter on 07/13/2014 12:00 am
I assume and you could too that he wanted a graph that shows each company's progress out of different totals of some sort, rather than all appearing to be approaching the same level ("top of thermometer/graph/whatever").
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: beancounter on 07/14/2014 08:02 am
Not a big fan of that big fat pseudo analog thermometer graphic, especially since it's misleading in my view. Some milestones are more important than others.At the completion of these series of milestones, whose vehicle will be closer to launchability? That's what really matters, although I readily grant Boeing is ahead on the paper milestones...

its a milestone charted what more do you want?

any way you wish to chart the # of completed milestones its going to look the same.

interesting; DC is completing milestones far faster then SpaceX yet they have less funding to work with.

just know what the spin reply for this will be....go for it, ready :D
Well if you already knew then why ask for it.
Ok, I'll bite.  Have you analysed each milestone and elapsed time and then compared like for like?  I haven't but hoped you had and therefore could add substance to your aforementioned statement.
Cheers
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 07/14/2014 08:20 am
Not a big fan of that big fat pseudo analog thermometer graphic, especially since it's misleading in my view. Some milestones are more important than others.At the completion of these series of milestones, whose vehicle will be closer to launchability? That's what really matters, although I readily grant Boeing is ahead on the paper milestones...

its a milestone charted what more do you want?

any way you wish to chart the # of completed milestones its going to look the same.

interesting; DC is completing milestones far faster then SpaceX yet they have less funding to work with.

just know what the spin reply for this will be....go for it, ready :D
The big question is what those thermometers would look like if they included all the milestones to the final, delivered service.

Put another way, how much have each of the competitors left for the following CCtCap round?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 07/14/2014 11:50 am
Not a big fan of that big fat pseudo analog thermometer graphic, especially since it's misleading in my view. Some milestones are more important than others.At the completion of these series of milestones, whose vehicle will be closer to launchability? That's what really matters, although I readily grant Boeing is ahead on the paper milestones...

its a milestone charted what more do you want?

any way you wish to chart the # of completed milestones its going to look the same.

interesting; DC is completing milestones far faster then SpaceX yet they have less funding to work with.

just know what the spin reply for this will be....go for it, ready :D
Well if you already knew then why ask for it.
Ok, I'll bite.  Have you analysed each milestone and elapsed time and then compared like for like?  I haven't but hoped you had and therefore could add substance to your aforementioned statement.
Cheers

being prepared isn't asking for it :P
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 07/14/2014 11:52 am
Not a big fan of that big fat pseudo analog thermometer graphic, especially since it's misleading in my view. Some milestones are more important than others.At the completion of these series of milestones, whose vehicle will be closer to launchability? That's what really matters, although I readily grant Boeing is ahead on the paper milestones...

its a milestone charted what more do you want?

any way you wish to chart the # of completed milestones its going to look the same.

interesting; DC is completing milestones far faster then SpaceX yet they have less funding to work with.

just know what the spin reply for this will be....go for it, ready :D
The big question is what those thermometers would look like if they included all the milestones to the final, delivered service.

Put another way, how much have each of the competitors left for the following CCtCap round?

Cheers, Martin

fair point, my thinking is a tad different .....how about a ROI to the taxpayer also :-X
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 07/14/2014 01:49 pm

fair point, my thinking is a tad different .....how about a ROI to the taxpayer also :-X
Well better than paying the Russians for it.
Also note that the delays are probably in part due to the less than ideal funding.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Todd Martin on 07/15/2014 03:12 pm
I just completed Family SpaceCamp; the campers had an opportunity for a Q&A with Astronaut Don Thomas.

I asked if the Astronaut Corps would provide input on commercial crew vehicles for the downselect on CCiCAP.  I also asked his personal preference among the 3 vehicles.

He said the decision is NASA's and the Astronaut Corps will have little to no input on the decision. 

His preference was toward SpaceX because they have flown Dragons.  From his comments, being flight proven is important.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 07/16/2014 02:50 am
Flight proven?  v2 seems to be a wholly different craft. And v1 does not have docking capability, a key component of the commercial crew vehicles...Has anyone posted a graphic of a side by side comparison  of the two Dragon craft?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 07/16/2014 03:55 am
Not a big fan of that big fat pseudo analog thermometer graphic, especially since it's misleading in my view. Some milestones are more important than others.At the completion of these series of milestones, whose vehicle will be closer to launchability? That's what really matters, although I readily grant Boeing is ahead on the paper milestones...

its a milestone charted what more do you want?

any way you wish to chart the # of completed milestones its going to look the same.

interesting; DC is completing milestones far faster then SpaceX yet they have less funding to work with.

just know what the spin reply for this will be....go for it, ready :D
The big question is what those thermometers would look like if they included all the milestones to the final, delivered service.

Put another way, how much have each of the competitors left for the following CCtCap round?

Cheers, Martin

Thats it exactly. I want to know what's left to do before that entrant's vehicle is in regular service. How many milestones left til THEN, not till this phase is done.  Further, I'd like the scale not to be linear. I'd like the scale to use some other metric (degree of difficulty?) because not all milestones are equal. Paper milestones aren't as nifty as actually bending metal and launching things. You can argue that there would be an argument about how big each milestone was, and that's true. But I still want it. (and a pony)

As I said, it's my perception that Boeing so far has produced a lot of paper and some test articles but no flight hardware, and has pushed a lot of things that have to be done before they actually start regular service into the next phase. (or do they plan to fly without doing abort tests?)

being prepared isn't asking for it :P

Oh, you're asking for it all right :p
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars_J on 07/16/2014 05:14 am

Flight proven?  v2 seems to be a wholly different craft. And v1 does not have docking capability, a key component of the commercial crew vehicles...Has anyone posted a graphic of a side by side comparison  of the two Dragon craft?

Look beneath the paint and cosmetics, and you'll find lots of similarities and shared systems. Take away the SD plus their fairings, and the crafts look very similar.

Flight experience counts. And even if Dragon v2 was a clean sheet design, the current experience of the design and engineering team counts for a lot. (At least that is what Boeing usually says) :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 07/23/2014 02:29 am
SNC is sure racking up the milestones

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/07/dream-chaser-major-ccicap-challenge/

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/23/2014 08:32 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-partners-punctuate-summer-with-spacecraft-development-advances/index.html

Quote
The next milestone for Blue Origin will be a subsystem interim design review that will assess the progress of the company's Space Vehicle design.

The Boeing Company, which is designing the CST-100 spacecraft, has two reviews later this summer. A full critical design review (CDR) will examine the detailed plans for the spacecraft, launch vehicle and a host of ground support, processing and operations designs. The second review will come soon after -- the Spacecraft Safety Review is designed to show the design of the spacecraft and its systems are in line with Boeing's CDR-level design.

Sierra Nevada Corporation completed risk reduction testing on the flight crew systems in development for its Dream Chaser spacecraft. The team evaluated crew ingress and egress using the full-scale mockup of the Dream Chaser pressurized cabin, as well as the visibility from inside the cockpit, controls and displays and seat loading. The company reviewed tests conducted on the thermal protection system for its spacecraft as well as the composite structure, life support system and thermal control systems. Later this summer, the reaction control system will undergo an incremental test to further its design.

SpaceX currently is completing a qualification test milestone for the primary structure of its Dragon spacecraft. Following this milestone, the company, which is using its own Falcon 9 launch vehicle, will outline its ground systems, crew and mission operations plans in an operational review that will put the company’s processes through a rigorous examination.

Later this year, NASA plans to award one or more contracts that will provide the agency with commercial services to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station by the end of 2017.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 07/24/2014 03:37 pm
My gut feeling is that SpaceX may win the war with reuse but may lose a battle when it comes to NASA picking them for manned flight. I also like the way Sierra Nevada is positioning themselves internationally with Dreamchaser. The JAXA agreement is a good example of this.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 07/24/2014 10:28 pm
Both Boeing and SpaceX got $400Mill+ in this latest phase. But within that allocation, SpaceX will be doing 2 abort scenarios with actual flight-design systems. And as such, will have reduced the most risk coming out of CCiCAP. There is very little chance they will not be part of the down-select. IMO.

The reality is, each of these proposed vehicles are at different stages of development and will come on-line at different times. Perhaps 6 months apart, maybe even 18 months apart. It should be apparent to NASA who can be certified first with the lowest per-seat price and what that will cost in the next phase.

I have not seen or heard anything that would dissuade me from thinking that SpaceX can and will finish first and offer the cheapest service.

I think CST-100 and DC are going to battle it out for slot 2. I know who I'd select for that.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: saliva_sweet on 07/25/2014 04:06 pm
My gut feeling is that SpaceX may win the war with reuse but may lose a battle when it comes to NASA picking them for manned flight. I also like the way Sierra Nevada is positioning themselves internationally with Dreamchaser. The JAXA agreement is a good example of this.

It would be rather difficult for NASA to go with only Atlas V based designs with the current cumulus cloud rule violations over the future of RD-180.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 07/25/2014 04:34 pm
My gut feeling is that SpaceX may win the war with reuse but may lose a battle when it comes to NASA picking them for manned flight. I also like the way Sierra Nevada is positioning themselves internationally with Dreamchaser. The JAXA agreement is a good example of this.

It would be rather difficult for NASA to go with only Atlas V based designs with the current cumulus cloud rule violations over the future of RD-180.

Why? There's no interruption.

NASA continues to rely on Atlas V, Antares, Soyuz, Progress, ISS Russian Segment, etc.

Maybe they want two LVs and that's fine, but the provenance of the engines is a not a valid issue.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Hauerg on 07/25/2014 04:40 pm
As soon as all crew to iss, freight to iss, and man usaf launches depend on russian engines it CERTAINLY will be an issue.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 07/25/2014 05:29 pm
As soon as all crew to iss, freight to iss, and man usaf launches depend on russian engines it CERTAINLY will be an issue.

What's USAF got to do with anything?

You think Dragon CRS is going away? HTV?

ISS is already entirely reliant on Russian support, including all crew rotation. Russian support becomes even more important after ATV-5. NASA wants to do seat swaps with Russia even after Commercial Crew comes online.

This noise about RD-180 is doubly irritating because the hypothetical supply interruption (which was never officially proposed and has been walked back anyways) didn't applied to commercial flights at all.

I can think of a few good reasons to not do CST/DC combo, but the engines are not an issue.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: saliva_sweet on 07/25/2014 05:39 pm
It would be rather difficult for NASA to go with only Atlas V based designs with the current cumulus cloud rule violations over the future of RD-180.

Why? There's no interruption.

NASA continues to rely on Atlas V, Antares, Soyuz, Progress, ISS Russian Segment, etc.

Maybe they want two LVs and that's fine, but the provenance of the engines is a not a valid issue.

Rogozin accomplished a lot with those two tweets. I can tell you there is a strong motivation to NOT keep US's long sought after domestic crew launch capability as the subject of his witticisms.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Hauerg on 07/25/2014 05:42 pm
Well, YOU said there would be no issues with atlas v only options. If Wladimir has a bad day we might rethink if that is a good idea.
And spacex might or mightnot get crs2.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 07/25/2014 06:16 pm
Russia/US are joined at the hip on ISS operations. Either partner can throw the whole business into chaos at a moment's notice no matter what LV US crew is on. A fully domestic crew vehicle doesn't change that.

NASA has no business passing over an otherwise superior provider on the basis of "uneasiness" about the engines.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/25/2014 06:59 pm
1.)It sends the wrong signal to Russia to award new contracts for Russian engines at the current time.
2.)Bolden explains Commercial Crew's motivation as ending reliance on Russia and stopping the transfer of mllions of dollars to Russia for crew flights. Atlas V fails on both counts.
3.)ISS wise, having domestic crew access including the engine leaves only a Zvezda replacement module to continue ISS without the Russians.
4.)Atlas V award would only further cripple the U.S. propulsion industrial base while NASA's goal ostensibly is to promote U.S. space capabilities and technology.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 07/25/2014 08:01 pm
I have not seen or heard anything that would dissuade me from thinking that SpaceX can and will finish first and offer the cheapest service.

I tend to agree because I keep thinking of the costs of an Atlas 5 launch versus an F9 launch.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 07/25/2014 11:53 pm
1.)It sends the wrong signal to Russia to award new contracts for Russian engines at the current time.
2.)Bolden explains Commercial Crew's motivation as ending reliance on Russia and stopping the transfer of mllions of dollars to Russia for crew flights. Atlas V fails on both counts.
3.)ISS wise, having domestic crew access including the engine leaves only a Zvezda replacement module to continue ISS without the Russians.
4.)Atlas V award would only further cripple the U.S. propulsion industrial base while NASA's goal ostensibly is to promote U.S. space capabilities and technology.
1. Not NASA's problem. NASA is the carrot, other agencies get to be the stick.
2a. It's a lot less money, but yes, I'll concede the money one in principle.
2b."Reliance on Russia" is a relative measure; station is inoperable without the Russians. If people want to be 100% free of the Russians, they're gonna get sticker shock. If getting to the station with no Russian hardware is a priority for NASA, they certainly haven't been acting like it over the past decade.
3. "only a Zvezda replacement" is rather understating the problem. In the time it takes to figure that out, crew vehicle could be moved to a different LV or alternate engine could be ready.
4. 2 more RD-180s each year isn't going to change the situation for the U.S. industrial base. If anything, more demand for ORSC engines means a future domestic replacement could spread its fixed costs over more units.

NASA relies on other countries -including the Russians- for a part of almost anything they do. Russian engines are not sufficient reason to disqualify 2 of the 3 potential CCtCap providers.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 07/26/2014 02:11 am
I have not seen or heard anything that would dissuade me from thinking that SpaceX can and will finish first and offer the cheapest service.

I tend to agree because I keep thinking of the costs of an Atlas 5 launch versus an F9 launch.

So does Boeing,

http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/boeing-spacex-detail-capsule-test-plans

[John Mulholland, VP Commercial Programs]
Quote
"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/26/2014 07:14 am
1.)It sends the wrong signal to Russia to award new contracts for Russian engines at the current time.
2.)Bolden explains Commercial Crew's motivation as ending reliance on Russia and stopping the transfer of mllions of dollars to Russia for crew flights. Atlas V fails on both counts.
3.)ISS wise, having domestic crew access including the engine leaves only a Zvezda replacement module to continue ISS without the Russians.
4.)Atlas V award would only further cripple the U.S. propulsion industrial base while NASA's goal ostensibly is to promote U.S. space capabilities and technology.
1. Not NASA's problem. NASA is the carrot, other agencies get to be the stick.
2a. It's a lot less money, but yes, I'll concede the money one in principle.
2b."Reliance on Russia" is a relative measure; station is inoperable without the Russians. If people want to be 100% free of the Russians, they're gonna get sticker shock. If getting to the station with no Russian hardware is a priority for NASA, they certainly haven't been acting like it over the past decade.
3. "only a Zvezda replacement" is rather understating the problem. In the time it takes to figure that out, crew vehicle could be moved to a different LV or alternate engine could be ready.
4. 2 more RD-180s each year isn't going to change the situation for the U.S. industrial base. If anything, more demand for ORSC engines means a future domestic replacement could spread its fixed costs over more units.

NASA relies on other countries -including the Russians- for a part of almost anything they do. Russian engines are not sufficient reason to disqualify 2 of the 3 potential CCtCap providers.

1. The carrot isn't leverage if the horse gets the carrot regardless. It is the US government's problem which NASA is a part of.
2. What sticker shock? 18 billion a year for NASA doesn't seem to bat an eyelid. 100 billion + for station construction didn't bat an eyelid. Besides, there are more efficient propulsion available for station keeping and attitude control that can reduce operating costs long term. It could be more life time cost nuetral then.
4.) death by a thousand pin pricks. Antares ISS resupply using NK-33, Atlas V using RD-180, commercial crew potentially using RD-180 not to mention the death of U.S. commercial in the 2000s. That SpaceX revived an industry that NASA and DoD oversaw the decimation of is simply miraculous.

Never said they would be disqualified, only that there are knocks against them and should be factors. There is nothing really stopping CST-100 and Dreamchaser from using Delta or Falcon though. It is up to Sierra Nevada and Boeing to update their proposals in light of the current environment. Yes, Delta costs about 50 million more per launch than Atlas but I would bet that is related more to launch rate and higher domestic wages than inherent to the vehicle. If NASA has a problem paying U.S. wages, I would suggest relocating Marshall Flight Center to Malaysia.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 07/26/2014 08:56 am
http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/boeing-spacex-detail-capsule-test-plans

That article is from 2013. I fell for that too. :-[
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 07/26/2014 06:22 pm
1.)It sends the wrong signal to Russia to award new contracts for Russian engines at the current time.
2.)Bolden explains Commercial Crew's motivation as ending reliance on Russia and stopping the transfer of mllions of dollars to Russia for crew flights. Atlas V fails on both counts.
3.)ISS wise, having domestic crew access including the engine leaves only a Zvezda replacement module to continue ISS without the Russians.
4.)Atlas V award would only further cripple the U.S. propulsion industrial base while NASA's goal ostensibly is to promote U.S. space capabilities and technology.
1. Not NASA's problem. NASA is the carrot, other agencies get to be the stick.
2a. It's a lot less money, but yes, I'll concede the money one in principle.
2b."Reliance on Russia" is a relative measure; station is inoperable without the Russians. If people want to be 100% free of the Russians, they're gonna get sticker shock. If getting to the station with no Russian hardware is a priority for NASA, they certainly haven't been acting like it over the past decade.
3. "only a Zvezda replacement" is rather understating the problem. In the time it takes to figure that out, crew vehicle could be moved to a different LV or alternate engine could be ready.
4. 2 more RD-180s each year isn't going to change the situation for the U.S. industrial base. If anything, more demand for ORSC engines means a future domestic replacement could spread its fixed costs over more units.

NASA relies on other countries -including the Russians- for a part of almost anything they do. Russian engines are not sufficient reason to disqualify 2 of the 3 potential CCtCap providers.

1. The carrot isn't leverage if the horse gets the carrot regardless. It is the US government's problem which NASA is a part of.
2. What sticker shock? 18 billion a year for NASA doesn't seem to bat an eyelid. 100 billion + for station construction didn't bat an eyelid. Besides, there are more efficient propulsion available for station keeping and attitude control that can reduce operating costs long term. It could be more life time cost nuetral then.
4.) death by a thousand pin pricks. Antares ISS resupply using NK-33, Atlas V using RD-180, commercial crew potentially using RD-180 not to mention the death of U.S. commercial in the 2000s. That SpaceX revived an industry that NASA and DoD oversaw the decimation of is simply miraculous.

Never said they would be disqualified, only that there are knocks against them and should be factors. There is nothing really stopping CST-100 and Dreamchaser from using Delta or Falcon though. It is up to Sierra Nevada and Boeing to update their proposals in light of the current environment. Yes, Delta costs about 50 million more per launch than Atlas but I would bet that is related more to launch rate and higher domestic wages than inherent to the vehicle. If NASA has a problem paying U.S. wages, I would suggest relocating Marshall Flight Center to Malaysia.

If you want NASA to be more supportive of US rocket industry, I can understand that position, even if I don't agree that it's necessary. The 2 annual commercial crew flights are only a fraction of the job then: bring home Orion SM, stop using RD-180 for all science launches, stop accepting foreign launches in barter arrangements (JWST, GPM, GRACE-FO, etc).

For COTS, NASA had an explicit goal of bringing new LVs to the market. For crew NASA had no such luxury; look how CCdev > CCiCap >CPC/CCtCap weeded out anybody who was building new rockets. If NASA wants to implement a new industrial policy, kneecapping commercial crew at the 11th hour is the wrong way to go about it.

Quote
Never said they would be disqualified, only that there are knocks against them and should be factors.
How do you weight that factor? Either it's weighted enough to swing the competition or it's not a factor at all.

Quote
2. What sticker shock? 18 billion a year for NASA doesn't seem to bat an eyelid. 100 billion + for station construction didn't bat an eyelid. Besides, there are more efficient propulsion available for station keeping and attitude control that can reduce operating costs long term. It could be more life time cost nuetral then.
We've talked about this elsewhere, and how substantial of an undertaking it would be. The top line of NASA's budget looks big, but moving even $50M around causes a fight on capitol hill and throws somebody's life work out the window. And even if it could happen it would rely on the Russians for years during a tricky handover.

Quote
SpaceX revived an industry that NASA and DoD oversaw the decimation of is simply miraculous.

Oh come off it. Spacex would never have gotten where they are today without both NASA and USAF.

edit: had an acronym wrong
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 07/28/2014 05:54 pm
I have not seen or heard anything that would dissuade me from thinking that SpaceX can and will finish first and offer the cheapest service.

I tend to agree because I keep thinking of the costs of an Atlas 5 launch versus an F9 launch.

So does Boeing,

http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/boeing-spacex-detail-capsule-test-plans

[John Mulholland, VP Commercial Programs]
Quote
"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”

So much for "best value."  I bet Michael Gass at ULA sh*t puppies when he read that!  By considering SpaceX for manned launches, Mulholland basically just stated that the F9 is as "safe" as Atlas for far less cost.  He publicly eviscerated the two justifications ULA gives for purchasing that launcher.  Boeing and LockMart won't even buy their own boosters!

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 07/28/2014 06:55 pm
So much for "best value."  I bet Michael Gass at ULA sh*t puppies when he read that!  By considering SpaceX for manned launches, Mulholland basically just stated that the F9 is as "safe" as Atlas for far less cost.  He publicly eviscerated the two justifications ULA gives for purchasing that launcher.  Boeing and LockMart won't even buy their own boosters!

Its not exactly surprising that F9 is more attractive for crew cost-wise. Atlas needs a special US (dual centaur) and 2 boosters in order to launch CST-100.

However I do not think NASA cares so much about cost when it comes to launching their astronauts.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 07/28/2014 08:39 pm
I have not seen or heard anything that would dissuade me from thinking that SpaceX can and will finish first and offer the cheapest service.

I tend to agree because I keep thinking of the costs of an Atlas 5 launch versus an F9 launch.

So does Boeing,

http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/boeing-spacex-detail-capsule-test-plans

[John Mulholland, VP Commercial Programs]
Quote
"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”

So much for "best value."  I bet Michael Gass at ULA sh*t puppies when he read that!  By considering SpaceX for manned launches, Mulholland basically just stated that the F9 is as "safe" as Atlas for far less cost.  He publicly eviscerated the two justifications ULA gives for purchasing that launcher.  Boeing and LockMart won't even buy their own boosters!

Boeing and Lockheed do not make Atlas or Delta, and haven't for some time now. Legacy workers are now ULA.

Of course Boeing will go with what will profit that company if possible. If not possible, they will go with what makes their product work. They are not stupid.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 07/28/2014 09:25 pm
Interesting point is that Dual Centaur, probably because of human rating requirements, will require RL-10A4, even after the rest of the EELV migrate to RL-10C1/2. That will certainly impact its costs structure.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 07/29/2014 02:44 pm
Boeing and Lockheed do not make Atlas or Delta, and haven't for some time now. Legacy workers are now ULA.

And who owns ULA......  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/29/2014 02:49 pm
Boeing and Lockheed do not make Atlas or Delta, and haven't for some time now. Legacy workers are now ULA.

And who owns ULA......  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance

Not relevant. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 07/29/2014 02:50 pm
That SpaceX revived an industry that NASA and DoD oversaw the decimation of is simply miraculous.


And the true colors come out.  Really painted yourself into that corner.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: PahTo on 07/29/2014 03:01 pm
Interesting point is that Dual Centaur, probably because of human rating requirements, will require RL-10A4, even after the rest of the EELV migrate to RL-10C1/2. That will certainly impact its costs structure.

I was under the impression the RL-10C1 would be the human rated evolution of the A4.  Do you have it on good authority the existing stock of A4s will be HR to the exclusion of C1s?  That doesn't provide much long term use (unless there are hundreds sitting around somewhere)--especially if SLS-1B flies.
What I'd really like to see is ULA finish/make production a common 5m upper stage with two variants:  a 2x RL-10C1 and 1x RL-10C2.  That would open up the possibility of D-IVM lofting commercial crew or other human spacecraft, USAF and RS-68A notwithstanding (I still offer myself as ballast for DC on D-IVM4+2).
:)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/29/2014 03:44 pm
If you want NASA to be more supportive of US rocket industry, I can understand that position, even if I don't agree that it's necessary. The 2 annual commercial crew flights are only a fraction of the job then: bring home Orion SM, stop using RD-180 for all science launches, stop accepting foreign launches in barter arrangements (JWST, GPM, GRACE-FO, etc).

For COTS, NASA had an explicit goal of bringing new LVs to the market. For crew NASA had no such luxury; look how CCdev > CCiCap >CPC/CCtCap weeded out anybody who was building new rockets. If NASA wants to implement a new industrial policy, kneecapping commercial crew at the 11th hour is the wrong way to go about it.

You are reaching way too far. What would be wrong with other countries donating their launchers as a contribution for a science mission(i.e. Ariane 5 and JWST)? ESA donating the Orion SM isn't a problem either. We are given them a lift to ISS in return, presumeably on our crew vehicles past 2017? Far different than outsourcing government contracts.

3 years out isn't the 11th hour. All competitors knew that the program was about domestic crew access to space from the get go. Otherwise, why not continue to use Soyuz? It is far safer than a new system.


How do you weight that factor? Either it's weighted enough to swing the competition or it's not a factor at all.

The weight is not zero and so therefore it could tip the competition, all else being equal.

We've talked about this elsewhere, and how substantial of an undertaking it would be. The top line of NASA's budget looks big, but moving even $50M around causes a fight on capitol hill and throws somebody's life work out the window. And even if it could happen it would rely on the Russians for years during a tricky handover.

Right, the Russians have signed on tell 2020. After that, you either have a backup plan or systen, rely on them extending the program when they appear to want their own station (and really don't get along with the U.S. either) or be forced to abandon the project. ISS was concieved pre-Putin. It really is a vestigial organ of a bygone era and such a west-east alliance probably doesn't fit within his world view.

Oh come off it. Spacex would never have gotten where they are today without both NASA and USAF.

I'll give you NASA but DoD/USAF has put very little money into SpaceX. Asiasat and Orbcomm have as many contracted launches with SpaceX as DoD does. Without SpaceX though, CRS would go to Antares, Crew would go to Atlas and U.S. propulsion besides solids would be in very sorry shape. We are talking small upper stage engines and a few Delta first stages per year with almost no commercial launches and in transition between Constellation/Shuttle and SLS.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 07/29/2014 09:13 pm
Interesting point is that Dual Centaur, probably because of human rating requirements, will require RL-10A4, even after the rest of the EELV migrate to RL-10C1/2. That will certainly impact its costs structure.

I was under the impression the RL-10C1 would be the human rated evolution of the A4.  Do you have it on good authority the existing stock of A4s will be HR to the exclusion of C1s?  That doesn't provide much long term use (unless there are hundreds sitting around somewhere)--especially if SLS-1B flies.
What I'd really like to see is ULA finish/make production a common 5m upper stage with two variants:  a 2x RL-10C1 and 1x RL-10C2.  That would open up the possibility of D-IVM lofting commercial crew or other human spacecraft, USAF and RS-68A notwithstanding (I still offer myself as ballast for DC on D-IVM4+2).
:)
I think it was a Mr. Sommers interview. But I remember that an ULA official stated that the CCtCap clients were going to use the A4 version because they had special needs. I'm assuming that human rating requirements is in it. I can't think of any other cause to have to special order such handmade engines. AIUI, is not that is not available. It's just that they are expensive. the C1/2 versions have made great advances into manufacturing automation.
BTW, I'm guessing that human rating the C1 was a significant fraction of the supposedly huge cost of human rating the ICPS for SLS.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 07/29/2014 10:01 pm
Interesting point is that Dual Centaur, probably because of human rating requirements, will require RL-10A4, even after the rest of the EELV migrate to RL-10C1/2. That will certainly impact its costs structure.

I was under the impression the RL-10C1 would be the human rated evolution of the A4.  Do you have it on good authority the existing stock of A4s will be HR to the exclusion of C1s?  That doesn't provide much long term use (unless there are hundreds sitting around somewhere)--especially if SLS-1B flies.
What I'd really like to see is ULA finish/make production a common 5m upper stage with two variants:  a 2x RL-10C1 and 1x RL-10C2.  That would open up the possibility of D-IVM lofting commercial crew or other human spacecraft, USAF and RS-68A notwithstanding (I still offer myself as ballast for DC on D-IVM4+2).
:)
I think it was a Mr. Sommers interview. But I remember that an ULA official stated that the CCtCap clients were going to use the A4 version because they had special needs. I'm assuming that human rating requirements is in it. I can't think of any other cause to have to special order such handmade engines. AIUI, is not that is not available. It's just that they are expensive. the C1/2 versions have made great advances into manufacturing automation.
BTW, I'm guessing that human rating the C1 was a significant fraction of the supposedly huge cost of human rating the ICPS for SLS.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1406/04rl10c/
Quote
Sowers said the RL10C will become the standard upper stage engine for all of the company's Atlas 5 and Delta 4 launches. An exception will be for the two-engine version of the Atlas 5's Centaur upper stage, which will continue flying with the RL10A-4-2 version of the engine.

The shape of the RL10C's bell-shaped nozzle prevents two of the engines from being placed side-by-side in a dual-engine configuration, Sowers said.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: PahTo on 07/29/2014 10:27 pm

Thanks--I wonder how many RL-10A4-2 engines are in storage/available?-  The implication is ACES or some other form of common upper stage is not going to appear any time soon--or at least Centaur will not be going away in lieu of a common US (unless AtlasV stops, but there are threads for that).  Further implication is SLS 1B should it ever fly... 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 07/30/2014 01:53 am
This should prove interesting.

SpacePolicyOnline.... (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/hartman-u-s-and-russian-crews-to-fly-both-soyuz-and-u-s-commercial-vehicles)

Quote
Hartman: U.S. and Russian Crews to Fly Both Soyuz and U.S. Commercial Vehicles

NASA intends to use future U.S. commercial crew vehicles to carry not only its astronauts, but also those of its Russian partner, to the International Space Station (ISS), said Dan Hartman, deputy space station program manager, at a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting on Monday (July 28).
>
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/30/2014 03:34 am
I have not seen or heard anything that would dissuade me from thinking that SpaceX can and will finish first and offer the cheapest service.

I tend to agree because I keep thinking of the costs of an Atlas 5 launch versus an F9 launch.

So does Boeing,

http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/boeing-spacex-detail-capsule-test-plans

[John Mulholland, VP Commercial Programs]
Quote
"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”
It really does seem that SpaceX is going to be THE dominant player in space launch, certainly in the US. Even if Dragon somehow loses, SpaceX still wins with Falcon 9. This would ensure at least another couple launches per year for Falcon 9, ones that otherwise would go to ULA.

This is all assuming SpaceX doesn't majorly screw up, like back-to-back failures (though a single full failure would be pretty bad!).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 07/30/2014 04:15 am
This should prove interesting.

SpacePolicyOnline.... (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/hartman-u-s-and-russian-crews-to-fly-both-soyuz-and-u-s-commercial-vehicles)

Quote
Hartman: U.S. and Russian Crews to Fly Both Soyuz and U.S. Commercial Vehicles

NASA intends to use future U.S. commercial crew vehicles to carry not only its astronauts, but also those of its Russian partner, to the International Space Station (ISS), said Dan Hartman, deputy space station program manager, at a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting on Monday (July 28).
>
We've known this for at least a year and a half.

"The USCV will carry four crewmembers, meaning that once it docks to the ISS, the crew of the station will be boosted to seven – allowing significant extra research activities to be performed. However, one of the crewmembers on the USCV will be Russian – just as one American crewmember will continue to be rotated on the Soyuz." - Year in Review (1 January 2013) (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/yir-part4-iss-new-year-successful-2012/)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/30/2014 08:29 pm
Bolden gave an update on commercial crew at the NAC meeting today:
Quote
Bolden: think it will be "sooner rather than later" this yr when we select CCtCAP companies. Can be done by end 2017 if Congress fully funds
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/494541290369859585

Quote
Bolden believes NASA on track to award Commercial Crew contracts "much sooner than later this year"
https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/494541417134690304

Quote
Bolden: source selection deliberations for next comm'l crew phase, CCtCap, going "better than expected".
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/494541204281753600
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/30/2014 08:32 pm
That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further tamper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 07/30/2014 09:01 pm
That is scary. It is 2017 because it has not been fully funded. Most people don't expect it be fully funded in the future. The most recent statement from one of Elon's interview was Dragon would be ready by end of year 2016, so that has slipped on their timeline as well. (or he is just lowering expectations as he gets closer)

Quote
EM: There will be a difference if you want a dramatic improvement in safety and emergency systems. As it is, our cargo Dragon maintains sea level pressure and normal room temperature in the pressurized module. If somebody had stowed on any of our [four cargo] flights, they would have made it to ISS and back fine, no problem. We’re required to transport biological cargo – fish and mice – so it has to be able to support life. And the pressurized cargo area is big – 12 cubic meters – plenty of room. As for people, it’s quite likely by the end of 2016 we will start [flying them].

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimclash/2014/07/28/elon-musk-tells-me-his-secret-of-success-hint-it-aint-about-the-money/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimclash/2014/07/28/elon-musk-tells-me-his-secret-of-success-hint-it-aint-about-the-money/)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/30/2014 09:12 pm
Not necessarily a slip. NASA just thinks that SpaceX is being overly optimistic. NASA is planning for the end of 2017 but they would be happy with an earlier date. Incidentally, the latest draft FY 2015 appropriation bills are not that far off from fully funding commercial crew.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 07/30/2014 09:22 pm
Not necessarily a slip. NASA just thinks that SpaceX is being overly optimistic. NASA is planning for the end of 2017 but they would be happy with an earlier date. Incidentally, the latest draft FY 2015 appropriation bills are not that far off from fully funding commercial crew.
Or they are confident on Boeing's projections. It still is an open race and Boeing has probably the more robust plan.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 07/30/2014 09:28 pm
Not necessarily a slip. NASA just thinks that SpaceX is being overly optimistic. NASA is planning for the end of 2017 but they would be happy with an earlier date. Incidentally, the latest draft FY 2015 appropriation bills are not that far off from fully funding commercial crew.
Or they are confident on Boeing's projections. It still is an open race and Boeing has probably the more robust plan.

DC also projects a late 2017 crewed flight. NASA is being conservative by choosing the end of 2017 and it is based on their own estimates (not on anyone's proposal). I am not sure that this date says anything about Boeing's proposal being robust. Bolden is likely not the selecting officer for CCtCap (it was Gerst for CCiCap). He doesn't have much details on Boeing's proposal.  Price is an important factor for selection for CCtCap. So I would expect SpaceX to do much better than Boeing on that front.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/30/2014 10:23 pm
Not necessarily a slip. NASA just thinks that SpaceX is being overly optimistic. NASA is planning for the end of 2017 but they would be happy with an earlier date. Incidentally, the latest draft FY 2015 appropriation bills are not that far off from fully funding commercial crew.

Where is NASA saying anything about Commercial Crew participant schedules?

The only people within NASA that know what the schedules are for each participant on Commercial Crew can't talk about it, since they are involved with CCtCap selection process.  Bolden says he doesn't even know what the details are.

As far as SpaceX goes, they are running a little behind on the "In-Flight Abort Test" milestone (slipped to later this year), which should complete the CCiCap contract for them.  As long as no major issues are uncovered, that leaves 2 years to fly with humans and meet the 2016 SpaceX goal.

When Musk unveiled the Dragon V2 back in May Aviation Week wrote:

The first key milestone for the Dragon V2 is a launch pad abort test in which the vehicle will be positioned at pad height and then launched to simulate an emergency. “Next year we expect to do the high altitude abort test at Max Q [max dynamic pressure] and execute an abort. These are tests, so they could go wrong,” Musk says. “Conceivably we could do the first flight to orbit at the end of 2015, and the first flight with people in 2016.""

Being ready by the end of 2016 for commercial service is not out of the realm of possibility, and being ready in 2017 to take over when contracted Soyuz flights end definitely looks doable for SpaceX.

Just as a note, the last Soyuz contract extension in April cost NASA $458M for six round-trip seats.  One can only imagine how much sooner the Commercial Crew participants could have been ready to take over from the Russian Soyuz if Congress would have provided that money to U.S. companies at the beginning of the Commercial Crew program instead of to Russia...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 08/01/2014 07:50 pm
It might be worth reviewing NASA's assessment of its CCiCAP partners when the awards were announced:  http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docID=645.

In the Initial Evaluation, SpaceX was rated as Green (4/5) for technical approach with a low level of confidence rating, and Green for business approach with a medium level of confidence rating.  Boeing was rated as Green for technical approach with a medium level of confidence rating, and White (3/5) with a medium level of confidence rating.  SNC was rated Green for technical approach with a low level of confidence rating, and White with a medium level of confidence rating for business approach.

In the "Final Evaluation after Due Diligence", SpaceX was rated as Blue (5/5) for technical approach with a medium level of confidence rating, and Blue for business approach with a high level of confidence rating.  Boeing was rated as Blue for technical approach with a high level of confidence rating, and for business approach remained White, but now with a high level of confidence rating.  SNC was rated Blue for technical approach with a medium level of confidence rating, and Blue with a medium level of confidence rating for business approach.

There is a very thorough discussion of these factors in more detail in the same document that are well worth reading if interested in the subject.  If you are curious why SNC ended up in third place in the CCiCAP awards (not really evident from these ratings alone) it is explained there.

Obviously, this was when CCiCAP was awarded and now we are getting close to the end of CCiCAP.  It will be very interesting to see how things have changed since when the CCtCAP awards are announced, assuming that we get a similar level of disclosure this time around (and I hope we do).

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 08/01/2014 08:15 pm
It might be worth reviewing NASA's assessment of its CCiCAP partners when the awards were announced:  http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docID=645.

In the Initial Evaluation, SpaceX was rated as Green (4/5) for technical approach with a low level of confidence rating, and Green for business approach with a medium level of confidence rating.  Boeing was rated as Green for technical approach with a medium level of confidence rating, and White (3/5) with a medium level of confidence rating.  SNC was rated Green for technical approach with a low level of confidence rating, and White with a medium level of confidence rating for business approach.

In the "Final Evaluation after Due Diligence", SpaceX was rated as Blue (5/5) for technical approach with a medium level of confidence rating, and Blue for business approach with a high level of confidence rating.  Boeing was rated as Blue for technical approach with a high level of confidence rating, and for business approach remained White, but now with a high level of confidence rating.  SNC was rated Blue for technical approach with a medium level of confidence rating, and Blue with a medium level of confidence rating for business approach.

There is a very thorough discussion of these factors in more detail in the same document that are well worth reading if interested in the subject.  If you are curious why SNC ended up in third place in the CCiCAP awards (not really evident from these ratings alone) it is explained there.

Obviously, this was when CCiCAP was awarded and now we are getting close to the end of CCiCAP.  It will be very interesting to see how things have changed since when the CCtCAP awards are announced, assuming that we get a similar level of disclosure this time around (and I hope we do).
That's a great baseline reminder, thanks. That may explain why SpaceX decided to do 2 abort scenarios and self fund the DragonFly testing program, to retire as much risk as possible before CCtCAP. But looks like they fell behind a bit. Hopefully they can get the pad abort done before final decisions are made. Although I'm not sure how much, if at all that would matter at this point.

I'm sure their propulsive landing proposal elevated NASA's risk assessment. IIRC, originally they were going to do water landings, then upgrade to propulsive landings. Somewhere along the line they decided to go directly to propulsive landings. (Obviously water for abort scenarios)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/01/2014 08:26 pm
NASA can request water landings but it will most likely cost them more.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 08/05/2014 12:47 am
That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.

Yes, that would be good.  Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs.  late 2017 is probably ideal.  Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost).  One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work.  The longer NASA waits the worse it gets.  So I don't think 2017 is realistic.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 08/05/2014 01:12 am
That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.

Yes, that would be good.  Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs.  late 2017 is probably ideal.  Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost).  One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work.  The longer NASA waits the worse it gets.  So I don't think 2017 is realistic.

I really don't see how a company saying that they need money to continue or they'll slow their work, or companies spreading their milestones a few months later makes 2017 unrealistic.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 08/05/2014 02:50 am
That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.

Yes, that would be good.  Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs.  late 2017 is probably ideal.  Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost).  One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work.  The longer NASA waits the worse it gets.  So I don't think 2017 is realistic.

I really don't see how a company saying that they need money to continue or they'll slow their work, or companies spreading their milestones a few months later makes 2017 unrealistic.


36-40 months left to get to operational status. In that time they need to finish design, build all the ground and flight hardware, abort test, orbital flight tests.

The margin is gone.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 08/05/2014 10:18 pm
One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work. 

That company has more money than you can shake a stick at. They are just so used to sucking on the government teat for so many decades that I fear they have lost the appetite for a knock down drag out competition and would prefer to withdraw from the field than spend any more of their own money, unlike what the other two have pledged to do.

Mind you that is not a knock on the company because they have done some really marvelous things with our taxpayers' monies. They just don't have any ambition beyond the almighty dollar anymore. That's sad because they used to be inspirational.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 08/05/2014 10:59 pm
That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.

Yes, that would be good.  Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs.  late 2017 is probably ideal.  Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost).  One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work.  The longer NASA waits the worse it gets.  So I don't think 2017 is realistic.
With regards to delaying milestones...Not all milestones are created equal. And delaying them does not by default mean schedule or cost increases.

I see no reason why one of these three couldn't be ready for 2017 if not earlier. Take SpaceX:

-Pad 39A mods have been initiated. No reason to think they can't have GSE, FSS, etc. mods ready for crew by mid 2016.
-F9V1.1 is gaining operational tempo and reliability every month
-Dragon V2 will undergo Pad and Max-Q aborts as well as return-flight and landing tests over the next 6-8 months
-Unmanned Orbital test by late 2015 early 2016
-Manned ISS docking by mid to late 2016
-Certified by mid 2017 if not earlier
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 08/06/2014 12:44 am
Btw, if they can validate the returnable first stage, they might have a ridiculously huge price advantage. May be they are focusing on that.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 08/06/2014 01:14 am
That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.

Yes, that would be good.  Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs.  late 2017 is probably ideal.  Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost).  One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work.  The longer NASA waits the worse it gets.  So I don't think 2017 is realistic.

I really don't see how a company saying that they need money to continue or they'll slow their work, or companies spreading their milestones a few months later makes 2017 unrealistic.

Because in my opinion I think 2017 is very aggressive without ANY funding issues or hiccups.  That is my educated opinion.    NASA is continuing to update and modify requirements (read changing the goal posts).  That will add to the plans.  Period.  Hopefully I am wrong but I am pretty confident.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 08/06/2014 01:16 am
One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work. 

That company has more money than you can shake a stick at. They are just so used to sucking on the government teat for so many decades that I fear they have lost the appetite for a knock down drag out competition and would prefer to withdraw from the field than spend any more of their own money, unlike what the other two have pledged to do.

Mind you that is not a knock on the company because they have done some really marvelous things with our taxpayers' monies. They just don't have any ambition beyond the almighty dollar anymore. That's sad because they used to be inspirational.

And that has been debated ad naseum elsewhere here.  For good or bad, they have chosen to fund their program a certain way.  I think some of their programs have shown a great deal of ambition (Sea launch - really? and X-37 and so on) but in this one they see liability so they are being careful.  Personally, I still don't se a commercial case so I don't blame them.  But I also respect SpaceX for their approach.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/06/2014 01:17 am
First, the gradual slip beyond 2017 is more of a governmental issue than a commercial crew services provider issue.

Put yourself in their shoes - they have do defend a selection decision, and do so on many different factors against all of the vendors. Then, in addition, they also have to address why the "unselected" providers  couldn't be selected. And this has to be communicated to a very critical audience, who may wish to have reasons to complicate a decision if the report on the selection isn't ... comprehensive.

To have a decision, you need multiple providers at a point where they can be judged the same. If they, for some reason, cannot be, you might have to delay consideration until they are able to be judged the same. Otherwise, things may not be appropriate.

In short, the effect becomes collective. Made worse perhaps by funding anxieties / perceptions. Congress attitudes still have overly skeptical aspects towards commercial crew, even at the best of times. Yet it and COTS before it have been excellent programs run by good people, in good time, and with a good result - I fear they don't get the respect they deserve, but get pounded in a proxy battle over HSF futures, regardless.

My view of the one company cited above as having "more money" isn't quite so dim. They remind me of another, earlier CCDEV firm, whose Liberty proposal was a little on the light side technically. I think they're rightly annoyed than Congress isn't providing enough funding, and that's the way they push back. All three have lobbyists, and lobbying works at a different level - in these firms they seldom speak with a coordinated voice. So my point with the earlier firm and "more money", is that they both think/thought that they've done enough to be credible, so ... give!

Secondly, there's a lot to be done to fly ... does Congress have the stomach for it? Or could a protracted "waiting game" push things out more.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 08/06/2014 01:21 am
That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.

Yes, that would be good.  Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs.  late 2017 is probably ideal.  Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost).  One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work.  The longer NASA waits the worse it gets.  So I don't think 2017 is realistic.
With regards to delaying milestones...Not all milestones are created equal. And delaying them does not by default mean schedule or cost increases.

I see no reason why one of these three couldn't be ready for 2017 if not earlier. Take SpaceX:

-Pad 39A mods have been initiated. No reason to think they can't have GSE, FSS, etc. mods ready for crew by mid 2016.
-F9V1.1 is gaining operational tempo and reliability every month
-Dragon V2 will undergo Pad and Max-Q aborts as well as return-flight and landing tests over the next 6-8 months
-Unmanned Orbital test by late 2015 early 2016
-Manned ISS docking by mid to late 2016
-Certified by mid 2017 if not earlier

You are correct they are not equal.  But when you are delaying some because they are not complete/ready...well it means you encountered issues, were not as far as you thought/hoped you would be or have to stretch out the money.  All three mean your schedule is likely at risk.  I don't know too many knowledgeable people who believe those milestones.  Certainly haven't seen anything in the past that gives a great deal of confidence.  Not knocking SpaceX, they are doing a great job.  But just look at the latest delay of SpaceX 4.  They have not yet established they can meet the routine schedules.  Don't get me wrong, I would love to see all this come together.  I am just being realistic.

maybe NASA will get their act together and announce in a week or two.  I can see many scenarios dragging this out a month or two or three.  Ugh.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 08/06/2014 02:57 pm
You are correct they are not equal.  But when you are delaying some because they are not complete/ready...well it means you encountered issues, were not as far as you thought/hoped you would be or have to stretch out the money.  All three mean your schedule is likely at risk.
Uhm, don't forget that some got less money than others. So it is not because of the company being incompetent, but because of the government (congress) not providing adequate funding.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/06/2014 03:28 pm
Here is the remaining CCiCap milestones for all commercial crew companies:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/14/remaining-ccicap-milestones-companies/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/06/2014 04:14 pm
That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.

Yes, that would be good.  Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs.  late 2017 is probably ideal.  Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost).  One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work.  The longer NASA waits the worse it gets.  So I don't think 2017 is realistic.

I really don't see how a company saying that they need money to continue or they'll slow their work, or companies spreading their milestones a few months later makes 2017 unrealistic.

Because in my opinion I think 2017 is very aggressive without ANY funding issues or hiccups.  That is my educated opinion.    NASA is continuing to update and modify requirements (read changing the goal posts).  That will add to the plans.  Period.  Hopefully I am wrong but I am pretty confident.

Your changing the goal posts comment is cause for concern. The biggest challenge for fixed price contracts are these kind of last minute changes. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 08/06/2014 04:35 pm
What last minute changes?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 08/06/2014 05:09 pm
What last minute changes?
Yes, what major requirements have changed recently that would effect costs and timing in a meaningful way?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/06/2014 05:40 pm
What last minute changes?

You would have to ask erioladastra that question, he would know the answer. He wrote:

NASA is continuing to update and modify requirements (read changing the goal posts).

I am guessing that he means that the certification requirements keep changing. Some of these requirements are found in these documents (which likely have been updated since that time):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.0
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 08/06/2014 06:11 pm
This should prove interesting.

SpacePolicyOnline.... (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/hartman-u-s-and-russian-crews-to-fly-both-soyuz-and-u-s-commercial-vehicles)

Quote
Hartman: U.S. and Russian Crews to Fly Both Soyuz and U.S. Commercial Vehicles

NASA intends to use future U.S. commercial crew vehicles to carry not only its astronauts, but also those of its Russian partner, to the International Space Station (ISS), said Dan Hartman, deputy space station program manager, at a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting on Monday (July 28).
>
We've known this for at least a year and a half.

"The USCV will carry four crewmembers, meaning that once it docks to the ISS, the crew of the station will be boosted to seven – allowing significant extra research activities to be performed. However, one of the crewmembers on the USCV will be Russian – just as one American crewmember will continue to be rotated on the Soyuz." - Year in Review (1 January 2013) (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/yir-part4-iss-new-year-successful-2012/)

Wonder how much SpaceX is going to charge per seat for the Russians?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/06/2014 06:30 pm
SpaceX (or Boeing or SNC) sells their commercial crew services to NASA. NASA then decides how to fill up the seats. NASA will fill one of the seats on either Dragon, CST-100 or DC with a Russian astronaut in exchange for a U.S. astronaut on a Soyuz flight. In a nutshell, it's a barter exchange between NASA and Roscosmos.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 08/06/2014 06:30 pm
This should prove interesting.

SpacePolicyOnline.... (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/hartman-u-s-and-russian-crews-to-fly-both-soyuz-and-u-s-commercial-vehicles)

Quote
Hartman: U.S. and Russian Crews to Fly Both Soyuz and U.S. Commercial Vehicles

NASA intends to use future U.S. commercial crew vehicles to carry not only its astronauts, but also those of its Russian partner, to the International Space Station (ISS), said Dan Hartman, deputy space station program manager, at a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting on Monday (July 28).
>
We've known this for at least a year and a half.

"The USCV will carry four crewmembers, meaning that once it docks to the ISS, the crew of the station will be boosted to seven – allowing significant extra research activities to be performed. However, one of the crewmembers on the USCV will be Russian – just as one American crewmember will continue to be rotated on the Soyuz." - Year in Review (1 January 2013) (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/yir-part4-iss-new-year-successful-2012/)

Wonder how much SpaceX is going to charge per seat for the Russians?

Spacex Commercial Crew Provider won't bill the Russians, it would be covered by their contract with NASA.

It will probably be barter w/ no money changing hands: Russians get one seat on USCV, Americans/Everyone else gets one seat on Soyuz.

Quote
[deputy space station program manager Dan Hartman] explained. The idea is to barter: “It would be just a seat for a seat."
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 08/06/2014 10:08 pm
Please remember that a seat includes training, SAR services and many things. Many of those items were what inflated Soyuz prices. On the other hand, I remember that on a panel, a speaker that belonged to one of the three current contestants, was asked what level of training did he expected for commercial crew clients (i.e. Tourists). And he said he hoped for something like Russian training and "it's amazing what they get away with"
So, the barter would be for everything, the Russians train on NASA passenger for Soyuz, and the Americans train a Roscosmos passenger for whoever wins CC.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Proponent on 08/07/2014 01:12 pm
Is it perhaps time for a poll on the outcome of the downselect?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: tesla on 08/07/2014 01:20 pm
Is it perhaps time for a poll on the outcome of the downselect?

Oh yes please! :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Proponent on 08/08/2014 12:54 pm
Just thinking out loud about a poll.  The outcome of the downselect is quite uncertain.  We know neither the number of winners nor, as far as I know, which companies are eligible.  I also wonder whether there might be some ambiguity about what constitutes a "win".  I was thinking that poll entries might consist of one or more likelihood-weighted scenarios.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 08/08/2014 03:06 pm
My (cynical) thought:  a poll here is just a meaningless popularity contest.  The CCtCap proposals are judged on vast amounts of information, only a tiny fraction of which is available here.  I've heard stories about proposal paperwork completely filling the back of a Chevy Suburban -- for just one company!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 08/08/2014 05:48 pm
You are correct they are not equal.  But when you are delaying some because they are not complete/ready...well it means you encountered issues, were not as far as you thought/hoped you would be or have to stretch out the money.  All three mean your schedule is likely at risk.
Uhm, don't forget that some got less money than others. So it is not because of the company being incompetent, but because of the government (congress) not providing adequate funding.

Never implied otherwise.   Just anothe reason for being behind.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 08/08/2014 08:33 pm

My (cynical) thought:  a poll here is just a meaningless popularity contest.  The CCtCap proposals are judged on vast amounts of information, only a tiny fraction of which is available here.  I've heard stories about proposal paperwork completely filling the back of a Chevy Suburban -- for just one company!
And yet, besides all the fan boys here, the consensus is rarely far from the end result. There is a lot of very knowledgeable people here, and most have access to as much information as there is publicly available. You should take it with a pinch of salt, but is a very valid datapoint.
Besides, it is fun.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 08/09/2014 03:53 pm
What last minute changes?
Yes, what major requirements have changed recently that would effect costs and timing in a meaningful way?

Constant change.  Its NASA.  As soon as the award is announced the winner will be asked to cost the latest changes.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 08/11/2014 02:34 pm
the latest changes.
What were the previous changes?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Proponent on 08/11/2014 09:49 pm
My (cynical) thought:  a poll here is just a meaningless popularity contest.

I don't think that's cynical at all.  It's just plain true: polls here are completely pointless.  But they're fun.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/12/2014 06:03 pm
My (cynical) thought:  a poll here is just a meaningless popularity contest.

I don't think that's cynical at all.  It's just plain true: polls here are completely pointless.  But they're fun.

When we had a poll for CCiCap, forum members selected the same companies that were eventually given awards: SpaceX, SNC and Boeing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/13/2014 04:24 pm
Phil McAlister provided an update on commercial crew at a July 28 2014 NAC meeting:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CSD-Status-NAC-July-2014.pdf

Awards for CCtCap are still planned for August-September.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: BrianNH on 08/13/2014 07:29 pm
Page 10 of the presentation says "CCtCAP contract mechanism may lead to safety/cost risk."  SpaceX has already warned that the contract mechanism could lead to cost increases due to the extensive reporting requirements, but how would the contracting mechanism lead to safety risks?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/13/2014 09:38 pm
Page 10 of the presentation says "CCtCAP contract mechanism may lead to safety/cost risk."  SpaceX has already warned that the contract mechanism could lead to cost increases due to the extensive reporting requirements, but how would the contracting mechanism lead to safety risks?

CCtCap is a fixed price contract mechanism. The argument is that a cost plus contract would be safer given that NASA can still change the safety requirements by paying the company more money. But their box says that the likelyhood and consequences of using a fixed price contract mechanism (such as the one used for CCtCap) are moderate. That is the way that I understand it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/14/2014 03:25 pm
Page 10 of the presentation says "CCtCAP contract mechanism may lead to safety/cost risk."  SpaceX has already warned that the contract mechanism could lead to cost increases due to the extensive reporting requirements, but how would the contracting mechanism lead to safety risks?

CCtCap is a fixed price contract mechanism. The argument is that a cost plus contract would be safer given that NASA can still change the safety requirements by paying the company more money. But their box says that the likelyhood and consequences of using a fixed price contract mechanism (such as the one used for CCtCap) are moderate. That is the way that I understand it.

The statement alludes to the belief that NASA has to be in complete control for the vehicle to be safe.

This is a false belief.  Just because NASA engineering is in control does not mean that the contractors method is safety inferior.  Just look at Commercial Crew abort systems vs Orions's.  Abort all the way to orbit vs abort only for part of launch.

Level of NASA control:
SAA – very little engineering control. (lowest costs)
FFP – moderate engineering control due to the requirements at the contract signing that are part of the contract. (Modest costs increase)
Cost Plus – complete control because every design decision requires NASA approval. (High costs increase)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 08/15/2014 08:26 am
Quote
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
NASA Comm. Crew CCtCap award likely on 22 or 29 Aug.: allows finalization of contracts before likely Contin. Res. (CR) for next FY at 1 Oct.

Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
Also: CCtCap probably two "full" awards, no "half;" depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 08/15/2014 09:16 am
Quote
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
NASA Comm. Crew CCtCap award likely on 22 or 29 Aug.: allows finalization of contracts before likely Contin. Res. (CR) for next FY at 1 Oct.

Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
Also: CCtCap probably two "full" awards, no "half;" depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration.
More news about this available in L2.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sciencebro on 08/15/2014 02:38 pm
Quote
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
NASA Comm. Crew CCtCap award likely on 22 or 29 Aug.: allows finalization of contracts before likely Contin. Res. (CR) for next FY at 1 Oct.

Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
Also: CCtCap probably two "full" awards, no "half;" depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration.

This is what I've been waiting to hear. Regardless of the choices, I think partially funding two options is far and away the best choice NASA can make. Excellent news.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 08/15/2014 02:42 pm

This is what I've been waiting to hear. Regardless of the choices, I think partially funding two options is far and away the best choice NASA can make. Excellent news.

Considering that there is a certain urgency to getting Crew to the ISS partial funding two options would be a poor choice IMO. Full funding of the fastest competitor seems in order.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/15/2014 02:45 pm
By this time the winners already know they have won because they are doing a quick review of the draft FFP contracts that would be signed on the day or few days before of the public anouncement.  They just can't say anything about it.  Also they know they won but don't know who else if any also won. They have about 2 weeks to acomplish all of this word-smith ironing of the contracts with NASA.  Plus until the contracts have actually been signed they have not technically won yet.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/15/2014 03:07 pm
Quote
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
NASA Comm. Crew CCtCap award likely on 22 or 29 Aug.: allows finalization of contracts before likely Contin. Res. (CR) for next FY at 1 Oct.

Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
Also: CCtCap probably two "full" awards, no "half;" depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration.

What does "depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration" mean?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 08/15/2014 03:14 pm
Milestone extensions? IIRC Dream Chaser and SpaceX have extensions in place for CCiCap.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/15/2014 03:16 pm
By this time the winners already know they have won because they are doing a quick review of the draft FFP contracts that would be signed on the day or few days before of the public anouncement.  They just can't say anything about it.  Also they know they won but don't know who else if any also won. They have about 2 weeks to acomplish all of this word-smith ironing of the contracts with NASA.  Plus until the contracts have actually been signed they have not technically won yet.

Actually each company pre-signs an agreement whether they have won or lost. NASA then decides to sign or not that agreement. The companies only find out the day of whether they have won or lost. That's how it was explained by someone involved in the process in a prior round.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/15/2014 03:24 pm
Quote
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
NASA Comm. Crew CCtCap award likely on 22 or 29 Aug.: allows finalization of contracts before likely Contin. Res. (CR) for next FY at 1 Oct.

Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
Also: CCtCap probably two "full" awards, no "half;" depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration.

What does "depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration" mean?

I am answering my own question but I am guessing that it might mean options to accelerate commercial crew is possible if additionnal funding is provided by Congress.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/15/2014 03:24 pm
By this time the winners already know they have won because they are doing a quick review of the draft FFP contracts that would be signed on the day or few days before of the public anouncement.  They just can't say anything about it.  Also they know they won but don't know who else if any also won. They have about 2 weeks to acomplish all of this word-smith ironing of the contracts with NASA.  Plus until the contracts have actually been signed they have not technically won yet.

Actually each company pre-signs an agreement whether they have won or lost. NASA then decides to sign or not that agreement. The companies only find out the day of whether they have won or lost. That's how it was explained by someone involved in the process in a prior round.

Thanks for the clarification.  Contractors sign their copy of the FFP then on award day NASA signs the awardee's contracts.  The loser(s) contract is put on a shelf in case one of the awardee's default on the contract.  In order for the award anouncment to proceeded NASA must then have all three signed FFP contracts from the contractors or a resignation letter from the bid.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 08/15/2014 03:38 pm
By this time the winners already know
No matter who won, I am sure Boeing already knows.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/15/2014 07:10 pm
Alan Boyle:

Quote
I wonder if that's sposed 2B "Aug 22-29"? Time frame matches what I'm hearing on #CCtCap, but not those dates.

https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/500358111811481602
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 08/15/2014 07:31 pm
I have no doubt SpaceX is one of the two. I would like to see SNC the other, but I expect Boeing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/15/2014 07:35 pm
So, does this round of CCtCap cover the first crewed orbital test launches?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/15/2014 08:15 pm
So, does this round of CCtCap cover the first crewed orbital test launches?

Yes. In order to be certified under CCtCap, you must fly at least one crewed mission to the ISS. There is also a total of four to six post-certification missions that are part of CCtCap. See this thread for more information:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32412.0

See also this article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/nasa-outlines-plans-commercial-crew-certification/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/16/2014 05:14 am
Ah, yes. I remember now. Thanks!

Good to hear. So we will have two American crewed spaceships, then. Both of which will be highly reusable and look awesome and don't rely solely on parachutes. Cool. Some "trampoline!"
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/16/2014 10:13 am
Ah, yes. I remember now. Thanks!

Good to hear. So we will have two American crewed spaceships, then. Both of which will be highly reusable and look awesome and don't rely solely on parachutes. Cool. Some "trampoline!"

If Cold War 2 gets any colder Operation Trampoline sounds like a good name for the program transporting people to the ISS.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Ike17055 on 08/16/2014 05:58 pm
When posters claim they are "sure" and "certain" their favorite company is one of the winners, without knowing how a selection is being made, it is because they are participating in a one-sided groupthink conversation that makes something "obvious" that is not at all obvious.  Now, if someone has inside info, that is another matter. Whatever happens will be good.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/17/2014 01:46 pm
Quote
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
NASA Comm. Crew CCtCap award likely on 22 or 29 Aug.: allows finalization of contracts before likely Contin. Res. (CR) for next FY at 1 Oct.

Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
Also: CCtCap probably two "full" awards, no "half;" depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration.

What does "depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration" mean?

I got an answer to my question via Twitter:

Quote
Pre- or CCtCap task times may stretch contingent available $.

https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/500853879333191680
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/17/2014 02:24 pm
When posters claim they are "sure" and "certain" their favorite company is one of the winners, without knowing how a selection is being made, it is because they are participating in a one-sided groupthink conversation that makes something "obvious" that is not at all obvious.

Or they know the subject so well that they are making educated guesses.  But even so, so what?  It's a discussion thread where anyone can voice their opinion.  And sometimes wild guesses can not only be entertaining, but sometimes they turn out to be right.

Quote
Now, if someone has inside info, that is another matter.

On L2 there is inside info.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/17/2014 10:51 pm
Article ahead of the decision. Respecting the decision will be revealed when NASA reveal it.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/cctcapnasa-wont-abandon-commercial-crew-loser/

I'll give this a standalone thread.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 08/18/2014 08:32 am
Article ahead of the decision. Respecting the decision will be revealed when NASA reveal it.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/cctcapnasa-wont-abandon-commercial-crew-loser/

I'll give this a standalone thread.
Chris,

Can I suggest this should be the opening page of a "CCtCap" thread.

In theory the last bunch of posts have been off-topic for a thread titled for transition to CCiCap.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/18/2014 08:47 am
Heh! I honestly misread the title as CCiCAP to CCtCAP! :)

I'll get on that with a new thread when I'm back home.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/21/2014 06:25 pm
Jeff Greason is in favour or maintaining competition for the commercial crew program. I completely agree with him:

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/08/expert-on-nasas-commercial-crew-program-so-far-an-unqualified-success/

https://twitter.com/chronsciguy/status/502518413278068736
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 08/21/2014 06:29 pm
A CCiCap update/summary:
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/august/nasa-and-commercial-partners-review-summer-of-advancements/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: SoundForesight on 09/13/2014 09:48 pm
A blog posting with a nice summary of the status of CCiCap milestones for all three companies:
"An Updated List of NASA's Commercial Crew Partner Milestones"
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20140912-ccicap-milestone-list.html (http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20140912-ccicap-milestone-list.html)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: manboy on 09/14/2014 07:41 am
When posters claim they are "sure" and "certain" their favorite company is one of the winners, without knowing how a selection is being made, it is because they are participating in a one-sided groupthink conversation that makes something "obvious" that is not at all obvious.

Or they know the subject so well that they are making educated guesses.  But even so, so what?  It's a discussion thread where anyone can voice their opinion.  And sometimes wild guesses can not only be entertaining, but sometimes they turn out to be right.

Quote
Now, if someone has inside info, that is another matter.

On L2 there is inside info.
Mostly rumors.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rpapo on 09/14/2014 09:02 am
Mostly rumors.
Yes, the government is actually keeping a pretty tight lid on it.  Those who know the facts aren't talking.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 09/14/2014 09:59 pm
Jeff Greason is in favour or maintaining competition for the commercial crew program. I completely agree with him:

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/08/expert-on-nasas-commercial-crew-program-so-far-an-unqualified-success/

https://twitter.com/chronsciguy/status/502518413278068736

Competition would be ideal.  However, I don't think it will reduce costs for as much money you will be paying the second company in the long run.  So you are mainly doing it for jobs or to create multiple providers.  Which is a great goal but congress has rejected that and the money has not (and I don't believe will be) there more multiple.

Worse yet, I do not believe the ISS program has the ability to work with multiple partners at the pace that the partners would like.  The companies - all 3 - are race horses champing at the bit and ISS is a 500 pound weight tied to their necks.  If multiple partners al kinds of firewalls have to be maintained.  All this is good but if your goal is to get at least one company there fast, you won't do it this way.  If your goal is to get one company there and maybe a second one there or close behind, than this will work.  But then you are looking at 2018 at least.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 09/14/2014 11:39 pm
Competition would be ideal.  However, I don't think it will reduce costs for as much money you will be paying the second company in the long run.  So you are mainly doing it for jobs or to create multiple providers. 
Not just that, you also reduce the chance that your astronauts would be grounded in case of a failure and a long subsequent investigation.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/15/2014 03:13 am
Competition would be ideal.  However, I don't think it will reduce costs for as much money you will be paying the second company in the long run.

Competition can keep costs down, but for NASA more than one provider provides redundancy, and that is the more important factor for them (i.e. constant access).

Quote
Which is a great goal but congress has rejected that and the money has not (and I don't believe will be) there more multiple.

Congress has not rejected Commercial Crew, just not funded it the way NASA wanted.  However Congress has been increasing funding in recent years.

Quote
Worse yet, I do not believe the ISS program has the ability to work with multiple partners at the pace that the partners would like.

What they would like is immaterial - they know what the potential flight rate would be for one or more providers, and they knew that before they submitted bids.

Quote
The companies - all 3 - are race horses champing at the bit and ISS is a 500 pound weight tied to their necks.

None of the companies would have got this far, this fast, without the ISS demand, so I'm not sure what you mean.

Quote
If multiple partners al kinds of firewalls have to be maintained.

The U.S. Government uses multiple service providers all the time, and NASA currently has two for cargo.  This is not anything unusual, and it would be hard to see how two service providers would ever need to interact - they won't be flying at the same time, that's for sure.

Quote
All this is good but if your goal is to get at least one company there fast, you won't do it this way.  If your goal is to get one company there and maybe a second one there or close behind, than this will work.

NASA's goal has been to have more than one provider, not to get one provider going as quick as possible.

Quote
But then you are looking at 2018 at least.

We'll know better when the CCtCap awards are made, as they should also be releasing their schedules for when they (the winner or winners) plan to be operational.  However SpaceX thinks they should be able to make the 2017 date.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 09/15/2014 12:56 pm


Competition can keep costs down, but for NASA more than one provider provides redundancy, and that is the more important factor for them (i.e. constant access).

>>> Long term it likely won't save money because you will put $X million on another partner that liekly won't be recouped.  But my point about redundnancy was below.

Congress has not rejected Commercial Crew, just not funded it the way NASA wanted.  However Congress has been increasing funding in recent years.

>>> Congress has made it VERY clear to NASA that fostering multiple companies, a new space, is not their priority. 



What they would like is immaterial - they know what the potential flight rate would be for one or more providers, and they knew that before they submitted bids.

>>> No it is not immaterial.  The schedule the providers have proposed, which is optimisitc for all 3, is heavily depend on ISS resources.    If the ISS program can't keep up that pace, it will only add delay to the schedule.


None of the companies would have got this far, this fast, without the ISS demand, so I'm not sure what you mean.

>>> Demand is there, support to integrate is what is needed.  You need ISS people and testing and planning...  Plus the ISS is changing requirements as we speak and will continue to make changes and require flexibility.  Which will impact schedules.


The U.S. Government uses multiple service providers all the time, and NASA currently has two for cargo.  This is not anything unusual, and it would be hard to see how two service providers would ever need to interact - they won't be flying at the same time, that's for sure.

>>> You miss the point.  Yes, multiples CAN work just fine.  We say with the cargo that it was a challenge.  If your goal is to have multiple, then great.  If your goal is to get there fast, than multiple partners will slow you down. 


NASA's goal has been to have more than one provider, not to get one provider going as quick as possible.

>>> At the start of Commercial crew the goal was multiple.  Now with changes, fast is more important.  Buying Russian seats is not cost effective or politcally palitable at this stage.

We'll know better when the CCtCap awards are made, as they should also be releasing their schedules for when they (the winner or winners) plan to be operational.  However SpaceX thinks they should be able to make the 2017 date.

>>> Yep, at least Boeing and SpaceX claim that, can't recall SNC.  But history and due to factors outside of their hands, I am confident those are optimistic.

Note, that I am not advocating against multiple partners but folks need to be aware of what they are getting with that path.  I would love to have multiple crew providers, but my personal requirement is to get americans back to the ISS by 2017.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 09/15/2014 02:52 pm
It appears that things are gettingto the point, economically, where what Congress WANTS and what NASA can actually provide in a timely fashion, no longer cooincides.

     NASA is now being forced into a position where dependance on Commercial Cargo and Manned spsceflights are not only going to be a reality, but for NASA, it will be a necessity.

     While the SLS has a huge potentile for launching cargos into space, the current budget structure prevents it's use beyond one launch for every few years, as NASA's budget simply can't afford to build more than one at a time.  This is, again, one of the pitfalls of expendable launch systems.  Werner VonBraun realised this prior to even the establishment of NASA.  Unfortunately, the only way to get to the moon before the Russians did it, it was thought, would be to use expendible rockets on an undeamt of scale.

     For what it's worth, it worked.  But one has to wonder, if the Saturn V stack COULD have been converted to a reusable system, say around Apollo 14 or so, lowering the launch costs per flight, would we have continued on from there?  With such a system, in theory, NASA could have afforded to have both the Space Shuttle and a proven HLV that could have built a full blown Space Station at least a generation earlier than we did.

     But such a system likely would not, even with NASA at the helm, be sustainable without commercial corporations taking over different portions of their operations, streamlining and improving the capibilities of the system, much the same as what they do with commercial aircraft. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/15/2014 03:02 pm
Long term it likely won't save money because you will put $X million on another partner that liekly won't be recouped.  But my point about redundnancy was below.

NASA isn't concerned about "cost savings", they are concerned about uninterrupted access to the ISS.

Quote
Congress has made it VERY clear to NASA that fostering multiple companies, a new space, is not their priority. 

You are falling into the trap of listening to what Congress says, instead of seeing what they actually do.  We're talking about politicians here remember.  And Congress has been increasing the budget Commercial Crew, not decreasing it.

Quote
No it is not immaterial.  The schedule the providers have proposed, which is optimisitc for all 3, is heavily depend on ISS resources.    If the ISS program can't keep up that pace, it will only add delay to the schedule.

The service providers don't provide schedules - NASA does.  NASA is the customer, and the service providers have to meet their needs.  And everyone knows what the needs are, since NASA has been proposing increasing the ISS crew from 6 to 7, and that there may be some extended-stay crew rotations.  Everyone knows this, and all the potential service providers are signing up to support whatever NASA needs.

But if you've been listening, the service providers have also been talking with potential non-NASA customers, and Boeing and SpaceX already have signed agreements with Bigelow.  Sierra Nevada is also working with ISS partners, and that may end up being a source of potential business in the future too.  But for now that's about it until the marketing departments in the winning companies stir up additional demand.  And again, everyone knows that.

Quote
Demand is there, support to integrate is what is needed.  You need ISS people and testing and planning...  Plus the ISS is changing requirements as we speak and will continue to make changes and require flexibility.  Which will impact schedules.

I see a lot of hand waving, but I'm not seeing any facts that support what you are saying.  NASA has a pretty smooth relationship with both Orbital Sciences and SpaceX for cargo, and I see no reason why there shouldn't be one with multiple crew service providers.  Especially since they never fly at the same time.

Quote
At the start of Commercial crew the goal was multiple.  Now with changes, fast is more important.

That's not what NASA has been saying.  Some members of Congress have been advocating for down-selecting to one provider for years, and NASA has resisted that.

Quote
Note, that I am not advocating against multiple partners but folks need to be aware of what they are getting with that path.  I would love to have multiple crew providers, but my personal requirement is to get americans back to the ISS by 2017.

For myself, I feel SpaceX is a low risk to make the 2017 date, which means having a second provider come online after that is OK.  Time will tell...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 09/15/2014 04:47 pm


Long term it likely won't save money because you will put $X million on another partner that liekly won't be recouped.  But my point about redundnancy was below.

NASA isn't concerned about "cost savings", they are concerned about uninterrupted access to the ISS.

Quote
Congress has made it VERY clear to NASA that fostering multiple companies, a new space, is not their priority. 

You are falling into the trap of listening to what Congress says, instead of seeing what they actually do.  We're talking about politicians here remember.  And Congress has been increasing the budget Commercial Crew, not decreasing it.

Af one point in the budget process, Congress were talking about requiring NASA to demonstrate that CC would recoup it's investment over the lifetime of ISS (IE officially only guaranteed to 2020).

ISTR they tied some funding to that, which I thought this was an attempt by Congress to make it harder for NASA to push through multiple providers.

Did anything come of that (or was it overtaken by CRs)?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/15/2014 06:34 pm
The legislation never passed. By the time the legislation is passed, NASA will already have awarded CCtCap. So I expect that it will be dropped in the final version of the bill. 

Speaking of the CR, the House won't vote on it until Wednesday (at the earliest).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: tobi453 on 09/15/2014 06:38 pm
There is a COMSTAC meeting on wednesday including a commercial crew update by Lueders. I think we will get some news there. ;)

See agenda here:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/final_comstac_agenda.pdf

Webcast:
http://faa.capitolconnection.org/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/15/2014 06:42 pm
There is a COMSTAC meeting on wednesday including a commercial crew update by Lueders. I think we will get some news there. ;)

See agenda here:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/final_comstac_agenda.pdf

Webcast:
http://faa.capitolconnection.org/

I doubt it. NASA is likely to have a separate press conference for the CCtCap award.  But thanks for the link!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 09/15/2014 06:51 pm
The legislation never passed. By the time the legislation is passed, NASA will already have awarded CCtCap. So I expect that it will be dropped in the final version of the bill. 

Speaking of the CR, the House won't vote on it until Wednesday (at the earliest).

Many thanks for the clarification on the status of that. Much appreciated.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: tobi453 on 09/15/2014 07:03 pm
I doubt it. NASA is likely to have a separate press conference for the CCtCap award.  But thanks for the link!

Yes, but we will hopefully get some news about the reason for the delay and an estimate for the date of the announcement. ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 09/15/2014 07:04 pm
It appears that things are getting to the point, economically, where what Congress WANTS and what NASA can actually provide in a timely fashion, no longer coincides.

What Congress wants and what NASA can actually provide have not "coincided" since Apollo 17.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 09/15/2014 08:35 pm


NASA isn't concerned about "cost savings", they are concerned about uninterrupted access to the ISS.

>>> No, folks at HQ really believe there is cost savings to be had with multiple partners but I concur with your statement.

You are falling into the trap of listening to what Congress says, instead of seeing what they actually do.  We're talking about politicians here remember.  And Congress has been increasing the budget Commercial Crew, not decreasing it.

>>> :) Increasing is not the same as endorsing things like "supporting an emerging industry".  if you look at the early CCP press conferences and releases that was a stated goal.  You will now note that you don't really see that because NAS was boxed in the ears for it.  I stand by what I said.


The service providers don't provide schedules - NASA does.  NASA is the customer, and the service providers have to meet their needs.  And everyone knows what the needs are, since NASA has been proposing increasing the ISS crew from 6 to 7, and that there may be some extended-stay crew rotations.  Everyone knows this, and all the potential service providers are signing up to support whatever NASA needs.

>>> Not correct.  NASA determines when they want the capability.  The providers then buld a schedule that will meet that.  Among other things that means a testing schedule that includes interface tests with ISS assets.  If the ISSP than comes back and says "we can't make that date", well there you go in slipping.  That is not the same as NASA dictating the schedule.  But I don't think I am getting your point.  Yes, NASA has said capability by 2017.  The companies are working to that.  Doesn't guarantee they will actually make it!  I think you are falling into the trap in beleiving schedules.

But if you've been listening, the service providers have also been talking with potential non-NASA customers, and Boeing and SpaceX already have signed agreements with Bigelow.  Sierra Nevada is also working with ISS partners, and that may end up being a source of potential business in the future too.  But for now that's about it until the marketing departments in the winning companies stir up additional demand.  And again, everyone knows that.

>>> Yes, very true.  And a good sign.  But totally irrevelant to the topic of multiple awards assuring readiness in 2017.


I see a lot of hand waving, but I'm not seeing any facts that support what you are saying.  NASA has a pretty smooth relationship with both Orbital Sciences and SpaceX for cargo, and I see no reason why there shouldn't be one with multiple crew service providers.  Especially since they never fly at the same time.

>>> I am basing this on the pile ups and resource issues I saw with CRS that folks may not have always seens due to other issues and in CCiCAP with the partners.  I know first hand that there will resource issues.  It is not a matter of flying at the same time - it is having access within ISS.


That's not what NASA has been saying.  Some members of Congress have been advocating for down-selecting to one provider for years, and NASA has resisted that.

>>> Yes, my point exactly.


For myself, I feel SpaceX is a low risk to make the 2017 date, which means having a second provider come online after that is OK.  Time will tell...

>>> They may well be low risk, my point is that I will bet money that if if they could make 2017, if more than one is selected, they won't make 2017.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: bilbo on 09/16/2014 01:07 am
Go not to NASA for counsel, for they will say both no and yes
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/16/2014 02:37 am
Quote
The service providers don't provide schedules - NASA does.  NASA is the customer, and the service providers have to meet their needs...

Not correct.  NASA determines when they want the capability.  The providers then buld a schedule that will meet that.

Sounds like we are saying the same thing.

Quote
Quote
I see a lot of hand waving, but I'm not seeing any facts that support what you are saying.  NASA has a pretty smooth relationship with both Orbital Sciences and SpaceX for cargo, and I see no reason why there shouldn't be one with multiple crew service providers.  Especially since they never fly at the same time.

I am basing this on the pile ups and resource issues I saw with CRS that folks may not have always seens due to other issues and in CCiCAP with the partners.  I know first hand that there will resource issues.  It is not a matter of flying at the same time - it is having access within ISS.

Two little birds told me you have first hand ISS program knowledge, which is nice to know.  So you are saying that it's not a Commercial Crew provider issue, but an ISS scheduling issue that is outside of the control of the transportation providers?

Quote
They may well be low risk, my point is that I will bet money that if if they could make 2017, if more than one is selected, they won't make 2017.

I'm not sure why it would matter to SpaceX if there is a second winner, unless you're assuming a split in the money will affect the schedule.  Could happen.  We'll know better once the award(s) are made and the schedules unveiled.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Tovmasyanara on 09/16/2014 07:04 am
Rumors: Award between 10-11am EDT.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 09/16/2014 11:26 am
Rumors: Award between 10-11am EDT.

Wouldn't we expect a press conference called by now, if they make the announcement at that time?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: space_dreamer on 09/16/2014 11:29 am
http://www.cnet.com/news/boeing-said-to-win-nasa-space-taxi-contract/

I hope this isn't true! Boeing's CST-100 would be my third choice.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 09/16/2014 11:45 am
http://www.cnet.com/news/boeing-said-to-win-nasa-space-taxi-contract/

I hope this isn't true! Boeing's CST-100 would be my third choice.

WSJ too.

 http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/boeing-takes-lead-to-build-space-taxi-1410820865?mobile=y
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: anonymous1138 on 09/16/2014 12:02 pm
Same article (CNET article sources WSJ article). Other sources suggest the WSJ article is in error. WSJ article author has been wrong before. We won't know 'til we know ...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: neilh on 09/16/2014 12:09 pm
It's worth noting that the WSJ article is by Andy Pasztor, who's been somewhat... creative... in the past when it comes to articles involving SpaceX and its competitors.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: space_dreamer on 09/16/2014 12:12 pm

I hope you're right 1138, Boeing's CST-100 costs the most and that even before you factor in the readability of Dream Chaser & Dragon.

Also CST-100 seems to be a years from launching, despite being the most unambitious.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/16/2014 12:27 pm
The speculation was always going to build ahead of this. I've literally decided just to wait and see what happens when they release it and then write an article covering it. No pre-drafting. No rush. NASA release, we report it after the event.

First person to see the NASA release, please start a new thread in this section. We'll go from there.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 09/16/2014 01:12 pm
Looks like it's today - and less than 2 hours from the Atlas V launch (!).  :o

Stephen Clark
‏@StephenClark1
NASA: "Major announcement today about astronaut transport to the International Space Station." 4pm presser at KSC. Buckle your seat belts.

William Harwood ‏@cbs_spacenews
CCtCAP: NASA to make "major" commercial crew announcement during 4 p.m. EDT briefing at the Kennedy Space Center, agency officials say.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 09/16/2014 01:23 pm
Crew Transportation Announcement Today
Posted on September 16, 2014 at 9:08 am by commercial-crew-program.

NASA will make a major announcement today at 4 p.m. EDT regarding the return of human spaceflight launches to the United States. Whoever is chosen will have the goal to achieve certification of the system – including a test flight to the International Space Station with a NASA astronaut — in 2017, returning a critical capability to America and greatly expanding the scientific research potential of the orbiting laboratory. Watch the announcement live on NASA TV at www.nasa.gov/ntv and find out details throughout the day on the Commercial Crew Program blog.

http://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2014/09/16/crew-transportation-announcement-today/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/16/2014 01:24 pm
Looks like it's today - and less than 2 hours from the Atlas V launch (!).  :o

Destroys my football plans this evening. I'm disgusted. Why can't they just stick with Soyuz! ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: CraigLieb on 09/16/2014 01:27 pm
official press release on announcement:

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/september/nasa-to-make-major-announcement-today-about-astronaut-transport-to-the/#.VBg6QPldVc4 

(mod: as requested by Chris, a new thread was created to discuss it).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 01:51 pm
Interesting that Gerst will not be there. He may not have been the selecting officer after all.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Razvan on 09/16/2014 02:17 pm
I do not think NASA would make such a major mistake not to select SpaceX, at least as 50% - 50%  with Boeing.
No matter what political decision may be forced here, NASA has a clear mind and cannot disregard the advantages of working with SpaceX for this project.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 02:21 pm
I wouldn't read anything into it but the commercial crew's office promotional video shows a Falcon 9 rocket:

Quote
We’re returning human spaceflight launches to America. Learn who will take crews to the #ISS. Watch NASA TV at 4pm ET http://youtu.be/ceQycm1uCFI

https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/511872287638061056
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 02:22 pm
cannot disregard the advantages of working with SpaceX for this project.

What advantages?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: tesla on 09/16/2014 02:24 pm
the movie shows a spacex launch lol. ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/16/2014 02:25 pm
I wouldn't read anything into it but the commercial crew's office promotional video shows a Falcon 9 rocket:

Quote
We’re returning human spaceflight launches to America. Learn who will take crews to the #ISS. Watch NASA TV at 4pm ET http://youtu.be/ceQycm1uCFI

https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/511872287638061056

That's one of them then! ;D
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Prober on 09/16/2014 02:27 pm
Looks like it's today - and less than 2 hours from the Atlas V launch (!).  :o

Destroys my football plans this evening. I'm disgusted. Why can't they just stick with Soyuz! ;)

This announcement and a launch.....makes popcorn :D
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: robertross on 09/16/2014 02:29 pm
Crew Transportation Announcement Today
Posted on September 16, 2014 at 9:08 am by commercial-crew-program.

NASA will make a major announcement today at 4 p.m. EDT regarding the return of human spaceflight launches to the United States. Whoever is chosen will have the goal to achieve certification of the system – including a test flight to the International Space Station with a NASA astronaut — in 2017, returning a critical capability to America and greatly expanding the scientific research potential of the orbiting laboratory. Watch the announcement live on NASA TV at www.nasa.gov/ntv and find out details throughout the day on the Commercial Crew Program blog.

http://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2014/09/16/crew-transportation-announcement-today/

FINALLY!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 09/16/2014 02:35 pm
cannot disregard the advantages of working with SpaceX for this project.

What advantages?

For one, you don't have to go to the "Launch America" press conference and defend launching on Russian engines...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 02:38 pm

For one, you don't have to go to the "Launch America" press conference and defend launching on Russian engines...

That isn't an issue, just FUD.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 09/16/2014 02:42 pm
Another take from the Houston Chronicle.  ;)

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Longhorn John on 09/16/2014 02:45 pm
Another take from the Houston Chronicle.  ;)

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php)

"To continue reading this story, you will need to be a digital subscriber to HoustonChronicle.com."

Chris, please don't do this with NSF.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 09/16/2014 02:47 pm
I know the decision is already made, but I am hoping that it was as divorced from the political as possible and was based on the merits of the systems offered. We shall see.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/16/2014 02:47 pm
Another take from the Houston Chronicle.  ;)

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php)

"To continue reading this story, you will need to be a digital subscriber to HoustonChronicle.com."

Chris, please don't do this with NSF.

Our L2 supporters ensure the rest of the site (open forum and news site) is open to all.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/16/2014 02:51 pm
Another take from the Houston Chronicle.  ;)

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php)

"To continue reading this story, you will need to be a digital subscriber to HoustonChronicle.com."

Chris, please don't do this with NSF.

Our L2 supporters ensure the rest of the site (open forum and news site) is open to all.
Indeed, and almost always the juicy stuff (before it's vetted) in L2 ends up in a great (public, free) article by the staff here at NASASpaceflight after vetting, etc.

Also, can't wait to order a mug or something from the NSF store.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 09/16/2014 02:56 pm
Another take from the Houston Chronicle.  ;)

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php)

"To continue reading this story, you will need to be a digital subscriber to HoustonChronicle.com."

Chris, please don't do this with NSF.

Our L2 supporters ensure the rest of the site (open forum and news site) is open to all.
Indeed, and almost always the juicy stuff (before it's vetted) in L2 ends up in a great (public, free) article by the staff here at NASASpaceflight after vetting, etc.

Also, can't wait to order a mug or something from the NSF store.
"Dang it Jim! I'm a spaceflight journalist, not a mug seller!" ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: VulcanCafe on 09/16/2014 03:01 pm
Has this been posted?

http://online.wsj.com/articles/boeing-takes-lead-to-build-space-taxi-1410820865
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 09/16/2014 03:03 pm
Yes it has, with a fair amount of skepticism expressed based on the writer's history.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 09/16/2014 03:05 pm
Do we know whether or not the winner(s) have already been notified?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: king1999 on 09/16/2014 03:08 pm
Another take from the Houston Chronicle.  ;)

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php)

Using google to search the subject you normally can come up with another site with the same contents.

http://actioncenter.agu.org/app/document/3604849;jsessionid=VhT28kkxpVcBDkoU9JCnRqDr.undefined

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 03:10 pm
Another take from the Houston Chronicle.  ;)

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php)

The article is dated August 10th.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AJW on 09/16/2014 03:13 pm
Forbes is now running with this story based on the WSJ piece.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/09/16/reports-boeing-to-beat-out-spacex-for-nasa-contract-thanks-to-jeff-bezos/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 03:19 pm
Jay Barbree of NBC News says SpaceX and Boeing have won:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/boeing-spacex-are-due-win-nasas-nod-space-taxis-n204426
https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/511896353463488512
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ugordan on 09/16/2014 03:23 pm
Alan Boyle is reliable.

He is retweeting Jay Barbree's article so his reliability is irrelevant here. Barbree's article sounds pretty similar to what WSJ said yesterday so I'm still slightly skeptical about this.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AndyX on 09/16/2014 03:24 pm
Chris. Can you deny the WSJ article? I'd be shocked if CST-100 has won.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 09/16/2014 03:25 pm
Forbes is now running with this story based on the WSJ piece.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/09/16/reports-boeing-to-beat-out-spacex-for-nasa-contract-thanks-to-jeff-bezos/

From the Forbes article:

"We haven’t made that decision yet. We would have to take a step back, review the potential business case and go from there,” the [Boeing] spokesperson told me. “It would be more difficult to close the business case without the NASA foundation business.”

If that's a correct quote, then perhaps Boeing is backpedaling on their threats... er, previous statements... that if they didn't win they would not continue forward, and lay off many folk associated with the project.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 03:26 pm
Alan Boyle is reliable.

He is retweeting Jay Barbree's article so his reliability is irrelevant here. Barbree's article sounds pretty similar to what WSJ said yesterday so I'm still slightly skeptical about this.

I noticed that afterwards. But Jay Barbree had the right CCiCap winners the last time.  Pasztor didn't say anything about SpaceX winning.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 09/16/2014 03:26 pm
I trust Jay's reporting. Doubt he'd stick his neck out it he didn't know something. If true glad to see Boeing and SpaceX get the go ahead.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ugordan on 09/16/2014 03:28 pm
Pasztor didn't say anything about SpaceX winning.

WSJ - "One of the two other bidders—SpaceX or Sierra Nevada Corp.—is expected to obtain a smaller contract as a second source, these experts said. SpaceX is in a very strong position to get the nod, the experts added."

Jay Barbree - "Sources say Boeing will be receiving the larger share of that money."
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 03:29 pm
Jay Barbree of NBC News says SpaceX and Boeing have won:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/boeing-spacex-are-due-win-nasas-nod-space-taxis-n204426
https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/511896353463488512

Sources say Boeing will be receiving the larger share of that money.

I am not sure how to construe that. Boeing probably got more money because their system is more expensive?

Edit/CR: fixed quote
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 03:31 pm
Pasztor didn't say anything about SpaceX winning.

WSJ - "One of the two other bidders—SpaceX or Sierra Nevada Corp.—is expected to obtain a smaller contract as a second source, these experts said. SpaceX is in a very strong position to get the nod, the experts added."

Jay Barbree - "Sources say Boeing will be receiving the larger share of that money."

Right. So Pasztor says that SpaceX is in a strong position to win whereas Barbree says that SpaceX has actually won.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/16/2014 03:32 pm
Chris. Can you deny the WSJ article? I'd be shocked if CST-100 has won.

I can't deny anything, as I simply don't know (as much as I've had 1001 e-mails hinting at me over the last hour or so).

I've said I'm waiting for the official announcement and we'll go from there. I could probably find out, but I'm not throwing a source* to the wolves - and that is what will happen with a big leak on a contract award.

*I don't really have "sources". I have friends in the industry. I don't have a "e-mail me tips anonymously" facility. We get more than our fair share of exclusives by doing what we do.

Not this one, obviously!

If true, I'm very upset for Dream Chaser. And I dare say surprised.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ugordan on 09/16/2014 03:33 pm
If true, I'm very upset for Dream Chaser. And I dare say surprised.

Ditto. Well, more upset than surprised.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 09/16/2014 03:36 pm
Jay Barbree of NBC News says SpaceX and Boeing have won:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/boeing-spacex-are-due-win-nasas-nod-space-taxis-n204426
https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/511896353463488512

Sources say Boeing will be receiving the larger share of that money.

I am not sure how to construe that. Boeing probably got more money because their system is more expensive?

If the story pans out yes, I'd expect Boeing to get more as it's more expensive to develop. Sounds like both teams will be sending capsules to ISS.

Edit/CR: fixed quote
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/16/2014 03:40 pm
I'm still skeptical about this late Boeing publicity. Even going so far as tying in Blue Origin a day before the announcement. (the most bizarre aspect of this!) Everyone - including Alan Boyle - seems to source the WSJ Pasztor, either directly or indirectly.

This might just be a way to generate expectation, and when it doesn't pan out, they can use that momentum to mount a challenge.

But I could be (very) wrong.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 03:46 pm
Jay Barbree of NBC News says SpaceX and Boeing have won:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/boeing-spacex-are-due-win-nasas-nod-space-taxis-n204426
https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/511896353463488512

Quote
Sources say Boeing will be receiving the larger share of that money.

I am not sure how to construe that. Boeing probably got more money because their system is more expensive?
If the story pans out yes, I'd expect Boeing to get more as it's more expensive to develop. Sounds like both teams will be sending capsules to ISS.

Yes I think that you are right. The NBC article says that both companies would get to the ISS in 2017.

Quote
Sources familiar with the months-long selection process told NBC News that Boeing's CST-100 capsule and SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft are expected to start sending crews to the station in 2017.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 03:53 pm
DreamChaser getting left out would not be at all surprising (that's what I voted in the now-locked poll thread), although it would be disappointing to me too.  They only got a 1/2 award in CCiCAP for a reason.  Although they have made great progress since, so have SpaceX and Boeing.

All of the kerfuffle now that we are so close to the end is also not surprising, there's a lot at stake here and everyone will be working all of the angles they can.  I can't say I saw the Blue Origin angle coming either though...

Anyway, not much time left so I will just wait and see.  I just hope we get good data (with as full transparency as possible) on why the choices were made, I thought NASA did a very good job of that with CCiCAP.  I am afraid anything less is going to lead to lots of finger-pointing by the losing party/parties.

As Grue would say, "I have pins and needles that I'm sitting on!"
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 03:54 pm
Another Boeing CST-100 confirmation?

Quote
Seen on the street: Boeing's top CCP brass are here in KSC vicinity.

https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/511904086481182720
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Razvan on 09/16/2014 03:55 pm
Quote
Sources say Boeing will be receiving the larger share of that money.

I am not sure how to construe that. Boeing probably got more money because their system is more expensive?
[/quote]

The similar thing that happened for COTS ending in two contracts, one for SpaceX for 12 flights at abt. $1.2b and one for Orbital Sc. for 8 flights at abt. $1.8b.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 09/16/2014 03:56 pm
Forbes is now running with this story based on the WSJ piece.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/09/16/reports-boeing-to-beat-out-spacex-for-nasa-contract-thanks-to-jeff-bezos/

From the Forbes article:

"We haven’t made that decision yet. We would have to take a step back, review the potential business case and go from there,” the [Boeing] spokesperson told me. “It would be more difficult to close the business case without the NASA foundation business.”

If that's a correct quote, then perhaps Boeing is backpedaling on their threats... er, previous statements... that if they didn't win they would not continue forward, and lay off many folk associated with the project.

That's a pretty old quote from Boeing.  The Forbes author either requoted something told to him a while back, or Boeing is staying very on message.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 03:57 pm
https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/511904420469420032

Quote
Heard on the street: chairs being set up in OPF-3...but NASA announcement planned on OSB-2 balcony...unless it rains, then press site.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: cdleonard on 09/16/2014 03:58 pm
I'm still skeptical about this late Boeing publicity. Even going so far as tying in Blue Origin a day before the announcement. (the most bizarre aspect of this!)

Does anything tie Blue Origin to CCtCap other than WSJ speculation?

Blue Origin might end up working with ULA on engine development for a new rocket variant. This does not actually imply any involvement in CCtCAP itself, which is mostly about developing a spacecraft to fly on existing rockets.

The Blue Origin/ULA partnership is more likely an attempt to better compete with SpaceX in the wider launch market.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 04:01 pm
I'm still skeptical about this late Boeing publicity. Even going so far as tying in Blue Origin a day before the announcement. (the most bizarre aspect of this!)

Does anything tie Blue Origin to CCtCap other than WSJ speculation?

Blue Origin might end up working with ULA on engine development for a new rocket variant. This does not actually imply any involvement in CCtCAP itself, which is mostly about developing a spacecraft to fly on existing rockets.

The Blue Origin/ULA partnership is more likely an attempt to better compete with SpaceX in the wider launch market.

There is also this:

https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/511904846182875136

Quote
There's some speculation about who's behind this billboard on U.S. 1...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/16/2014 04:02 pm
Yes, I suspect there might be an upcoming BO-ULA announcement, and that this somehow got confused with CCtCap.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 09/16/2014 04:09 pm
Pasztor didn't say anything about SpaceX winning.

WSJ - "One of the two other bidders—SpaceX or Sierra Nevada Corp.—is expected to obtain a smaller contract as a second source, these experts said. SpaceX is in a very strong position to get the nod, the experts added."

Jay Barbree - "Sources say Boeing will be receiving the larger share of that money."
Which to me means:
- Boeing full award
- SpaceX half award

Can only hope Barbree is dead wrong on this one.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: robertross on 09/16/2014 04:11 pm
Another Boeing CST-100 confirmation?

Quote
Seen on the street: Boeing's top CCP brass are here in KSC vicinity.

https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/511904086481182720


Well at the outside it's more convincing, but there's nothing like an Atlas V rocket launch in the vicinity to get the speculation going...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: SoundForesight on 09/16/2014 04:16 pm
I'm trying to decide if this NASA RFI is relevant as a consolation to CCtCap non-awardee, since it refers to "reusable launch systems":
NASA RFI: Potential Partnerships for Industry-led Suborbital Reusable Launch Systems
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=46140 (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=46140)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: docmordrid on 09/16/2014 04:18 pm
https://twitter.com/astro_g_dogg/status/511903296756277248

Quote
Garrett Reisman @astro_g_dog

Big news today from @Commercial_Crew !
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: CraigLieb on 09/16/2014 04:19 pm
anybody know where Elon is today?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: king1999 on 09/16/2014 04:20 pm
Quote
Garrett Reisman @astro_g_dog

Big news today from @Commercial_Crew !
Looks like Garrett can't contain his excitement :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jose Martinez on 09/16/2014 04:21 pm
I'm trying to decide if this NASA RFI is relevant

No.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 09/16/2014 04:22 pm
Washington Post is saying it's Boeing and SpaceX:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/16/nasa-awards-space-contract-to-boeing-and-spacex/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sciencebro on 09/16/2014 04:25 pm
https://twitter.com/astro_g_dogg/status/511903296756277248

Quote
Garrett Reisman @astro_g_dog

Big news today from @Commercial_Crew !

I like the sound of that. I'll bet the billboard is in relation to the Blue Origin/ULA partnership for the rocket announcement tomorrow and that SpaceX and SNC will get the nod later today.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: theonlyspace on 09/16/2014 04:26 pm
NASA will make a major announcement today at 4 p.m. EDT regarding the return of human spaceflight launches to the United States. The agency will make the announcement during a news conference from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The event will be broadcast live on NASA Television and the agency's website."
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: francesco nicoli on 09/16/2014 04:30 pm
or- could be Boeing full award, Sierra Nevada half award.

As I pointed out in the survey thread, it would make little sense to me to go for two capsules, so if Boeing is the first choice, ceteris paribus, the chances for Sierra Nevada increase.

And as I pointed out there, I am fairly convinced Boeing would be the first choice.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: theonlyspace on 09/16/2014 04:32 pm
As I see it Boeing CTS-100 is just a earth orbit revamp of the Orion with a few different changes.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: butters on 09/16/2014 04:32 pm
It would be unthinkable for NASA to lease LC-39A to SpaceX and then deny them a commercial crew contract. That would be absurd even by government standards. So a half award is literally the least they could reasonably do.

Boeing has underperformed throughout this entire process by any objective measure except for the paper milestones they defined for themselves, while consistently winning the highest contract awards, which just goes to show how exceptionally talented they are at the peculiar game of government contracting.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 09/16/2014 04:32 pm
anybody know where Elon is today?

Or the flight plan for this airplane: N900SX :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 09/16/2014 04:33 pm
I'm still skeptical about this late Boeing publicity. Even going so far as tying in Blue Origin a day before the announcement. (the most bizarre aspect of this!)

Does anything tie Blue Origin to CCtCap other than WSJ speculation?

Blue Origin might end up working with ULA on engine development for a new rocket variant. This does not actually imply any involvement in CCtCAP itself, which is mostly about developing a spacecraft to fly on existing rockets.

The Blue Origin/ULA partnership is more likely an attempt to better compete with SpaceX in the wider launch market.

Blue Origin did work as part of CCDev 1 & 2.

CCDev 2 was $22m, including work on hydrolox engine.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 09/16/2014 04:36 pm
It would be unthinkable for NASA to lease LC-39A to SpaceX and then deny them a commercial crew contract. That would be absurd even by government standards. So a half award is literally the least they could reasonably do.


This would be especially true if SpaceX finished pad and in-flight abort before CST-100 flew, and then started launching crew from LC-39A while NASA was still buying seats from Russia.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: francesco nicoli on 09/16/2014 04:38 pm
It would be unthinkable for NASA to lease LC-39A to SpaceX and then deny them a commercial crew contract. That would be absurd even by government standards. So a half award is literally the least they could reasonably do.

Boeing has underperformed throughout this entire process by any objective measure except for the paper milestones they defined for themselves, while consistently winning the highest contract awards, which just goes to show how exceptionally talented they are at the peculiar game of government contracting.

don't think the two are related, but I might be wrong.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: king1999 on 09/16/2014 04:41 pm
Now it would be a surprise if Spx and Snc win. So many mainstream media would be wrong.
But i am still rooting for them. fingers crossed.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 04:42 pm
It would be unthinkable for NASA to lease LC-39A to SpaceX and then deny them a commercial crew contract. That would be absurd even by government standards. So a half award is literally the least they could reasonably do.

Boeing has underperformed throughout this entire process by any objective measure except for the paper milestones they defined for themselves, while consistently winning the highest contract awards, which just goes to show how exceptionally talented they are at the peculiar game of government contracting.

don't think the two are related, but I might be wrong.

You are right. These two items aren't related.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 04:42 pm
This would be especially true if SpaceX finished pad and in-flight abort before CST-100 flew, and then started launching crew from LC-39A while NASA was still buying seats from Russia.

As amusing as it is to imagine that (assuming SpaceX is not selected), the chances of it happening are virtually nil.  SpaceX needs NASA money just as much as the other partners to finish their spacecraft.  If they do not win the contract their progress on finishing DragonV2 will be greatly slowed and I think it very unlikely there is any way they beat whoever is given the contract to space.  Even with a partial contract (if that particular rumor is true) I can't see them finishing before 2017 is done.

All IMHO, my 2c, etc.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jimvela on 09/16/2014 04:42 pm
anybody know where Elon is today?

Or the flight plan for this airplane: N900SX :)

Not trackable per owner request.  Elon learns fast!

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/16/2014 04:42 pm
Washington Post is saying it's Boeing and SpaceX:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/16/nasa-awards-space-contract-to-boeing-and-spacex/

Again, it is light on details, citing "a person familiar with the process". This could be typical journalism-speak when they don't want to acknowledge that they are using each other as sources.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: CriX on 09/16/2014 04:43 pm
So it's basically SNC/Lockheed vs Boeing vs SpaceX.  In other words:  ULA vs SpaceX.   This is making me nervous.  SpaceX is the only team really pushing the envelope here technologically and so I hope they are awarded for that.

I would think that a Boeing / SpaceX win would make sense as two capsules buy the capability and backup that NASA needs to conduct business.  DreamChaser is as the name implies and is not necessary for business.  But it's relationship with Lockheed complicates matters, politically.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/16/2014 04:46 pm
Anyone else have any information about the alleged (by the WSJ) co-operation between Boeing and Blue Origin on CST-100?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: FuseUpHereAlone on 09/16/2014 04:48 pm
Boeing has underperformed throughout this entire process by any objective measure except for the paper milestones they defined for themselves, while consistently winning the highest contract awards, which just goes to show how exceptionally talented they are at the peculiar game of government contracting.

As was pointed out in another thread, Boeing has completed plenty of non-paper milestones.  For sure though, if Boeing does win some piece of the contract and either SpaceX or Sierra Nevada get left out, the forums will cry foul of claims of crony capitalism...or maybe people just can't stand the idea that maybe an old-space company could compete and beat nu space...I guess we'll find out soon.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35485.msg1248462#msg1248462 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35485.msg1248462#msg1248462)

Quote
Just to expand on this, I compiled a list of completed milestones that involved building hardware, testing, or some sort of system demonstration.

CCDev 1
    B4: Demo Abort Engine Demonstration (“COTS” RS-88 modified to run NTO/Hydrazine)
    C4: Base Heat Shield and Carrier Structure Fabrication
    D4: Avionics Systems Integration Facility (ASIF) Demonstration
    E4: CM Pressure Shell Fabrication Demonstration and Test
    F4: Landing System Demonstration (land and water)
    G4: Life Support Demonstration (Life Support Air Revitalization)
    H4: Integrated GNC Demonstration (Including an AR&D Demo)
CCDev2
    4: Launch Abort Engine Fabrication & Hot Fire Test (Evolved RS-88 Engine)
    5: Landing Air Bag Drop Demonstration #1
    6: Phase I Wind Tunnel Tests
    8: Parachute Drop Tests Demonstration
    9: SM Propellant Tank Development Test
    10: LV EDS/ASIF Interface Simulation Test
    13: OMAC Hot Fire Test
    14: SM Propulsion Cold Flow Tests
CCiCap
    7: Integrated Stack Buffet Wind Tunnel Test
    8: DEC Liquid Oxygen Duct Development Test
    9: OMAC Engine Development Test
    12: Mission Control Center Interface Demonstration Test
    14: Emergency Detection System Standalone Testing
    16: Avionics Software Integration Lab (ASIL) Multi-String Demonstration Test
    17: Pilot-in-the-loop Demonstration
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: StuffOfInterest on 09/16/2014 04:51 pm
I don't think we would see a dual Boeing/SNC award being that both ride on the Atlas 5.  If there was ever a grounding of Atlas then both rides are stuck on the ground.  On the other hand, if it is Boeing and SpaceX then a grounding of Atlas does not affect Falcon as well as the opposite.

Unfortunately, I do think we'll see the same situation as with commercial cargo where SpaceX gets paid less for doing more.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Norm38 on 09/16/2014 05:03 pm
CNN is reporting:
Quote
NASA is expected to award Boeing a space shuttle contract.

So that looks to confirm Boeing gets something.  But also, why can't anyone in the major media do proper science writing?  Yes a capsule may shuttle astronauts to orbit.  But it is NOT a "space shuttle".
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 09/16/2014 05:03 pm
Anyone else have any information about the alleged (by the WSJ) co-operation between Boeing and Blue Origin on CST-100?

I'm guessing that detail was confusion of the ULA/Blue Origin engine development venture that will be announced tomorrow (which appears to be a long term thing not directly related to CCtCap).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: saliva_sweet on 09/16/2014 05:08 pm
I don't like the vibes I'm getting from this whole deal in the last few hours. Looks like indeed there has been a last minute change. Gerst and Bolden, the two big drivers of ComCrew appear to be actively distancing themselves from the announcement. Boeing is looking to get the win by bidding unicorns.

I hope I'm wrong.

edit: Abbadon is correct, I was mistaken about that Gerst and Bolden thing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 05:10 pm
Gerst and Bolden, the two big drivers of ComCrew appear to be actively distancing themselves from the announcement.

Bolden is going to be announcing it and Gerst just tweeted about it.  No need to add FUD here with all of the conflicting reporting going around already.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/16/2014 05:11 pm
I'm not putting any stock in the WSJ article.  Especially after it was bought by Rupert Murdoch.

Someone trying to get out in front of a story, or planting a seed for something to be mad about if it doesn't go Boeing's way.  Smells like game play to me.

I still think a CST-100 and Dragon pick is the most likely, but hoping DC makes the cut.  With a possible wildcard of being able to launch on either the Atlas V or Falcon 9.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AJW on 09/16/2014 05:18 pm
Anyone else have any information about the alleged (by the WSJ) co-operation between Boeing and Blue Origin on CST-100?

I believe that this Reuters article is the source.  Not teaming up on CST-100 but RD-180 replacement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/16/us-boeing-lockheed-martin-bezos-idUSKBN0HB0UU20140916
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 09/16/2014 05:28 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2014/09/16/source-nasa-to-announce-two-winners-to-fly-astronauts-to-iss/15718351/

More credible and plausible.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/16/2014 05:31 pm
Anyone else have any information about the alleged (by the WSJ) co-operation between Boeing and Blue Origin on CST-100?

I believe that this Reuters article is the source.  Not teaming up on CST-100 but RD-180 replacement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/16/us-boeing-lockheed-martin-bezos-idUSKBN0HB0UU20140916
Keep in mind that BO's design, manufacturing, and test skills have not been fully exposed to the media.

Neither BO or for that matter SpaceX have impressed me with software organizations nor flight test skills. Granted they are working in relatively unique area, but I always wonder how much is luck and when it might run out.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Alpha Control on 09/16/2014 05:34 pm
I expect NSF will be heavily hit with posts starting at 4:00:01pm Eastern time today, for the next few days. Chris, better call up the fail-over server!  :)

We may need two new threads after the announcement - a Cheerleading thread for all the congrats (thinking of images of fireworks; U.S. flag with rocket&crew vehicle rising into the sky...)

and a Consolation thread for all the sad posts (thinking of image of many empty pint glasses on bar counter, several of them laying on their sides...)   
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 05:35 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2014/09/16/source-nasa-to-announce-two-winners-to-fly-astronauts-to-iss/15718351/

More credible and plausible.

Good article but I have to laugh a little bit; under "weaknesses" for SpaceX it lists "likely fewest local jobs".  Presumably that is not a NASA consideration...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 09/16/2014 05:38 pm
I expect NSF will be heavily hit with posts starting at 4:00:01pm Eastern time today, for the next few days. Chris, better call up the fail-over server!  :)

We may need two new threads after the announcement - a Cheerleading thread for all the congrats (thinking of images of fireworks; U.S. flag with rocket&crew vehicle rising into the sky...)

and a Consolation thread for all the sad posts (thinking of image of many empty pint glasses on bar counter, several of them laying on their sides...)

Based on what I've read on here lately, maybe a third thread for all those who want to cry foul and say the process was rigged...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: SoulWager on 09/16/2014 05:42 pm
Has NASA published their selection criteria for CCtCAP?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 09/16/2014 05:46 pm
CNN now reporting as breaking news that Boeing and SpaceX have won the contracts.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/16/2014 05:47 pm
CNN now reporting as breaking news that Boeing and SpaceX have won the contracts.

CNN is just reading the same tweets as we do.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/16/2014 05:47 pm
I expect NSF will be heavily hit with posts starting at 4:00:01pm Eastern time today, for the next few days. Chris, better call up the fail-over server!  :)

We may need two new threads after the announcement - a Cheerleading thread for all the congrats (thinking of images of fireworks; U.S. flag with rocket&crew vehicle rising into the sky...)

and a Consolation thread for all the sad posts (thinking of image of many empty pint glasses on bar counter, several of them laying on their sides...)

Based on what I've read on here lately, maybe a third thread for all those who want to cry foul and say the process was rigged...

We'll have the live thread for the announcement.  This thread for discussion and the specific vehicle threads, so we've covered.

If the servers get too busy, I'll make it access for logged in members (remove guests) like we do during SpaceX launches.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 05:47 pm
Has NASA published their selection criteria for CCtCAP?

The selection statement usually gets published a few weeks after the selection is made in order to give time to the companies to read it and digest it.

The selection criteria can be found in the RFP:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32412.msg1122054#msg1122054
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/16/2014 05:48 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2014/09/16/source-nasa-to-announce-two-winners-to-fly-astronauts-to-iss/15718351/

More credible and plausible.
"According to the source, the awards do not impose a "leader-follower" arrangement in which one company is awarded significantly more funding and expected to fly first, with another receiving less funding and developing its systems more slowly."

Does this mean that they are funded at the same expectation of a 2017 flight date e.g. same precedence, w/o an "expedite" increase?

In that case, is it a race between a prime contractor with high loading budget, and a small "fast mover" with its usual frugal budget?

How does complexity of vehicle affect (or handicap) the race? Do they prove the vehicles to similar levels before first flight, or does "heritage" grant a "mulligan" for expense tests like in flight aborts?

Who gets precedence when they ask for the same resource as a gating factor to avoid schedule slip / program risk?

Net net: is it a "fair and balanced" competition?

Is NASA the arbiter or Congress?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: topsphere on 09/16/2014 05:49 pm
Poor Dream Chaser :( :(
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 05:51 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2014/09/16/source-nasa-to-announce-two-winners-to-fly-astronauts-to-iss/15718351/

More credible and plausible.
"According to the source, the awards do not impose a "leader-follower" arrangement in which one company is awarded significantly more funding and expected to fly first, with another receiving less funding and developing its systems more slowly."

Does this mean that they are funded at the same expectation of a 2017 flight date e.g. same precedence, w/o an "expedite" increase?

In that case, is it a race between a prime contractor with high loading budget, and a small "fast mover" with its usual frugal budget?

How does complexity of vehicle affect (or handicap) the race? Do they prove the vehicles to similar levels before first flight, or does "heritage" grant a "mulligan" for expense tests like in flight aborts?

Who gets precedence when they ask for the same resource as a gating factor to avoid schedule slip / program risk?

Net net: is it a "fair and balanced" competition?

Is NASA the arbiter or Congress?

The NBC news article already said that both companies would fly to the ISS in 2017.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 09/16/2014 05:54 pm
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: dlapine on 09/16/2014 05:54 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2014/09/16/source-nasa-to-announce-two-winners-to-fly-astronauts-to-iss/15718351/

More credible and plausible.
"According to the source, the awards do not impose a "leader-follower" arrangement in which one company is awarded significantly more funding and expected to fly first, with another receiving less funding and developing its systems more slowly."

Does this mean that they are funded at the same expectation of a 2017 flight date e.g. same precedence, w/o an "expedite" increase?

In that case, is it a race between a prime contractor with high loading budget, and a small "fast mover" with its usual frugal budget?

How does complexity of vehicle affect (or handicap) the race? Do they prove the vehicles to similar levels before first flight, or does "heritage" grant a "mulligan" for expense tests like in flight aborts?

Who gets precedence when they ask for the same resource as a gating factor to avoid schedule slip / program risk?

Net net: is it a "fair and balanced" competition?

Is NASA the arbiter or Congress?

The NBC news article already said that both companies would fly to the ISS in 2017.

Is a manrated Atlas and working CST-100 even possible within 3 years? Boeing would have to do both.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/16/2014 05:56 pm
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1? ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: francesco nicoli on 09/16/2014 05:58 pm
So:
 the drawback of Boeing + SpaceX is having 2 capsules.
 the drawback of Boeing and Sierra Nevada is having 2 Atlas V vectors, although some say that DC can fly also on a Falcon.
 the drawback of SN and Space X is that well, none of them is able or willing to finance re-election campaigns of various congress members in a month or so and then the presidential elections in a little less than two years. Which is an important factor even if not connected with aerospace.

Which is the less costly combination?

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 09/16/2014 05:59 pm
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1? ;)

I hope none. No one should realistically think they wouldn't be a good pick.

But no one should think that Boeing can't deliver either.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/16/2014 06:02 pm
So:
 the drawback of Boeing + SpaceX is having 2 capsules.
 the drawback of Boeing and Sierra Nevada is having 2 Atlas V vectors, although some say that DC can fly also on a Falcon.
 the drawback of SN and Space X is that well, none of them is able or willing to finance re-election campaigns of various congress members in a month or so and then the presidential elections in a little less than two years. Which is an important factor even if not connected with aerospace.

Which is the less costly combination?

In a source selection the only option upper management has if they don't like the selection is to redo the whole RFP>Proposal>Selection process that takes an additional 6 months to a year.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: dglow on 09/16/2014 06:02 pm
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

What defines 'winning' this competition if there are two awardees?

At this stage, I don't think either side 'wins' or 'loses' in terms of dollars awarded. Just ensure they both have equal flight opportunities.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: obi-wan on 09/16/2014 06:02 pm
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1? ;)

I hope none. No one should realistically think they wouldn't be a good pick.

But no one should think that Boeing can't deliver either.

I predict that before CST-100's first manned flight, Boeing will be at least 100% over budget - and NASA will pay the difference plus full incentives.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: nadreck on 09/16/2014 06:05 pm
I think WSJ based their assessment on dollars and the Florida Today article correctly points out that Boeing would be charging more than twice what SpaceX would to accomplish roughly the same goal. Note that means that yes, Boeing may get a bigger contract but if, in the end both deliver the same requirements (2 flights a year) then they have equal contracts.  We will see how it comes out real soon. The only problem I have in all of this is the irresponsible reporting of the WSJ speculation as fact (at least in headlines) from other mainstream news outlets.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/16/2014 06:08 pm
"According to the source, the awards do not impose a "leader-follower" arrangement in which one company is awarded significantly more funding and expected to fly first, with another receiving less funding and developing its systems more slowly."

Does this mean that they are funded at the same expectation of a 2017 flight date e.g. same precedence, w/o an "expedite" increase?

The NBC news article already said that both companies would fly to the ISS in 2017.
My emphasis above. What I'm getting at is the nature of that time line to ostensibly make that deadline.

If we were to have a race that took same items even though costlier in BigCo than SmallCo and BigCo has more headcount as expected over SmallCo, then it would be about program/schedule risk, e.g. who can execute faster with fewer surprises.

Is this true or not?

Boeing complained all along about too much on the cheap with CC in the past.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 06:08 pm
I predict that before CST-100's first manned flight, Boeing will be at least 100% over budget - and NASA will pay the difference plus full incentives.

That seems a bit unfair.  I could see Boeing spending more money on CCtCAP since they will have a guarantee of at least two flights and an effective guarantee of a subsequent contract as long as they don't screw the pooch.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 09/16/2014 06:12 pm
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1? ;)

I hope none. No one should realistically think they wouldn't be a good pick.

But no one should think that Boeing can't deliver either.

Given enough money anything can be done if it's physically possible. And there's no new tech in their design so clearly it's physically possible. But money... there's the rub. They are likely to be the most expensive based on what I've seen so far.

I predict that before CST-100's first manned flight, Boeing will be at least 100% over budget - and NASA will pay the difference plus full incentives.

I don't think that's fair. I doubt they will be double their bid. But I would expect overruns. That's their MO, after all. And I would expect that NASA will go to Congress and get the money and pay because what choice will they have?

But I am still rooting for the correct outcome: SpaceX + SNC .. any other outcome is inferior, by my personal rubric.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Hauerg on 09/16/2014 06:16 pm
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

We are used to SpaceX getting less.
But I am ok with that if the actual launches are tendered for capabilities an price and nothing else.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 06:19 pm
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

There is no number 1 according to NBC news. They are both full awards. Boeing gets more money but that is because they likely asked for more money than SpaceX.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 06:21 pm
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1? ;)

I hope none. No one should realistically think they wouldn't be a good pick.

But no one should think that Boeing can't deliver either.

I predict that before CST-100's first manned flight, Boeing will be at least 100% over budget - and NASA will pay the difference plus full incentives.

It's a firm fixed price contract. If Boeing is over budget, it's their problem. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 06:27 pm
It's a fixed firm price contract. If Boeing is over budget, it's their problem.

While that was true of CCiCAP, I thought CCtCAP was going to be a FAR contract?  Aren't the rules a little different in that case?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/16/2014 06:30 pm
I'm truly heartbroken for the Sierra Nevada team and the HL-20 design that has come so far, only to be denied a chance to fly time and time again.  I hope that somehow they can keep the dream alive.  I'll be curious to know they remain committed to completing the OTV and conducting the 2016 orbital test flight.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/morning_call/2014/09/wsj-boeing-leads-sierra-nevada-in-race-to-build.html
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Razvan on 09/16/2014 06:32 pm
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1? ;)

I hope none. No one should realistically think they wouldn't be a good pick.

But no one should think that Boeing can't deliver either.

I, for one, have voted at the time for Boeing/SpaceX option, considering Boeing as back up alternative.
SpaceX is the most advanced of all, as:
- they have a manned certified Falcon 9, currently in service, and v. important, with no russian fingerprints on it;
- they have a certified Dragon vehicle currently making cargo shipments to and (very important) from ISS;
- they have the Draco engines already tested, which makes the vehicle the most technologically advanced vehicle to date.
So I believe, pushing SpaceX out of this competition would not only be unfair but counter productive for NASA.
Given 2017 the horizon target on one side and SpaceX's statement they'll have the Dragon V2 ready for service  in 2016 it'll make sense for Nasa to pick Boeing - to make sure they have a vehicle available by 2017 and SpaceX having plenty of time to prove their product's new features.
Title: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/16/2014 06:34 pm
I'm truly heartbroken for the Sierra Nevada team and the HL-20 design that has come so far, only to be denied a chance to fly time and time again.  I hope that somehow they can keep the dream alive.  I'll be curious to know they remain committed to completing the OTV and conducting the 2016 orbital test flight.

Have the awards been announced and I missed them? ;) don't despair yet - we'll know in 90 mins.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 06:34 pm
It's a fixed firm price contract. If Boeing is over budget, it's their problem.

While that was true of CCiCAP, I thought CCtCAP was going to be a FAR contract?  Aren't the rules a little different in that case?

It's FAR part 15 but it's still a firm fixed price contract.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: dglow on 09/16/2014 06:36 pm
It's a fixed firm price contract. If Boeing is over budget, it's their problem.

While that was true of CCiCAP, I thought CCtCAP was going to be a FAR contract?  Aren't the rules a little different in that case?

It's FAR part 15 but it's still a firm fixed contract.

At what point in the process does development cease and 'competition' kick in? If the final cost of one option is significantly less expensive than another, as everyone suspects, at what point does this provide NASA leverage in negotiations?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 09/16/2014 06:36 pm
It's a fixed firm price contract. If Boeing is over budget, it's their problem.

While that was true of CCiCAP, I thought CCtCAP was going to be a FAR contract?  Aren't the rules a little different in that case?

It's FAR part 15 but it's still a firm fixed contract.

Yeah, I've done a FAR contract that was firm, fixed-price, milestone-based before. To some people unfamiliar with government contracting FAR and cost-plus sound synonymous.

~Jon
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 06:38 pm
It's a fixed firm price contract. If Boeing is over budget, it's their problem.

While that was true of CCiCAP, I thought CCtCAP was going to be a FAR contract?  Aren't the rules a little different in that case?

It's FAR part 15 but it's still a firm fixed contract.

At what point in the process does development cease and 'competition' kick in? If the final cost of one option is significantly less expensive than another, as everyone suspects, at what point does this provide NASA leverage in negotiations?

It's not clear if NASA will proceed to a further downselection under the CTS contract. My guess is that they will not. But that would be a good question to ask at the press conference.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 06:51 pm
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?
It's already begun and no announcement has yet been made!

 - Ed kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 09/16/2014 06:58 pm

How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?
It's already begun and no announcement has yet been made!

 - Ed kyle

There isn't going to be a number one as such though.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 09/16/2014 07:01 pm

How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?
It's already begun and no announcement has yet been made!

 - Ed kyle

There isn't going to be a number one as such though.

Correct. Winners will be awarded what they bid after negotiations. It's a FAR Part 15 FFP contract. Award amount has no bearing on preference among multiple winners.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 09/16/2014 07:03 pm
More CNN reporting coming in... http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/16/news/companies/nasa-boeing-space-x-duplicate-2/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rifleman on 09/16/2014 07:04 pm
If SpaceX really is able to deliver the lower costs that they claim, I would expect their award (if they win) to be the lowest. In my opinion, a low award that is still a full award for spacex is great news for the price of access to space in the future.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 09/16/2014 07:08 pm
We should he happy two are being awarded money. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: HailColumbia on 09/16/2014 07:09 pm
if Boeing has to win can they at least rename their spacecraft?  "CST-100" sounds like the model number of an AV receiver or something.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 09/16/2014 07:11 pm
if Boeing has to win can they at least rename their spacecraft?  "CST-100" sounds like the model number of an AV receiver or something.

The "100" is to indicate that it crosses the 100 kilometer line that marks the entry into space.
Thus Commercial Space Transport - 100.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 09/16/2014 07:12 pm
CNN now has Dragon V2 animation up and running on it's main webpage also main headline.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: HailColumbia on 09/16/2014 07:16 pm
if Boeing has to win can they at least rename their spacecraft?  "CST-100" sounds like the model number of an AV receiver or something.

The "100" is to indicate that it crosses the 100 kilometer line that marks the entry into space.
Thus Commercial Space Transport - 100.

Well just because there's a logic to the name doesn't make it good. It lacks a certain poetry.  Sounds like a robot named it.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 07:19 pm
The "100" is to indicate that it crosses the 100 kilometer line that marks the entry into space.
Thus Commercial Space Transport - 100.

We can all hope that what they are actually aiming for is a bit higher...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 09/16/2014 07:20 pm
Well just because there's a logic to the name doesn't make it good. It lacks a certain poetry. 

Like Boeing 707 ? :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 09/16/2014 07:21 pm
Well just because there's a logic to the name doesn't make it good. It lacks a certain poetry.  Sounds like a robot named it.

Then it might shock you to know that the folks who work on ISS call the modules Node 1, Node 2, Node 3, US Lab, FGB, Service Module, DC 1, MRM 1, MRM 2, etc, instead of the names PAO uses.  I'm sure by the time the first launch rolls around, they'll have a nice PAO-friendly name for the flight vehicle.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Helodriver on 09/16/2014 07:23 pm
This is going to be an interesting, as it will be the first time the US has had two manned space vehicle models in operation simultaneously. Thats quite different and will present unique training challenges.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 09/16/2014 07:24 pm
This is going to be an interesting, as it will be the first time the US has had two manned space vehicle models in operation simultaneously. Thats quite different and will present unique training challenges.

Not counting, of course, the combination of Shuttle and ISS ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rifleman on 09/16/2014 07:26 pm
This is going to be an interesting, as it will be the first time the US has had two manned space vehicle models in operation simultaneously. Thats quite different and will present unique training challenges.

Not counting, of course, the combination of Shuttle and ISS ;)

Or the CSM and LEM
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Kim Keller on 09/16/2014 07:28 pm
But also, why can't anyone in the major media do proper science writing?  Yes a capsule may shuttle astronauts to orbit.  But it is NOT a "space shuttle".

It most certainly is. It isn't the shuttle we all remember, but the term describes its role precisely - to shuttle crew to the station and back.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 09/16/2014 07:28 pm
or Gemini 6 and Gemini 7...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Targeteer on 09/16/2014 07:28 pm
Sen Nelson was just on CNN talking about "2 capsules on top of rockets" and presumably he has a heads up on what will be announced...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 07:29 pm
Somehow I don't think I'm going to be getting any work done over the next hour or so.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/16/2014 07:29 pm
This is going to be an interesting, as it will be the first time the US has had two manned space vehicle models in operation simultaneously. Thats quite different and will present unique training challenges.

Not counting, of course, the combination of Shuttle and ISS ;)

Depends on how you define space vehicle.  with the definintion below ISS and the LM wouldn't be a space vehicle. 
Quote
A space vehicle is a rocket-powered vehicle used to transport unmanned satellites or humans between the Earth's surface and outer space.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 09/16/2014 07:32 pm
Bummer. Not what I wanted.

Sen Nelson was just on CNN talking about "2 capsules on top of rockets" and presumably he has a heads up on what will be announced...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 09/16/2014 07:33 pm
This contract is just to 2017, or through test flights? It is not clear what happens after that through 2020 or 2024, whether they would each get 1-2 flights per year, or another down-select.

We know SpaceX was talking 4 flights, 28 astronauts per year, but has backed-off to 2 flights and 8 astronauts and cargo per year.

With two winners, I would expect a paltry 1 flight each per year for Boeing and SpaceX.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 07:34 pm
This contract is just to 2017, or through test flights? It is not clear what happens after that through 2020 or 2024, whether they would each get 1-2 flights per year, or another down-select.

We know SpaceX was talking 4 flights, 28 astronauts per year, but has back-off to 2 flights and 8 astronauts and cargo per year.

With two winners, I would expect a paltry 1 flight each per year for Boeing and SpaceX.

The post-certification missions under CCtCap go through 2019. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Targeteer on 09/16/2014 07:35 pm
CAPCOM just offered to uplink the press conference to the crew who eagerly accepted :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 09/16/2014 07:36 pm
This is going to be an interesting, as it will be the first time the US has had two manned space vehicle models in operation simultaneously. Thats quite different and will present unique training challenges.

Not counting, of course, the combination of Shuttle and ISS ;)
Always wondered why ISS was considered a spacecraft and not a space station. Well another topic for another time.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Helodriver on 09/16/2014 07:37 pm
With new vehicles in the quiver and (presumably) lower prices, maybe there will be shorter duration stays and more flight opportunities for different researchers to our orbital "national laboratory."
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Kim Keller on 09/16/2014 07:38 pm
Depends on how you define space vehicle.  with the definintion below ISS and the LM wouldn't be a space vehicle. 
Quote
A space vehicle is a rocket-powered vehicle used to transport unmanned satellites or humans between the Earth's surface and outer space.

That's not the definition launch service providers use. The launch vehicle carries the space vehicle to space.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: kirghizstan on 09/16/2014 07:50 pm
i'm not getting any sound on the nasa ios app is any sound playing with these clips on nasa tv?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: king1999 on 09/16/2014 07:51 pm
It is a bummer that there are so many leaks. I was looking forward to an Apple-style announcement. "One more thing. We also award a second winner, ..." :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 09/16/2014 07:52 pm
i'm not getting any sound on the nasa ios app is any sound playing with these clips on nasa tv?
I'm on chrome on windows, and it's silent for me as well.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 07:52 pm
i'm not getting any sound on the nasa ios app is any sound playing with these clips on nasa tv?

Some of these B-rolls videos don't have sound.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 09/16/2014 07:54 pm
About 5 minutes, I'm hyped been waiting for this for months.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 07:54 pm
Typically these news reels do not have sound. Only some of them do.

I keep getting startled by the same rocket exhaust sound that starts up suddenly every once in a while :).

Seems we are now in a holding pattern for the start of the live broadcast though.  Even though we think we know what is going to happen (roughly) I am on the edge of my seat.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Hauerg on 09/16/2014 07:57 pm
Expect 60:40 split in favour of Boeing.  ::)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: CriX on 09/16/2014 07:58 pm
http://www.ustream.tv/nasahdtv

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 08:00 pm
And we're started!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 09/16/2014 08:01 pm
Expect 60:40 split in favour of Boeing.  ::)

Each company will get what they bid after negotiations regardless of the amount. The amount of the award has nothing to do with which company is preferred.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 08:05 pm
Each company will get what they bid after negotiations regardless of the amount. The amount of the award has nothing to do with which company is preferred.

Hopefully they make that clear in the press conference.  Even so I am sure there will be "1st place" and "2nd place" comments all over the place from news media that ought to know better.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 09/16/2014 08:08 pm
Total value is $6.8 billion over the whole contract.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 09/16/2014 08:08 pm
So there it is.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/16/2014 08:09 pm
Boeing and SpaceX it is!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 09/16/2014 08:11 pm
Why are we discussing Orion?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: NovaSilisko on 09/16/2014 08:11 pm
Good to finally know...

Hoping SNC can find another customer for Dream Chaser.


Do they really have to attempt to talk about how amazing SLS and Orion are at every press conference they ever make?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Citabria on 09/16/2014 08:11 pm
So it's Dragon and DreamKiller.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mfck on 09/16/2014 08:11 pm
Charlie is remarkably uneasy with what he says
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 09/16/2014 08:12 pm

Why are we discussing Orion?

Yes he seems to be off at a tangent at the moment.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 08:12 pm
From the update thread:
Quote
Casey Dreier ‏@CaseyDreier 4m
NASA press release: Boeing gets $4.2B. SpaceX gets $2.6B.

Yeah... that pretty much says it all  ::)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 08:12 pm
So it's Dragon and DreamKiller.

Nonsense.  The loser was pipe dream
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Norm38 on 09/16/2014 08:12 pm
See, that right there is a Boeing cost overrun.  SpaceX doesn't need the US Navy to fish Dragon out of the ocean.  Why does Boeing for Orion/CST-100?

Edit:  My error, I thought Boeing was also building Orion and the two were a common platform.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 08:13 pm
Sounds like Orion won??  :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 09/16/2014 08:13 pm
Trying to sell something no one cares about Orion?

This is CC.
Title: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 09/16/2014 08:13 pm
Oh he's getting back on topic.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Hauerg on 09/16/2014 08:14 pm
From the update thread:
Quote
Casey Dreier ‏@CaseyDreier 4m
NASA press release: Boeing gets $4.2B. SpaceX gets $2.6B.

Yeah... that pretty much says it all  ::)

SO 60:40 was not such a bad estimate at all.  ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 08:14 pm
See, that right there is a Boeing cost overrun.  SpaceX doesn't need the US Navy to fish Dragon out of the ocean.  Why does Boeing?

Can we quit this nonsense and sour grapes?

Anyways, he was talking about Orion
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/16/2014 08:14 pm
From the update thread:
Quote
Casey Dreier ‏@CaseyDreier 4m
NASA press release: Boeing gets $4.2B. SpaceX gets $2.6B.

Yeah... that pretty much says it all  ::)

Yep. Paper milestones are expensive. Hardware milestones are even more so. ;)

I am bummed for the Dreamchaser folks, though. I was hoping for SpaceX & SNC.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 08:14 pm
Now that we actually have numbers, how many flights is that for?  Will be very interesting to calculate the price per seat...

(Yes, I know, not apples to apples, because it includes development cost.  Still).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/16/2014 08:16 pm
Sounds like Orion won??  :)

Yeah.  I thought this was about Commercial Crew not SLS/Orion and some un-funded dream about MARS. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/16/2014 08:19 pm
So any bets on who gets to ISS first with there vehicle? 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 09/16/2014 08:19 pm
Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: kirghizstan on 09/16/2014 08:20 pm
$4.2B at 6 flights of 4 is $175M per seat
$2.6B at 6 flights of 4 is $108M per seat
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robert Thompson on 09/16/2014 08:21 pm
Dream Chaser, I had and have thought that you belong to a future with extremely frequent LEO traffic, and where the options in LEO are so broad that it requires the options of large cross range. Right now, up and down gets it done. I.e., what answers "trampoline". Answering that foundational issue is paramount. imo we'll cul8r.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: newpylong on 09/16/2014 08:21 pm
Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.

I wish I had a block of chedder to go with all the wine.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 09/16/2014 08:21 pm
I worry about that "the same vigorous safety standards" phrase they keep using.

And I wonder if there will be manned missions without any NASA astronauts taking place before all these reviews are finished.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mfck on 09/16/2014 08:24 pm
They all seem like they wanna go home...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/16/2014 08:24 pm
I worry about that "the same vigorous safety standards" phrase they keep using.

And I wonder if there will be manned missions without any NASA astronauts taking place before all these reviews are finished.

I noted the discussion about making the Capsule's as safe as the Shuttle.  Well I hope the Capsules are safer than the Shuttle.  They at least have a better abort scenario than the Shuttle. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/16/2014 08:24 pm
Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.

I wish I had a block of chedder to go with all the wine.

To go with the whine, or the whine about the whining? ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 09/16/2014 08:25 pm
I wonder what research needed for BEO missions can now be completed on board ISS, that they could not do before due to not having enough people on board.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 08:25 pm
So does this mean the contracts are now signed?  I assume so.

Looks like we'll have to wait for more details to come out, I really want to see the reports on how the selections were made.

Q&A time!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/16/2014 08:27 pm
So it's Dragon and DreamKiller.

Nonsense.  The loser was pipe dream

Perhaps this is a conversation for another time, but I'd be curious to know why.  And I wonder if we'll still get to see the OTV be completed and flown.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robert Thompson on 09/16/2014 08:28 pm
Aside from cross range, what options now get postponed? I heard someone say, validly I thought, that cross range allowed pinpoint landing of time-sensitive science specimens. Any others?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: veblen on 09/16/2014 08:29 pm
Selection process people not the folks making the announcement.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 08:29 pm
$4.2 billion Boeing.  $2.6 billion SpaceX.  Includes development, certification, one crewed demo flight, and two to six missions.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Hauerg on 09/16/2014 08:30 pm
The contract includes $$ for "special studies".
Ha!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 09/16/2014 08:32 pm
Selection process people not the folks making the announcement.

These senior NASA managers seem awfully out of touch with what is really going on,
like who made the decisions and using what criteria.  Bolden in particular spouts whatever
talking point gets triggered by some keyword in the question.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Silmfeanor on 09/16/2014 08:32 pm
$4.2 billion Boeing.  $2.6 billion SpaceX.  Includes development, certification, one crewed demo flight, and two to six missions.

Well, there we see the difference between SpaceX and Boeing - SpaceX is about 1.6 billion dollar cheaper for the same result.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: CriX on 09/16/2014 08:33 pm
Why does Boeing get more?  Her answer further supported the confusing nature of the reward.  I sure wish SpaceX had an extra billion to throw at the BFR / MCT.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 09/16/2014 08:34 pm
Selection process people not the folks making the announcement.

These senior NASA managers seem awfully out of touch with what is really going on,
like who made the decisions and using what criteria.  Bolden in particular spouts whatever
talking point gets triggered by some keyword in the question.

They're not. As they said at the outset, they are not going to comment on the specifics. That selection criteria and data will be provided later.

This is just a public announcement of information passed to the winners and losers earlier today.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 08:34 pm
Why does Boeing get more?  Her answer further supported the confusing nature of the reward.  I sure wish SpaceX had an extra billion to throw at the BFR / MCT.

Because they asked for/required more.  It's really that simple.

What would be interesting to know is what SNC would have required if they had been awarded a contract.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Celebrimbor on 09/16/2014 08:34 pm
I don't get it... what's the 60:40 split then?  How is this fair to SpaceX if the requirements are the same?  I'm trying to watch but my connection is bad...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Celebrimbor on 09/16/2014 08:35 pm
Why does Boeing get more?  Her answer further supported the confusing nature of the reward.  I sure wish SpaceX had an extra billion to throw at the BFR / MCT.

Because they asked for/required more.  It's really that simple.

What would be interesting to know is what SNC would have required if they had been awarded a contract.

maybe they just required nothing ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Norm38 on 09/16/2014 08:36 pm
I lost video after the question about funding from Congress.  Was that question answered or dodged?  Are these award amounts fully funded, or dependent on future money?  Meaning the project can be cancelled?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/16/2014 08:36 pm
I don't get it... what's the 60:40 split then?  How is this fair to SpaceX if the requirements are the same?  I'm trying to watch but my connection is bad...

SpaceX just bid lower.  NASA didn't set the amount the companies bidding did. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 08:36 pm
I'm going to guess that some of the extra Boeing funding is needed for launch vehicle work - dual Centaur certification and so on.  SpaceX presumably already has the launch vehicle.  Also, Boeing still has a production space to create while SpaceX already has a factory running, and so on.  Remember that SpaceX has a head start on all this thanks to ISS cargo - a contract that has paid them billions already.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Silmfeanor on 09/16/2014 08:36 pm
I don't get it... what's the 60:40 split then?  How is this fair to SpaceX if the requirements are the same?  I'm trying to watch but my connection is bad...

SpaceX just bid lower.  NASA didn't set the amount the companies bidding did.

1.6 billion lower. For the same result.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ugordan on 09/16/2014 08:37 pm
Good thing SNC didn't get anything out of that $7 billion pie. Must be a really nice day at the Boeing camp, though...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/16/2014 08:37 pm
I lost video after the question about funding from Congress.  Was that question answered or dodged?  Are these award amounts fully funded, or dependent on future money?  Meaning the project can be cancelled?

I would conjucture that Congress could cut funding at any time.  So yes the project can be canceled. 
Title: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 09/16/2014 08:37 pm
Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.

I never quite some people's issue with Boeing tbh, maybe I am missing something.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jeff Lerner on 09/16/2014 08:38 pm
So if both companies said they can satisfy the requirements, but SpaceX said they can do at a far cheaper cost, why didn't they win the whole award ?.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 08:39 pm
I'm going to guess that some of the extra Boeing funding is needed for launch vehicle work - dual Centaur certification and so on.  SpaceX presumably already has the launch vehicle.  Also, Boeing still has a production space to create, and so on.

Also pad abort test, in-flight abort test, creation of actual flight articles for structural testing, etc etc.  In other words, the stuff we have already discussed to death about where SpaceX is ahead of Boeing coming out of CCiCAP.  (With the caveat that they aren't done with CCiCAP where Boeing is.  They're still ahead though).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/16/2014 08:39 pm
I don't get it... what's the 60:40 split then?  How is this fair to SpaceX if the requirements are the same?  I'm trying to watch but my connection is bad...

SpaceX just bid lower.  NASA didn't set the amount the companies bidding did.

1.6 billion lower. For the same result.

Yes 1.6 Billion for the same result.  Look at the Orbital and SpaceX contract for Commercial Cargo.  SpaceX bid lower than Orbital and has the ability to return cargo to Earth. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/16/2014 08:40 pm
What would be interesting to know is what SNC would have required if they had been awarded a contract.

Likely it would have been more than what Boeing asked for, which would have played into the overall decision as to who to pick for the second provider (i.e. Boeing or Sierra Nevada).  Sierra Nevada likely also had the most risk associated with their proposal, even though Boeing hasn't built any hardware, but Boeings design is conservative.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/16/2014 08:40 pm
So if both companies said they can satisfy the requirements, but SpaceX said they can do at a far cheaper cost, why didn't they win the whole award ?.

Because they wanted to two providers for crew delivery to the ISS.  So two separate launch vehicles and spacecraft.  In case one has a issue you, your access to space isn't cut off. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 08:42 pm
1.6 billion lower. For the same result.
SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO.  That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JimNtexas on 09/16/2014 08:42 pm
This is good for SpaceX, if there is a budget cut and they have to downselect it would be malfeasance to discontinue SpaceX.  Assuming both companies have successful demo flights on budget and schedule. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 09/16/2014 08:42 pm
To the target is to be ready to fly by 2017 -  ie December 31st 2017. that's basically 2 and bit years from now. I think SpaceX can do it but can Boeing? They have a lot more to do and therefore have more risk.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 08:43 pm
Likely it would have been more than what Boeing asked for, which would have played into the overall decision as to who to pick for the second provider (i.e. Boeing or Sierra Nevada).  Sierra Nevada likely also had the most risk associated with their proposal, even though Boeing hasn't built any hardware, but Boeings design is conservative.

I'm not so sure SNC would have required more.  I agree they were higher risk and I think that was the determining factor.  And I can't shake the feeling that coming out with Boeing getting the biggest share of the pie doesn't also give NASA a better feeling when they go with their hat out to Congress for the money to fund this program.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 09/16/2014 08:43 pm
I look at this as 'we', spaceflight enthusiasts, get 2.6 billion to get 'us' closer to Mars while Boeing, stock holders, get 4.2 billion to get back to LEO. YMMV of course.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 09/16/2014 08:43 pm
The contract includes $$ for "special studies".
Ha!

that is code for "when the ISS or CCP changes the requirements, this is how we pay for them since it is a fixed cost contract"
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Celebrimbor on 09/16/2014 08:44 pm
So if both companies said they can satisfy the requirements, but SpaceX said they can do at a far cheaper cost, why didn't they win the whole award ?.

umm because then it wouldn't be cheaper?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: nadreck on 09/16/2014 08:45 pm
So if both companies said they can satisfy the requirements, but SpaceX said they can do at a far cheaper cost, why didn't they win the whole award ?.

They both won the whole award. This isn't a prize for coming in first, it is a contract to deliver a whole bunch of specific things. SpaceX may even make more margin on their $2.6B than Boeing with their $4.2B. 

However I am interested in the extra studies funding, and now what Boeing and SpaceX reveal about the details of what they have bid to do. Which, while they both are offering to meet the same NASA requirements they are committing to other things that have to do with what their proposals differ on in terms of precursor developments and milestones.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 08:46 pm
SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO.  That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?

Er, no.  $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).

Let's please not try and handwave this away.  Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Pete on 09/16/2014 08:47 pm
Well, I think this whole decision stinks. Hopefully one day a commission will expose all the backroom dealing that went on, and those responsible will be held to account.

I look forward to reading the selection documentation once it's been re-written to fit today's selection.

>:( :(
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Celebrimbor on 09/16/2014 08:47 pm
I look at this as 'we', spaceflight enthusiasts, get 2.6 billion to get 'us' closer to Mars while Boeing, stock holders, get 4.2 billion to get back to LEO. YMMV of course.

That's looking on the bright side.  Spacex are still big winners here...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: happyflower on 09/16/2014 08:48 pm
This was a bit confusing for me.  ???

Now if NASA wants to keep Boeing for whatever reason (insert your idea here - they dont want trouble with Congress where Boeing has strong congressional backing, Boeing in some circles is a better choice because they have done so much with NASA already, they met the milestones better, etc...), then why not Boeing and SNC? That gives you the capsule and also something different with a winged aircraft (more landing options, lower g's for injured astronauts, etc...)?

Both Boeing and SpaceX are sort of the same capsule design, why not have some different functionality built in for the NASA contracts.

Putting SpaceX in there with Boeing is going to confuse many people like myself who are in this just for the joy of spaceflight but are not in the industry so dont have the know how. To me as a business man why wouldn't I pay less for more with SpaceX rather than Boeing? They are further along, cheaper, and have some actual hardware versus Boeing who is still only on paper hardware.

Is it all fear of congress?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robert Thompson on 09/16/2014 08:48 pm
I look at this as 'we', spaceflight enthusiasts, get 2.6 billion to get 'us' closer to Mars while Boeing, stock holders, get 4.2 billion to get back to LEO. YMMV of course.

Boeing can do what is good for the species if there is a market, by the species. As an example of silver lining, people can more easily associate quality aerospace manufacture and assured travel with the Boeing logo on a orbital vehicle than they will with a radical visionary known for aiming at Mars. Volume public awareness that there exists space, to begin with, and that space stations exist, and that humans go to space and come back, is one good I see coming out of Boeing being involved.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: CraigLieb on 09/16/2014 08:49 pm
While SpaceX develops their engines and rockets from basic metal,
Boeing is at the whim of the Russians to buy engines. 

What if Russia raises the price they charge on those engines significantly?
Does Boeing have to eat the increased costs?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 08:49 pm
That's looking on the bright side.  Spacex are still big winners here...

Quoted for truth.  SpaceX won their bid.  Can everyone take a moment and reflect on that?

By the way: congratulations to to the teams at Boeing and SpaceX that have had their hard work validated in these contract awards.  And condolences to the team at SNC, who (shame on you NASA) didn't even warrant a mention that I could tell.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 09/16/2014 08:49 pm
So here is what we learned during the Orion/SLS conference:

BA and SpaceX each get to move on to test flights. BA cost way more, and NASA is obsessed with safety.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Hauerg on 09/16/2014 08:50 pm
This was a bit confusing for me.  ???

Now if NASA wants to keep Boeing for whatever reason (insert your idea here - they dont want trouble with Congress where Boeing has strong congressional backing, Boeing in some circles is a better choice because they have done so much with NASA already, they met the milestones better, etc...), then why not Boeing and SNC? That gives you the capsule and also something different with a winged aircraft (more landing options, lower g's for injured astronauts, etc...)?

Both Boeing and SpaceX are sort of the same capsule design, why not have some different functionality built in for the NASA contracts.

Putting SpaceX in there with Boeing is going to confuse many people like myself who are in this just for the joy of spaceflight but are not in the industry so dont have the know how. To me as a business man why wouldn't I pay less for more with SpaceX rather than Boeing? They are further along, cheaper, and have some actual hardware versus Boeing who is still only on paper hardware.

Is it all fear of congress?

Boeing + SNC both on the Ruski Atlas 5 ? That would have been too much.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: aquanaut99 on 09/16/2014 08:51 pm
I agree they were higher risk and I think that was the determining factor.  And I can't shake the feeling that coming out with Boeing getting the biggest share of the pie doesn't also give NASA a better feeling when they go with their hat out to Congress for the money to fund this program.

This. Probably the main reason for selecting Boeing. They have the most pull in Congress. With SpaceX second in that department. Don't be fooled, this is purely a political decision; technical merit didn't really matter.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 08:51 pm
SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO.  That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?

Er, no.  $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).

Let's please not try and handwave this away.  Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.
SpaceX won $278 million for COTS and $1.6 billion for CRS.  They used that money in part to develop the basic Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1, the factory and test facilities.  That groundwork is directly applied now to Commercial Crew.  It is a well funded head start not given Boeing's CST-100, which is why Boeing needs more money now.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Todd Martin on 09/16/2014 08:51 pm
The Press Release Conference had some issues:

1) Bolden can't be bothered to spend more than 5 minutes answering questions?  Has a plane to catch?  This is one of the most important announcements of his career and he decides it isn't that important.
2) Bolden can't stay on topic.  He spends at least half of his time talking about Orion instead of the topic at hand.
3) No one is on the Conference is directly involved with the selection process.  So, you have no idea why SpaceX & Boeing was selected over SNC.

I did not hear (maybe I missed it with the webfeed cutting out) saying one positive thing about SNC & Dreamchaser.

This was an unprofessional press release through and through.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Celebrimbor on 09/16/2014 08:52 pm
SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO.  That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?

Er, no.  $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).

Let's please not try and handwave this away.  Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.

That will be determined once the 6 flights have run out... what then?  Operational contracts? That's when we set the real prices.  Not to mention, a lot can happen in 6 flights...

Spacex need to prove they are cheap, not cheap and nasty.  This is their chance to do just that. I wish both companies good fortune
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 09/16/2014 08:53 pm
I agree they were higher risk and I think that was the determining factor.  And I can't shake the feeling that coming out with Boeing getting the biggest share of the pie doesn't also give NASA a better feeling when they go with their hat out to Congress for the money to fund this program.

This. Probably the main reason for selecting Boeing. They have the most pull in Congress. With SpaceX second in that department. Don't be fooled, this is purely a political decision; technical merit didn't really matter.
SNC had LM as a major contractor. Anything thinking they didn't have a similar level of lobbying is kidding themselves.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ugordan on 09/16/2014 08:53 pm
Well, I think this whole decision stinks.

I don't know if the decision was made with or without political involvement, but it does leave a weird taste in my mouth. I think I need to watch an Atlas launch to wash it out...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Helodriver on 09/16/2014 08:53 pm
That "special studies" award amount, I wonder if Boeing can put that money toward qualifying a new US engine for Atlas V. Nice way of getting NASA to bail ULA out of a jam if that's what happens.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 09/16/2014 08:54 pm
I wonder if SNC is going to continue with the Dreamchaser or just close up house on it?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: DanielW on 09/16/2014 08:54 pm
I am happy for the boeing engineers that put so much into this. I am less impressed with their management's risk aversion. But I don't own stock so hey. Anyway, this decision probably does give the lowest risk of assuring access to space. If Atlas is unable to fly then CST100 should be able to be lifted by falcon 9. This was not quite the case with Dream chaser I believe.

I am sad to see SNC miss out, but two capsules still counts as dissimilar since outer mold line similarity is not going to ground both craft.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 09/16/2014 08:54 pm
SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO.  That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?

Er, no.  $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).

Let's please not try and handwave this away.  Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.
SpaceX won $278 million for COTS and $1.6 billion for CRS.  They used that money in part to develop the basic Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1, the factory and test facilities.  That groundwork is directly applied now to Commercial Crew.

 - Ed Kyle
Exactly Ed, and I think a decent portion of the 2.6B today will be used for things other than getting a human rated vehicle to the ISS
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 09/16/2014 08:54 pm
I don't get it... what's the 60:40 split then?  How is this fair to SpaceX if the requirements are the same?  I'm trying to watch but my connection is bad...

I haven't read the last two pages to see if someone has answered this already, but this is just the way this type of government contracting works. Each team is given a set of requirements, they put together a technical and cost proposal, and if they win, they only get what they asked for. If SpaceX only need $2.6B to get to those results, and Boeing needed $4.2B, that's what they're given. NASA can't just give more money to one or the other because they like one more than the other, or to be "fair".

This wouldn't be the first time Elon's bid less and gotten less on a contract (see DARPA FALCON SLV back in 2003/3004 or the first round of CRS awards).

~Jon
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 09/16/2014 08:55 pm
I agree they were higher risk and I think that was the determining factor.  And I can't shake the feeling that coming out with Boeing getting the biggest share of the pie doesn't also give NASA a better feeling when they go with their hat out to Congress for the money to fund this program.

This. Probably the main reason for selecting Boeing. They have the most pull in Congress. With SpaceX second in that department. Don't be fooled, this is purely a political decision; technical merit didn't really matter.

Boeing and SpaceX were selected because their proposals most closely aligned with NASA's goals for the program - period. I would much rather have seen SNC than Boeing but that's the way it goes in the commercial world. There are winning proposals and there are loosing proposals. SNC lost because Boeing's and SpaceX's proposals were better based on the selection criteria. What those criteria are remains to be seen, but to insinuate that the technical merits of the proposals were completely overridden by political concerns is, well, naive.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Celebrimbor on 09/16/2014 08:55 pm
...

I did not hear (maybe I missed it with the webfeed cutting out) saying one positive thing about SNC & DreamChaser

...

Yeah that oversight came across as a bit rude to me.  Justified?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Norm38 on 09/16/2014 08:55 pm
Both Boeing and SpaceX are sort of the same capsule design, why not have some different functionality built in for the NASA contracts.

Boeing will have the traditional abort tower and parachute splash down, while SpaceX is going for the propulsive landing (though not at first).  So NASA is getting two different technology sets.  Tried and true, and new thinking.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 08:56 pm
SpaceX won $278 million for COTS and $1.6 billion for CRS.  They used that money in part to develop the basic Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1, the factory and test facilities.  That groundwork is directly applied now to Commercial Crew.  It is a well funded head start not given Boeing's CST-100, which is why Boeing needs more money now.

SpaceX won close to $400 million for COTS (there was a secondary award).  CRS was a contract they made a profit on, so what?  Boeing makes profits on all kinds of things that aren't counted as CST-100 development.

No, it was $400 million, and I think you're trying too hard here.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/16/2014 08:56 pm
Well like I said a month or more back not to Boeing out just yet. ;) Lowest tech risk to get the job done, kind of like my fridge and about as inspiring... Curious about how much Russia’s machinations played into this...I can’t believe I rushed home for this...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robert Thompson on 09/16/2014 08:56 pm
To me as a business man why wouldn't I pay less for more with SpaceX rather than Boeing? They are further along, cheaper, and have some actual hardware versus Boeing who is still only on paper hardware. Is it all fear of congress?

I had to be reminded of X-37B, an inoculant to suspicion that Boeing could not readily pull off a capsule. Of course X-37B is not human rated.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 09/16/2014 08:57 pm
Not unless they have potential customers. Too much work left and too much cost without the prospect of a paying customer. I am gutted for them as they were one of my favorites but I always figured Boeing would get in ahead of them.

Sell it to the Europeans? Nice platform, lot's of development work already done. Mind you, where would it go to?

I wonder if SNC is going to continue with the Dreamchaser or just close up house on it?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/16/2014 08:57 pm
I wonder if SNC is going to continue with the Dreamchaser or just close up house on it?

I suspect Dreamchaser will die a slow, drawn-out death.  SNC will talk about how they'll continue the program but at a much slower pace.  Over time, little progress will be made, and in a few years it will be formally cancelled.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Kryten on 09/16/2014 08:58 pm
I wonder if SNC is going to continue with the Dreamchaser or just close up house on it?

I suspect Dreamchaser will die a slow, drawn-out death.  SNC will talk about how they'll continue the program but at a much slower pace.  Over time, little progress will be made, and in a few years it will be formally cancelled.
Liberty 2.0?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: strangequark on 09/16/2014 09:00 pm
SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO.  That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?

Er, no.  $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).

Let's please not try and handwave this away.  Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.
SpaceX won $278 million for COTS and $1.6 billion for CRS.  They used that money in part to develop the basic Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1, the factory and test facilities.  That groundwork is directly applied now to Commercial Crew.  It is a well funded head start not given Boeing's CST-100, which is why Boeing needs more money now.

 - Ed Kyle

If you wanna pull in that money though, you should account for the money paid to LMCO to develop Atlas V. What's good for the goose...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: deadman719 on 09/16/2014 09:02 pm
Having dealt with Mr. B for the past few years, I'd say it's safe to say they will not meet schedule or cost milestones.  This decision ruined a beautiful thing.

(at least this is my opinion)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AncientU on 09/16/2014 09:03 pm
Did we actually get any information on what launch vehicles the two capsules are going to use?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 09/16/2014 09:04 pm
Did we actually get any information on what launch vehicles the two capsules are going to use?
Not in the announcement but is known already.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Hauerg on 09/16/2014 09:06 pm
Having dealt with Mr. B for the past few years, I'd say it's safe to say they will not meet schedule or cost milestones.  ...


I couldn't care less. As long as they are not taking away money from SpaceX to give it to B.
But they wouldn't dare. Would they.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/16/2014 09:09 pm
The Press Release Conference had some issues:

1) Bolden can't be bothered to spend more than 5 minutes answering questions?  Has a plane to catch?  This is one of the most important announcements of his career and he decides it isn't that important.
2) Bolden can't stay on topic.  He spends at least half of his time talking about Orion instead of the topic at hand.
3) No one is on the Conference is directly involved with the selection process.  So, you have no idea why SpaceX & Boeing was selected over SNC.

I did not hear (maybe I missed it with the webfeed cutting out) saying one positive thing about SNC & Dreamchaser.

This was an unprofessional press release through and through.

I read this somewhat differently.

This event was choreographed for Congress. The idea was to say what the Congress wanted to hear, with the choices appropriate to make, for incorporation into a CR.

That's why things were said here. Among others, Bolden did what he was asked to do.

Now whether it matters is another matter. But I believe the idea  was to take as many issues away from the CR as possible.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/16/2014 09:12 pm
Having dealt with Mr. B for the past few years, I'd say it's safe to say they will not meet schedule or cost milestones.  This decision ruined a beautiful thing.

(at least this is my opinion)

I think it will be interesting if SpaceX meets all cost schedules and has the Dragon crew capsule ready to fly before 2017 and Boeing has to ask for extra time beyond 2017. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 09/16/2014 09:14 pm
Having dealt with Mr. B for the past few years, I'd say it's safe to say they will not meet schedule or cost milestones.  This decision ruined a beautiful thing.

(at least this is my opinion)

I think it will be interesting if SpaceX meets all cost schedules and has the Dragon crew capsule ready to fly before 2017 and Boeing has to ask for extra time beyond 2017.

Would be even more interesting if the opposite happens.....(unlikely, but who knows?)  ::)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: DanielW on 09/16/2014 09:14 pm
Having dealt with Mr. B for the past few years, I'd say it's safe to say they will not meet schedule or cost milestones.  This decision ruined a beautiful thing.

(at least this is my opinion)

I think it will be interesting if SpaceX meets all cost schedules and has the Dragon crew capsule ready to fly before 2017 and Boeing has to ask for extra time beyond 2017.

And even more interesting if they both come in on time and under budget. Let's not forget that we are paying people to take us to space! Rah rah to the people taking us to space!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 09:17 pm
To cover all bases, it will suck if both are late and over-budget.

Of course, the likeliest result is that Congress will continue to under-fund Commercial Crew as compared to NASA's requests and they will both be late...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Malderi on 09/16/2014 09:17 pm
Just a quick note: without the rest of the documentation, we have no idea where the split is in the difference between SpaceX's and Boeing's numbers. It's totally possible that they both are the same per-flight/seat costs, but Boeing requires more development money. Or they both require the same development money but Boeing is more expensive on a per-seat basis, or Boeing is exactly the same on both but the extra difference is because of Atlas V launch costs (and potentially cost risk associated with a re-engined first stage). Or maybe they're both at the same costs but Boeing will have a significantly higher profit margin!

Won't know any of that until the docs are released, so speculating about how it's all Boeing bloat or whatever is fairly premature.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 09/16/2014 09:18 pm
There was a mention about trying to open LEO up to more people, ie non-NASA, with this so called commercial crew. Well we know BA just priced themselves out of that domain. You either buy Soyuz or Dragon.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: king1999 on 09/16/2014 09:18 pm
SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO.  That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?

Er, no.  $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).

Let's please not try and handwave this away.  Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.
SpaceX won $278 million for COTS and $1.6 billion for CRS.  They used that money in part to develop the basic Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1, the factory and test facilities.  That groundwork is directly applied now to Commercial Crew.  It is a well funded head start not given Boeing's CST-100, which is why Boeing needs more money now.

 - Ed Kyle

This is nonsense, considering Boeing got all the money for previous space programs, including the cancelled Constellation, in the billions. The CST-100 is obvious related to the Orion, for example. You can't count one without counting the other.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 09/16/2014 09:18 pm
I wonder if SNC is going to continue with the Dreamchaser or just close up house on it?

I suspect Dreamchaser will die a slow, drawn-out death.  SNC will talk about how they'll continue the program but at a much slower pace.  Over time, little progress will be made, and in a few years it will be formally cancelled.

Actually, did a bit of research.  Don't think that's actually likley afterall.  The Japanese and Euopeans are VERY interested in the Dream Chaser.  JAXA is a ctually one of their partners.  So without NASA to compete with, I think that this bird may fly sooner rather than later or never.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: darkenfast on 09/16/2014 09:21 pm
4.2 billion for Boeing and 2.6 billion for SpaceX to do the same thing.  Pretty much sums up Oldspace vs Newspace.  Business as usual.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/16/2014 09:22 pm
@JasonAW3,

Dreamchaser flying on Ariane-5 or -6? It's not a bad dream to have.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: deskpro590 on 09/16/2014 09:25 pm
Well for one, I'm excited that we have a decision.  Would have been neat to see DreamChaser, but I think Boeing and SpaceX will do well.  I'm tired of us hitching rides on Soyuz.  2017 can't get here fast enough!  Congrats to SpaceX and Boeing!  Murica! :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: theonlyspace on 09/16/2014 09:29 pm
Very strange..Dream chaser has flowwn their protype with more flights soon,,,They have the orbital vehicle half built..All Space X has is a mock up.and Boeing just mock up also. Yet NASA  thinks they can fly sooner JUST  more wasteful thinking backward thinking.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 09/16/2014 09:29 pm
Boeing is going to get extremely bad press over costing nearly double the cost of SpaceX. I can't really describe how pis*ed I am about how much more money they're getting. Boeing has a digital spacecraft with no hardware built. Rather than a flying spacecraft on one side and a flying prototype on the other.

I'm hoping that justice is served somehow at some point in the future. This is nearly criminal.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: king1999 on 09/16/2014 09:30 pm
Very strange..Dream chaser has flowwn their protype with more flights soon,,,They have the orbital vehicle half built..All Space X has is a mock up.and Boeing just mock up also. Yet NASA  thinks they can fly sooner JUST  more wasteful thinking backward thinking.
SpaceX showed real flight hardware, not mock-up.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/16/2014 09:33 pm
Very strange..Dream chaser has flowwn their protype with more flights soon,,,They have the orbital vehicle half built..All Space X has is a mock up.and Boeing just mock up also. Yet NASA  thinks they can fly sooner JUST  more wasteful thinking backward thinking.

Did you miss the Dragon Capsulev1 going to the ISS?  The SpaceX Crew Dragon is built on the technology being proven by current Dragon Capsule.  Also I suspect the Dream Chaser bid was to use the Atlas-V rocket which is the same as Boeing's Capsule.  By going with SpaceX they two different launch vehicles. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Helodriver on 09/16/2014 09:34 pm
Very strange..Dream chaser has flowwn their protype with more flights soon,,,They have the orbital vehicle half built..All Space X has is a mock up.and Boeing just mock up also. Yet NASA  thinks they can fly sooner JUST  more wasteful thinking backward thinking.
SpaceX showed real flight hardware, not mock-up.

Ditto. I was there and had quality hands on time. Its real.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr_magoo on 09/16/2014 09:36 pm
I find it a bit odd that the WSJ and Forbes are touting Boeing winning the "prize" when really they are just providing the same service and charging the government more.    I thought that ideologically... oh nevermind.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: deskpro590 on 09/16/2014 09:37 pm
On Bolden bringing up Orion, I can see that as intended for Congress.  I think the general public will confuse CTS-100 with Orion though......
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 09/16/2014 09:41 pm
It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.

Not very surprising, sad to say.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: saliva_sweet on 09/16/2014 09:43 pm
I, personally, am disgusted by what I heard during the announcement and the teleconference. Not because SpaceX got less (I'm biased for SpaceX, I'm aware of that), they did fine. But how SNC got massively screwed over by corruption. Massive award to Boeing without justification given or about to be given in the near future. Probably some kind of rationale will be made public in the future, focusing on safety and the ETA crash no doubt), but that will likely be a sad joke.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 09/16/2014 09:43 pm
That "special studies" award amount, I wonder if Boeing can put that money toward qualifying a new US engine for Atlas V. Nice way of getting NASA to bail ULA out of a jam if that's what happens.

From the RFP (Amendment 1), "Special Studies" include the following types of activities - there is an overall $150m cap.

B.5 SPECIAL STUDIES SERVICES (IDIQ) (CLIN 003)

In accordance with Attachment J-03, Contract Performance Work Statement, the task ordering procedures and other terms and conditions in the contract, the Contractor shall perform special studies, test and analyses, as initiated by written direction from the Contracting Officer.  IDIQ tasks may include performing technical, cost, schedule and risk assessments for potential new or changes to existing requirements, as identified by the Government, for their impact on the Contractor’s design, schedule and cost/price as it relates to CCtCap or life cycle activities; performing additional analyses, modeling, and/or tests of hardware or software to provide further confidence and understanding of robustness of design and advance planning, feasibility or trade studies for development or certification activities.  These IDIQ tasks do not include any work necessary to accomplish the requirements under CLIN 001 and CLIN 002.  The Contractor shall utilize the fully burdened labor rates shown in Table B.5.1, Special Studies Labor Rates when proposing to a Government Request for Task Order Proposal.  The maximum potential total value of all Special Studies IDIQ tasks which may be ordered under this contract is $150 million.

Notes:

CLIN - Contract Line Item Number

• CLIN 001 Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (DDTE)/Certification (Core Contract)
• CLIN 002 Post Certification Missions
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: DanielW on 09/16/2014 09:43 pm
On Bolden bringing up Orion, I can see that as intended for Congress.  I think the general public will confuse CTS-100 with Orion though......

Funny you should say that. A friend of mine is an engineer on the 787 and he confuses CTS-100 with Orion. Or did until I set him straight.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: nadreck on 09/16/2014 09:44 pm
So, we have confirmation that as far as NASA can actually fund it, SpaceX and Boeing both get to go the distance.

I expect press releases from both companies with some more details on their plans. However, the special studies do interest me and I think that these may well be "targets of opportunity" to certify other aspects of the plans that weren't  part of the actual RFP. Such as a CST-100 on some other launcher, ditto with Dragon, conducting a manned mission for NASA with a different target than ISS, being the lifecraft of the ISS and ISS + or ISS successor.

We know that SpaceX has plans of their own for human activity in space that are different from NASA's and both companies would, I am sure, welcome other opportunities to launch manned missions for other parties.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 09/16/2014 09:48 pm
It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.

Not very surprising, sad to say.

Yes, it seems the collective personality of this site has become rather ... different, as of late.  I can understand having a fan favorite, but I feel we've collectively forgotten why we came here in the first place.

I, personally, am disgusted by what I heard during the announcement and the teleconference. Not because SpaceX got less (I'm biased for SpaceX, I'm aware of that), they did fine. But how SNC got massively screwed over by corruption. Massive award to Boeing without justification given or about to be given in the near future. Probably some kind of rationale will be made public in the future, focusing on safety and the ETA crash no doubt), but that will likely be a sad joke.

Just as I predicted, according to the crowd here, if Boeing wins, it can't possibly be on the merits of their proposal -- it could only be corruption (based on... what exactly?).  The amazing peopleism and sour grapes are truly disgusting.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: brokndodge on 09/16/2014 09:48 pm
Did anyone listen in on the teleconference?  I thought I heard Kathy Lueders say that there were FAR regulations involved.  Does that mean that this is a FAR contract rather than SAA? 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 09/16/2014 09:49 pm
So it's Dragon and DreamKiller.

Nonsense.  The loser was pipe dream

Substantiate this with specific details as to why. Convince me. You're usually right, but it doesn't help us understand unless reasoning is outlined.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 09/16/2014 09:50 pm
It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.

Not very surprising, sad to say.

Yes, it seems the collective personality of this site has become rather ... different, as of late.  I can understand having a fan favorite, but I feel we've collectively forgotten why we came here in the first place.

I, personally, am disgusted by what I heard during the announcement and the teleconference. Not because SpaceX got less (I'm biased for SpaceX, I'm aware of that), they did fine. But how SNC got massively screwed over by corruption. Massive award to Boeing without justification given or about to be given in the near future. Probably some kind of rationale will be made public in the future, focusing on safety and the ETA crash no doubt), but that will likely be a sad joke.

Just as I predicted, according to the crowd here, if Boeing wins, it can't possibly be on the merits of their proposal -- it could only be corruption (based on... what exactly?).  The amazing peopleism and sour grapes are truly disgusting.

Winning on merits is ONLY valid at equivalent price levels. If you cost 1.5x as much and are 1.5x "better" does it actually show anything?

Actually, if you cost 1.5x and meet the same requirements doesn't that mean you are fundamentally worse? At my company we buy expensive products from our suppliers, but if a different supplier supplies an equivalent product at 60% the cost?... we'd drop our original supplier at the drop of the hat. That is Boeing here, right now.

Maybe Dream Chaser costed even more?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 09:51 pm
oeing has underperformed throughout this entire process by any objective measure except for the paper milestones they defined for themselves, while consistently winning the highest contract awards, which just goes to show how exceptionally talented they are at the peculiar game of government contracting.


How do you know that?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Alpha Control on 09/16/2014 09:51 pm
Very disappointed for DreamChaser and  SNC.  :(

I surely hope that ESA and JAXA will want to step up. But that path is also a long and expensive road to travel, that their budgets may not support.  *sigh*.

Heading off to the Consolation Thread Bar for those pints now.....
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nibb31 on 09/16/2014 09:52 pm
Winning on merits is ONLY valid at equivalent price levels. If you cost 1.5x as much and are 1.5x "better" does it actually show anything?

We don't know the price that SNC was asking for. For all we know, they might have been more expensive than Boeing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 09/16/2014 09:53 pm
Winning on merits is ONLY valid at equivalent price levels. If you cost 1.5x as much and are 1.5x "better" does it actually show anything?

We don't know the price that SNC was asking for. For all we know, they might have been more expensive than Boeing.

Yeah I just edited my post to mention that.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: deskpro590 on 09/16/2014 09:55 pm
Silly question here.  Will the Capsules (CTS-100 and Dragon) get named as the Orbiters were? 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/16/2014 09:56 pm
If one is going to complain, the least you can do is make the complaint accurate.

Boeing is "rear loading" the budget for its CST-100.

Major prime's have somewhat of a history of doing this, and Congress accepts this as SOP.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 09/16/2014 09:57 pm
Winning on merits is ONLY valid at equivalent price levels. If you cost 1.5x as much and are 1.5x "better" does it actually show anything?

I reject that notion.  Do you only compare cars on their merits if they cost the same?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 09/16/2014 09:58 pm
Winning on merits is ONLY valid at equivalent price levels. If you cost 1.5x as much and are 1.5x "better" does it actually show anything?

I reject that notion.  Do you only compare cars on their merits if they cost the same?

Yes, of course! What else would (could) you compare them on? Emotion?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 09:59 pm

I predict that before CST-100's first manned flight, Boeing will be at least 100% over budget - and NASA will pay the difference plus full incentives.

I don't think that's fair. I doubt they will be double their bid. But I would expect overruns. That's their MO, after all. And I would expect that NASA will go to Congress and get the money and pay because what choice will they have?


Come on, it is a FFP, there are no overruns.

If you guys are going to bitch, at least pick a legitimate issue.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 09/16/2014 10:00 pm
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1? ;)

I hope none. No one should realistically think they wouldn't be a good pick.

But no one should think that Boeing can't deliver either.

Given enough money anything can be done if it's physically possible. And there's no new tech in their design so clearly it's physically possible. But money... there's the rub. They are likely to be the most expensive based on what I've seen so far.

I predict that before CST-100's first manned flight, Boeing will be at least 100% over budget - and NASA will pay the difference plus full incentives.

I don't think that's fair. I doubt they will be double their bid. But I would expect overruns. That's their MO, after all. And I would expect that NASA will go to Congress and get the money and pay because what choice will they have?
.

Come on, it is a FFP, there are no overruns.

Is Boeing funding ULA out of pocket for the modifications needed for Atlas V to launch their vehicle?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 10:01 pm

Is Boeing funding ULA out of pocket for the modifications needed for Atlas V to launch their vehicle?

Who else is going to do it?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: robertross on 09/16/2014 10:01 pm
Extremely disappointed that SNC didn't get in, but the most important thing of all is that they finally HAVE made a decision, and the ISS can now get the domestic crew transportation services it so desperately needs.

I personally believe there were some political strings pulled, but such is life & the nature of the beast. Likely no way to prove it (or change it if it does come out someday), so we have to move on. I hope SNC can get contracts to keep DreamChaser alive.

A huge congrats out to SpaceX, and to Boeing.

One note on the follow-on contracts for actual flights. One never knows what can happen - the ISS could suffer a terminal failure, or Russia becomes problematic beyond reason, or the US goes bankrupt - who knows.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 10:02 pm

While that was true of CCiCAP, I thought CCtCAP was going to be a FAR contract?  Aren't the rules a little different in that case?

FAR does not mean strictly cost plus.  CRS and NLS are FAR FFP.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JAFO on 09/16/2014 10:02 pm
"Space Industrial Complex". 'nuff said.



Just like Direct became the bloated SLS, this decision shows Nay-Say is still thinking it's 1965. I hope JAX and others fund Dream Chaser and is launching in 2016 while Boeing is funding another study to study a previous study.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Borklund on 09/16/2014 10:02 pm

Is Boeing funding ULA out of pocket for the modifications needed for Atlas V to launch their vehicle?

Who else is going to do it?
Taxpayers?  ::)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr_magoo on 09/16/2014 10:03 pm
Congratulations to Boeing and SpaceX.   May everything go smoothly.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 10:03 pm

At what point in the process does development cease and 'competition' kick in? If the final cost of one option is significantly less expensive than another, as everyone suspects, at what point does this provide NASA leverage in negotiations?

The competition has already happened, this is the result.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: saliva_sweet on 09/16/2014 10:06 pm
I, personally, am disgusted by what I heard during the announcement and the teleconference. Not because SpaceX got less (I'm biased for SpaceX, I'm aware of that), they did fine. But how SNC got massively screwed over by corruption. Massive award to Boeing without justification given or about to be given in the near future. Probably some kind of rationale will be made public in the future, focusing on safety and the ETA crash no doubt), but that will likely be a sad joke.

Just as I predicted, according to the crowd here, if Boeing wins, it can't possibly be on the merits of their proposal -- it could only be corruption (based on... what exactly?).  The amazing peopleism and sour grapes are truly disgusting.

Sure, you can go ahead and call me the amazing people crowd and my thought process disgusting or resort to other ad homs as you like. But what I'm not liking is what I heard on the teleconference. The reasons for the awards are not about to be released, the delay between when the decision was made and the announcement and the huge award going to Boeing all of a sudden. And this quote from another apparently disgusting amazing people:

At least Boeing will be able to afford the bonuses for their roaming hoards of lobbyists that worked their magic over the last few weeks.

I feel like resigning today. Money buys you money.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35654.msg1256457#msg1256457
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 09/16/2014 10:07 pm

At what point in the process does development cease and 'competition' kick in? If the final cost of one option is significantly less expensive than another, as everyone suspects, at what point does this provide NASA leverage in negotiations?

The competition has already happened, this is the result.
now the "real" competition begins.
 I for one can not wait to see who launches first and what the achieve with the big money they are being given.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 10:09 pm

Yep. Paper milestones are expensive. Hardware milestones are even more so. ;)


What paper milestones?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35485.msg1248462#msg1248462
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/16/2014 10:09 pm
Just as I predicted, according to the crowd here, if Boeing wins, it can't possibly be on the merits of their proposal -- it could only be corruption (based on... what exactly?).  The amazing peopleism and sour grapes are truly disgusting.

One person is not a crowd, so don't make sweeping condemnations.

As for myself, I have great faith that the selection committee was not influenced by politics, but followed their non-biased selection criteria.

But it's pretty obvious that Boeing is not even close to a competitor to SpaceX from a price standpoint, even though they had the more conservative capsule design.  And the logic all along has been that if NASA had the choice (i.e. enough money), that it would go with SpaceX for a capsule, and then Sierra Nevada because it was a better alternative to a capsule (i.e. lower g-forces, better cross-range capabilities, etc.).  But I think money was a limiting factor, and so we got Boeing as the second choice.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: punder on 09/16/2014 10:10 pm
Going beyond sour grapes about how much bigger Boeing's award was than SpaceX's...

SpaceX submitted a bid based on what they think they require to finish a manned space launch system.  And today, they got what they asked for.  I imagine they are cheering and pressing ahead, not griping about the relative size of the award.

That must be pretty exciting.  "We just nailed a $2.6B contract to fly people in space.  We don't have to slow down.  We're on our way."
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 09/16/2014 10:10 pm

At what point in the process does development cease and 'competition' kick in? If the final cost of one option is significantly less expensive than another, as everyone suspects, at what point does this provide NASA leverage in negotiations?

The competition has already happened, this is the result.

NASA is a government entity. It takes them a long time (decades) to learn to do things differently. They've only half figured out what "commercial" is so far. Give them a few more decades.

If it was true commercial I'd have all the companies make a full prototype product on their own dime and demonstrate it to me independently. I'd then discard all the companies except the best two. I'd proclaim a single company winner based on meeting the requirements and what they charge me to do it. I might keep a backup company to switch to if I had hard time deadlines for the case that there was an issue with the winner. I wouldn't pay both at full rate and I'd nominally only have one supplier. If there was issues with either they have to pay out of their own pocket to fix whatever the issue is or lose the contract.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: robertross on 09/16/2014 10:10 pm

At what point in the process does development cease and 'competition' kick in? If the final cost of one option is significantly less expensive than another, as everyone suspects, at what point does this provide NASA leverage in negotiations?

The competition has already happened, this is the result.
now the "real" competition begins.
 I for one can not wait to see who launches first and what the achieve with the big money they are being given.

They'll both launch their vehicles, I have no doubt of that.

Who launches first is meaningless really. It's who successfull reaches the ISS and lands safely afterwards - that's the true measure of success.

Another success is the small shot in the arm for the US economy & industry.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 10:10 pm
The contract includes $$ for "special studies".
Ha!

Every contract does
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 10:12 pm
Why does Boeing get more?  Her answer further supported the confusing nature of the reward.  I sure wish SpaceX had an extra billion to throw at the BFR / MCT.

NASA has no need for a BFR / MCT.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 09/16/2014 10:12 pm
Was never a DC fan but one can't help but wonder what SNC could've done with $4.2 Billion
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: SWGlassPit on 09/16/2014 10:13 pm
One person is not a crowd, so don't make sweeping condemnations.

The quoted post is by no means the only one.  Plenty of accusations and innuendo exist in this and several other threads, some from rather surprising people.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: CriX on 09/16/2014 10:13 pm
In the end, there will be three vehicles (including Orion) that can deliver crew to the ISS. 

I think the question that dglow is asking is how the individual prices of these competitors will factor into which one NASA uses, post 2017.  Would we expect them to use each equally to spread things out?  Or would NASA be required to use the lowest cost provider that meets their needs?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/16/2014 10:14 pm

Is Boeing funding ULA out of pocket for the modifications needed for Atlas V to launch their vehicle?

Who else is going to do it?
Taxpayers?  ::)

Yes taxpayers, but through what funding mechanism?  CCtCap is the funding mechanism to do that, so Boeing would have included the modifications and certifications in their proposal.  Sierra Nevada would have also.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 10:14 pm
Well, I think this whole decision stinks. Hopefully one day a commission will expose all the backroom dealing that went on, and those responsible will be held to account.

I look forward to reading the selection documentation once it's been re-written to fit today's selection.

>:( :(

What data are you basing  that accusation on?  You are actually saying that a crime was done.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 10:15 pm
While SpaceX develops their engines and rockets from basic metal,
Boeing is at the whim of the Russians to buy engines. 

What if Russia raises the price they charge on those engines significantly?
Does Boeing have to eat the increased costs?

Yes, but they aren't going to increase.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Poole Amateur on 09/16/2014 10:15 pm
I am one of your greatest fans Jim, but on this occasion the cynic in me tends to think of Winston Churchill. "There's lies, damned lies and statistics"

I hope, really hope, that I am indeed wrong and you are right..

Please forgive lack of quote from update thread, am using an iPod and don't know how to do it!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: DGH on 09/16/2014 10:16 pm
SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO.  That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?

Er, no.  $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).

Let's please not try and handwave this away.  Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.
SpaceX won $278 million for COTS and $1.6 billion for CRS.  They used that money in part to develop the basic Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1, the factory and test facilities.  That groundwork is directly applied now to Commercial Crew.  It is a well funded head start not given Boeing's CST-100, which is why Boeing needs more money now.

 - Ed Kyle

NASA also gets a new unmanned cargo delivery system on top of the manned system for that money.
So they are actually getting two systems from Boeing for the money.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: nadreck on 09/16/2014 10:18 pm
Going beyond sour grapes about how much bigger Boeing's award was than SpaceX's...

SpaceX submitted a bid based on what they think they require to finish a manned space launch system.  And today, they got what they asked for.  I imagine they are cheering and pressing ahead, not griping about the relative size of the award.

That must be pretty exciting.  "We just nailed a $2.6B contract to fly people in space.  We don't have to slow down.  We're on our way."

They bid what they wanted to bid guessing how much more than they expected it would actually cost the client would pay. As did Boeing. Given that SpaceX has grown tremendously, that the task is more complex due to both the higher standards that NASA gives manned operations reliability and meeting the different requirements of this RFP over the various stages getting to the COTS final product, yes it will cost more. But implicit in this process is the fact that they have to include profit margin in the bid, not provide estimates, impeccable cost accounting and then are paid a percentage above and beyond that. They take risk, but hand in hand with risk goes reward and I would be willing to make a small wager that SpaceX ends up with more margin at the end of the day than Boeing, however Boeing will have greased more palms, fed more families, and elected more municipal, state and federal officials with their money.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 10:18 pm

3) No one is on the Conference is directly involved with the selection process.  So, you have no idea why SpaceX & Boeing was selected over SNC.


They never do, and I don't know what you expected to hear.  They just announce the winners and the cost, that is all in these press conferences.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 10:18 pm
If it was true commercial I'd have all the companies make a full prototype product on their own dime and demonstrate it to me independently.

Congratulations, you just ended up with zero companies bidding for your services.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: R7 on 09/16/2014 10:18 pm
And the logic all along has been that if NASA had the choice (i.e. enough money), that it would go with SpaceX for a capsule, and then Sierra Nevada because it was a better alternative to a capsule (i.e. lower g-forces, better cross-range capabilities, etc.).  But I think money was a limiting factor, and so we got Boeing as the second choice.

Or someone at NASA realized they don't really need lower g-forces nor larger cross-range capabilities?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 10:19 pm
That "special studies" award amount, I wonder if Boeing can put that money toward qualifying a new US engine for Atlas V. Nice way of getting NASA to bail ULA out of a jam if that's what happens.

nonsense.  Special studies are small amounts. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Paul_G on 09/16/2014 10:21 pm
The BBC News site have an article that barely mentions SpaceX winning anything here, and that is was Boeing all the way.

BBC News - Nasa backs Boeing's astronaut crew ship design http://bbc.in/ZosY0y

I'm normally an advocate of the BBC but this article just seems skewed.

Paul
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 09/16/2014 10:22 pm
If it was true commercial I'd have all the companies make a full prototype product on their own dime and demonstrate it to me independently.

Congratulations, you just ended up with zero companies bidding for your services.

Which is almost the point I was trying to make. Pure commercial can't work here. I'm pretty sure we could go more commercial than we are though. It's barely "commercial" as it is.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/16/2014 10:22 pm

They bid what they wanted to bid guessing how much more than they expected it would actually cost the client would pay. As did Boeing. Given that SpaceX has grown tremendously, that the task is more complex due to both the higher standards that NASA gives manned operations reliability and meeting the different requirements of this RFP over the various stages getting to the COTS final product, yes it will cost more. But implicit in this process is the fact that they have to include profit margin in the bid, not provide estimates, impeccable cost accounting and then are paid a percentage above and beyond that. They take risk, but hand in hand with risk goes reward and I would be willing to make a small wager that SpaceX ends up with more margin at the end of the day than Boeing, however Boeing will have greased more palms, fed more families, and elected more municipal, state and federal officials with their money.

Why would they be paid a % above and beyond that?  I thought part of the Fixed price contracts is that the companies bid on the contract and if the costs come in lower while they meet all the customers requirements then the private company pockets the extra money?  This is the incentive to do the job well. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/16/2014 10:22 pm
In the end, there will be three vehicles (including Orion) that can deliver crew to the ISS. 

I think the question that dglow is asking is how the individual prices of these competitors will factor into which one NASA uses, post 2017.  Would we expect them to use each equally to spread things out?  Or would NASA be required to use the lowest cost provider that meets their needs?

NASA has no plans to use Orion for ferrying crew to/from the ISS.

As to how many flights each provider is assigned, from what I remember from the press conference that has not been determined yet.  But the possibility exists that one provider could be asked to fly more than another.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 10:22 pm

Boeing will have the traditional abort tower .

No, it won't.  It will use the service module propulsion for aborts.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: nadreck on 09/16/2014 10:24 pm

They bid what they wanted to bid guessing how much more than they expected it would actually cost the client would pay. As did Boeing. Given that SpaceX has grown tremendously, that the task is more complex due to both the higher standards that NASA gives manned operations reliability and meeting the different requirements of this RFP over the various stages getting to the COTS final product, yes it will cost more. But implicit in this process is the fact that they have to include profit margin in the bid, not provide estimates, impeccable cost accounting and then are paid a percentage above and beyond that. They take risk, but hand in hand with risk goes reward and I would be willing to make a small wager that SpaceX ends up with more margin at the end of the day than Boeing, however Boeing will have greased more palms, fed more families, and elected more municipal, state and federal officials with their money.

Why would they be paid a % above and beyond that?  I thought part of the Fixed price contracts is that the companies bid on the contract and if the costs come in lower while they meet all the customers requirements then the private company pockets the extra money?  This is the incentive to do the job well.

I am saying they won't be paid a percentage above and beyond that, I am saying this is a contract for profit, not cost plus.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: zd4 on 09/16/2014 10:25 pm
From what I was reading around, this is great news for SpaceX, probably the most they could have asked for. If the budget is to be cut NASA would have no choice but to stick with its more traditional and well proven contractor, Boeing.
Lets hope that NASA gets the money it needs so that NASA won't be forced to choose. As a SpaceX fan I certainly wouldn't want them to.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 10:25 pm
Actually, did a bit of research.  Don't think that's actually likley afterall.  The Japanese and Euopeans are VERY interested in the Dream Chaser.  JAXA is a ctually one of their partners.  So without NASA to compete with, I think that this bird may fly sooner rather than later or never.

Not anymore since NASA pulled out.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 10:27 pm
Boeing is going to get extremely bad press over costing nearly double the cost of SpaceX. I can't really describe how pis*ed I am about how much more money they're getting. Boeing has a digital spacecraft with no hardware built. Rather than a flying spacecraft on one side and a flying prototype on the other.

I'm hoping that justice is served somehow at some point in the future. This is nearly criminal.

Nonsense.  What crime what done?   Do you know what the selection criteria was or what is takes to build a spacecraft vs a cubesat?

Like like a whole lot of digital here

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/16/2014 10:28 pm
And the logic all along has been that if NASA had the choice (i.e. enough money), that it would go with SpaceX for a capsule, and then Sierra Nevada because it was a better alternative to a capsule (i.e. lower g-forces, better cross-range capabilities, etc.).  But I think money was a limiting factor, and so we got Boeing as the second choice.

Or someone at NASA realized they don't really need lower g-forces nor larger cross-range capabilities?

All things being equal, of course they would - remember how many times weather was a factor for the Shuttle returning, and capsules have fewer options.  But I would suspect that Sierra Nevada's bid was either higher than Boeing's or was deemed more risky than Boeing's.  Or both.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/16/2014 10:29 pm
So Andy Pasztor was right.... :o
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 10:30 pm
I, personally, am disgusted by what I heard during the announcement and the teleconference. Not because SpaceX got less (I'm biased for SpaceX, I'm aware of that), they did fine. But how SNC got massively screwed over by corruption.

What corruption?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/16/2014 10:30 pm
Winning on merits is ONLY valid at equivalent price levels. If you cost 1.5x as much and are 1.5x "better" does it actually show anything?

Actually, if you cost 1.5x and meet the same requirements doesn't that mean you are fundamentally worse? At my company we buy expensive products from our suppliers, but if a different supplier supplies an equivalent product at 60% the cost?... we'd drop our original supplier at the drop of the hat. That is Boeing here, right now.

Maybe Dream Chaser costed even more?


I would look at the same way a company might look at Internet Providers.  A large company wanting maximum redundancy in a Data Center for Internet Connectivity might have multiple providers pull in cable into a DataCenter and provide connectivity.  One company might be lower than the other but I am not going to go with a single company because of my need for redundancy across providers. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/16/2014 10:31 pm
Which is almost the point I was trying to make. Pure commercial can't work here. I'm pretty sure we could go more commercial than we are though. It's barely "commercial" as it is.

It's a huge step from NASA building it with cost-plus contracting.  I think you're underselling what a big difference it is, personally.

I don't want to drag the other rocket and capsule into this, but the difference between the approaches is clear.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 09/16/2014 10:36 pm
Which is almost the point I was trying to make. Pure commercial can't work here. I'm pretty sure we could go more commercial than we are though. It's barely "commercial" as it is.

It's a huge step from NASA building it with cost-plus contracting.  I think you're underselling what a big difference it is, personally.

I don't want to drag the other rocket and capsule into this, but the difference between the approaches is clear.

I'm not denying that. Government moves slow so getting them to move at all is huge. In government terms this is probably the most drastic change in operation I've ever seen in my lifetime (25 years), at least for CRS. We still have to see for commercial crew.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: topsphere on 09/16/2014 10:39 pm
The only good thing I can draw from the selection of CST 100 is that it will help support Bigelow and (probably) Blue Origin, that is despite a portion of the money going to Washington lobbyists and the Boeing machine.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 09/16/2014 10:41 pm
The only good thing I can draw from the selection of CST 100 is that it will help support Bigelow and (probably) Blue Origin, that is despite a portion of the money going to Washington lobbyists and the Boeing machine.

I doubt Bigelow has vested interest in Boeing. They're going to go with whoever is the most reliable and cheapest (with those two factors multipled together).

Blue Origin is another story though. I honestly am rather annoyed with BO now. They've turned into a patent troll. I really hope they can still do engineering though. I guess we'll find out.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/16/2014 10:41 pm
Good thing is there are no show stoppers to extending commercial crew to lunar return or even greater.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: James54 on 09/16/2014 10:43 pm
I’m trying to view this announcement with a big picture outlook. Despite the perceived bias or not in the decision, the fact is the U.S. now has 3 (counting Orion) manned spacecraft in various stages of construction and testing. It is exciting for space enthusiasts like us to view the progress as each reaches various milestones.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 09/16/2014 10:43 pm
I don't know about anyone else, but my faith in NASA and government contracting is restored!

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: zd4 on 09/16/2014 10:44 pm
I realized there was a bit of a reality distortion field going on here at the forums (Apple / Steve Jobs reference intended), when I saw that poll where around 80%+ said SpaceX will most likely win the contract. Boeing wasn't even second!

Companies like Boeing, Lockheed are doing this kind of stuff for decades. Lobbyists aside, think about what that means for the relationship between NASA and people at these companies. And how they have learned to work together, to get things done by NASA's requirements, on time and on budget. SpaceX is a newcomer. In 5  - 10 years if SpaceX is still alive and kicking (which I certainly hope it will), it too will have formed such a relationship, and learned how to work well to NASA's requirements and expectations.

As for the contract, this is actually a huge vote of confidence for SpaceX, the fact NASA gave them a contract on equal grounds with Boeing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JimNtexas on 09/16/2014 10:45 pm
I was involved in awarding contracts when I was in the Air Force.  IIRC, we did debrief the bidders on the findings of the source selection panel and gave them reasons why we selected who we selected.  These findings were not public, and we had to be careful not to share proprietary information from one bidder to the next.

If NASA works like the Air Force, then the selection was made by a panel and then whoever convened the panel (probably General Bolden in this case) either approves the selection or sends it back for a do over.
Title: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 09/16/2014 10:46 pm
It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.

Not very surprising, sad to say.

Keyboard warrior mentality in full effect.

Quite annoying the way people like running Boeing down ignoring the fact they employ just as many skilled individuals as everyone else, but of course it can't be their efforts it has to be a fix or something of the ilk.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: topsphere on 09/16/2014 10:46 pm
The only good thing I can draw from the selection of CST 100 is that it will help support Bigelow and (probably) Blue Origin, that is despite a portion of the money going to Washington lobbyists and the Boeing machine.

I doubt Bigelow has vested interest in Boeing. They're going to go with whoever is the most reliable and cheapest (with those two factors multipled together).

Blue Origin is another story though. I honestly am rather annoyed with BO now. They've turned into a patent troll. I really hope they can still do engineering though. I guess we'll find out.

Bigelow is 'partnering' with Boeing on CST 100. If that's not a vested interest I don't know what is.

Yeah extent of BO's involvement depends on announcement tomorrow.

Edit - correction
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 09/16/2014 10:49 pm
Bigelow is developing CST 100 alongside Boeing. If that's not a vested interest I don't know what is.

Do you have a source? That's the first I've heard of that. I've been out of the loop lately so I likely have obviously missed it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Citabria on 09/16/2014 10:53 pm
So America needs three new capsules?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: deskpro590 on 09/16/2014 11:00 pm
My post regarding naming of capsules gets deleted, but the posts slamming Boeing don't?  Got it.

Well Congrats to Boeing and SpaceX on being selected.  Looking forward to 2017!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: topsphere on 09/16/2014 11:00 pm
Bigelow is developing CST 100 alongside Boeing. If that's not a vested interest I don't know what is.

Do you have a source? That's the first I've heard of that. I've been out of the loop lately so I likely have obviously missed it.

I don't really mean developing,  sorry wrong word. Bigelow do appear to be very closely linked to the success of the CST100 though : "Bigelow has been partnering with Boeing on the CST-100 program for several years".
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2538/1

Several other things on the interwebz
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: R7 on 09/16/2014 11:03 pm
My post regarding naming of capsules gets deleted, but the posts slamming Boeing don't?  Got it.

Newspace wings lost to oldspace capsule. Something must be demonized!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/16/2014 11:08 pm
Do they really have to attempt to talk about how amazing SLS and Orion are at every press conference they ever make?

They do if they want the SLS juggernaut in Congress not to stomp on Commercial Crew.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mspacek on 09/16/2014 11:08 pm

For one, you don't have to go to the "Launch America" press conference and defend launching on Russian engines...

That isn't an issue, just FUD.

You're really taking your curmudgeonly persona to new extremes. Tomorrow's apparent announcement that Blue Origin will be building a replacement engine for Atlas V shows that yes, it is an issue, and not, it's not just FUD:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/16/nasa-awards-space-contract-to-boeing-and-spacex/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 09/16/2014 11:12 pm
Can anyone say Cost Plus.

There's no cost plus here.

Boeing just gets a crazy motherlode of money of a fixed amount.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 11:14 pm
SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO.  That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?

Er, no.  $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).

Let's please not try and handwave this away.  Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.
SpaceX won $278 million for COTS and $1.6 billion for CRS.  They used that money in part to develop the basic Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1, the factory and test facilities.  That groundwork is directly applied now to Commercial Crew.  It is a well funded head start not given Boeing's CST-100, which is why Boeing needs more money now.

 - Ed Kyle
This is nonsense, considering Boeing got all the money for previous space programs, including the cancelled Constellation, in the billions. The CST-100 is obvious related to the Orion, for example. You can't count one without counting the other.
Constellation has completely different requirements, different tooling, different factories, different launch sites, etc.   Boeing is building SLS rocket stages, not spacecraft.  One does not apply to the other.  SpaceX already has Hawthorne building Falcons and Dragons and McGregor testing the rockets, and all of those also served COTS/CRS.  Boeing has an empty shell of a building at KSC that needs to be tooled up for CST-100, and needs to fund some launch vehicle mods.  They are playing catch up, which is why, in large part, they asked for more money.  Kudos to SpaceX for leveraging their existing assets, much like Korolev did with R-7/Zenit/Voskhod.  And kudos to Boeing for proposing a safe, conservative design that met NASA's requirements.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: punder on 09/16/2014 11:17 pm

For one, you don't have to go to the "Launch America" press conference and defend launching on Russian engines...

That isn't an issue, just FUD.



You're really taking your curmudgeonly persona to new extremes. Tomorrow's apparent announcement that Blue Origin will be building a replacement engine for Atlas V shows that yes, it is an issue, and not, it's not just FUD:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/16/nasa-awards-space-contract-to-boeing-and-spacex/

It is pretty amazing that aerospace giants Boeing and Lockheed, in the form of ULA, will contract a startup with no orbital spaceflight experience to build a new engine for national-asset Atlas V.  Am I reading that correctly?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 09/16/2014 11:18 pm
The BBC News site have an article that barely mentions SpaceX winning anything here, and that is was Boeing all the way.

BBC News - Nasa backs Boeing's astronaut crew ship design http://bbc.in/ZosY0y (http://bbc.in/ZosY0y)

I'm normally an advocate of the BBC but this article just seems skewed.

Paul

BBC article analyzed by paragraphs relating to each company:

8  Boeing
7  SpaceX
2  Both SpaceX and Boeing
3  SNC
11 None of the front runners
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/16/2014 11:18 pm
I'm very happy Crew Dragon is being funded.

The sad thing, though, is that it's a victory just for SpaceX to get the smaller piece (after Boeing for CST-100/Atlas V) of the smaller piece (after Lockheed Martin, ATK, Huntsville, etc. for Orion/SLS).  Just think how many flights we could be doing for all that money on Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Dragon V2.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Norm38 on 09/16/2014 11:22 pm

Newspace wings lost to oldspace capsule. Something must be demonized!

Newspace wings??  I'm 38 and a winged spacecraft is the only American manned vehicle I have ever known.

Capsule with chutes landing is old space.

Wings is midlife crisis space.

Vertical landing capsule is new space.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 11:27 pm

You're really taking your curmudgeonly persona to new extremes.

It isn't curmudgeonly, I just don't care for the thinking that anything that is not Spacex must be bad. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/16/2014 11:30 pm
Let's remember that SpaceX and Boeing are both good companies.  I think it is great that SpaceX has come so far in so short of time that they are getting contracts on equal footing with Boeing.  It was only 10-years ago that people thought that SpaceX was some type of Musk fantasy.  I say congrats to both companies and I fully expect that SpaceX will be getting there Capsule to ISS before Boeing's capsule and the US flag to be brought back down to Earth from the ISS will be coming back down in a SpaceX Dragon Capsule. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: SirThoreth on 09/16/2014 11:40 pm
Bigelow is developing CST 100 alongside Boeing. If that's not a vested interest I don't know what is.

Do you have a source? That's the first I've heard of that. I've been out of the loop lately so I likely have obviously missed it.

I've heard quite a bit about it, but here's a sample from a quick search:

http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/2010/06/bigelow-aerospace-joins-the-commercial-spaceflight-federation/

Quote
“Moreover,” Bigelow added, “we’re extremely pleased to be part of the Boeing team constructing the CST-100 capsule under the auspices of NASA’s own Commercial Crew Development program.  Boeing’s unparalleled heritage and experience, combined with Bigelow Aerospace’s entrepreneurial spirit and desire to keep costs low, represents the best of both established and new space companies.  The product of this relationship, the CST-100 capsule, will represent the safest, most reliable, and most cost-effective spacecraft ever to fly.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/16/2014 11:42 pm
Bigelow was a Boeing subcontractor 4 years ago, what of it?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mspacek on 09/16/2014 11:46 pm
Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.

Please do enlighten those of us in our armchairs... that's what a forum like this is well-suited for.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2014 11:49 pm
Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.

Please do enlighten those of us in our armchairs... that's what a forum like this is well-suited for.

First, don't make statements bashing one contractor just because your anointed one didn't get selected.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: punder on 09/16/2014 11:52 pm
I said "It is pretty amazing that aerospace giants Boeing and Lockheed, in the form of ULA, will contract a startup with no orbital spaceflight experience to build a new engine for national-asset Atlas V.  Am I reading that correctly?"

Thinking a little more clearly, BO obviously will be a seriously junior partner in any collaboration with ULA--more like the relationship of Bigelow to Boeing wrt CST-100.  BO probably has some ideas, patented tech, or personnel that ULA likes, or perhaps they like the added political clout of Bezos himself.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: butters on 09/16/2014 11:54 pm
I said "It is pretty amazing that aerospace giants Boeing and Lockheed, in the form of ULA, will contract a startup with no orbital spaceflight experience to build a new engine for national-asset Atlas V.  Am I reading that correctly?"

Thinking a little more clearly, BO obviously will be a seriously junior partner in any collaboration with ULA--more like the relationship of Bigelow to Boeing wrt CST-100.  BO probably has some ideas, patented tech, or personnel that ULA likes, or perhaps they like the added political clout of Bezos himself.

ULA also worked with XCOR on an "RL-10 replacement". No guarantees that any of this stuff ever flies.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: CapitalistOppressor on 09/16/2014 11:56 pm
So if both companies said they can satisfy the requirements, but SpaceX said they can do at a far cheaper cost, why didn't they win the whole award ?.

They both won the whole award. This isn't a prize for coming in first, it is a contract to deliver a whole bunch of specific things. SpaceX may even make more margin on their $2.6B than Boeing with their $4.2B. 

However I am interested in the extra studies funding, and now what Boeing and SpaceX reveal about the details of what they have bid to do. Which, while they both are offering to meet the same NASA requirements they are committing to other things that have to do with what their proposals differ on in terms of precursor developments and milestones.

This actually seems quite likely to me.  Boeing just has a lot more that it has to do in order to put people into space, while SpaceX seems to be much closer to the finish line.  SpaceX really did get a headstart thanks to their commercial cargo effort.

That, plus the fact that their cost structure appears somewhat lower makes me think that their margins on this contract could be quite large.  Moreso when you consider the possibility of F9R 1st stage being re-used.

In contrast, I would speculate that Boeing is keeping their margins on the development program as low as possible so they can remain at least semi-competitive for the follow on crew contract.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Karlman on 09/17/2014 12:02 am
So this means SpaceX is funded to develop from 3 to 7 Dragon v2 crew modules? (Test flight, plus 2 to 6 ISS flights).

That should be a nice stockpile slightly used Dragons that can be used for other manned launches, assuming SpaceX can get even 2 or 3 flights out of each one, let alone if they meet the 10x re-use goal on some (probably too optimistic for the first batch of crewed dragon).

If nothing else, they should have all the hardware they need to test and eventually prove-out re-usability of the Dragon v2!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: brokndodge on 09/17/2014 12:12 am
Quote
Thinking a little more clearly, BO obviously will be a seriously junior partner in any collaboration with ULA--more like the relationship of Bigelow to Boeing wrt CST-100.  BO probably has some ideas, patented tech, or personnel that ULA likes, or perhaps they like the added political clout of Bezos himself.

Bezos also owns The Washington Post.  Possibly some back scratching for a favorable light in the news media?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AJW on 09/17/2014 12:12 am
Congratulations to both Boeing and SpaceX on their winning bids, and my condolences to Sierra Nevada.  I wish that there were enough funds for all three competitors.

It really looks like we are entering an era where new competition is accelerating development.  The news that Ariane may move more quickly towards '6' is an indicator of this along with tomorrow's expected announcement from BO.  I just wish this could have started about 30 years earlier.

Looking forward to the next decade or two of bickering and name calling.  Just don't forget that funding could still be our common enemy.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/17/2014 12:20 am
Firstly, stupid posts should not be made. Stupid posts should be reported. People should not then quote stupid posts and say "that's a stupid post". That's twice the amount of work to repair the thread.

Come on people, this is a space flight site, not a One Direction forum.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: DaveH62 on 09/17/2014 12:22 am
Why aren't we excited. The meme is very negative, but the reality is we have a new space race. A space race for the first time in almost 50 years. It should not be about who got more money, but who is going to build a better ship, who is going to be first, who is going to build a sustainable, more than LEO, more than NASA passenger business model.

Sure SNC would have been great, but this is the safe technical and political path and we have two American competitors that could be fighting for contracts for the next 20 years. With 20 years of competition we have an opportunity to advance our space capabilities more than the last 45.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spacetraveler on 09/17/2014 12:30 am
Why aren't we excited. The meme is very negative, but the reality is we have a new space race. A space race for the first time in almost 50 years. It should not be about who got more money, but who is going to build a better ship, who is going to be first, who is going to build a sustainable, more than LEO, more than NASA passenger business model.

Sure SNC would have been great, but this is the safe technical and political path and we have two American competitors that could be fighting for contracts for the next 20 years. With 20 years of competition we have an opportunity to advance our space capabilities more than the last 45.

Not exactly. First of all I don't think Boeing is interested in building a "more than LEO" passenger business model. They made it pretty clear that they were only interested in developing their capsule for the NASA station crew use case. Second, it's not really even a "race" to LEO since both companies are funded and will get a chance to obtain their launches, irrespective of the development path of the other.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: wes_wilson on 09/17/2014 12:31 am
Why aren't we excited. The meme is very negative, but the reality is we have a new space race. A space race for the first time in almost 50 years.

I couldn't agree more!  I'm thrilled that we are going to have not one but three different crewed space vehicles flying atop three different rockets.  No more single point of failure grounding the entire program for years at a time every time there's an accident.  It feels like we're actually intending to become a true spacefaring nation again.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: punder on 09/17/2014 12:31 am
Quote
Thinking a little more clearly, BO obviously will be a seriously junior partner in any collaboration with ULA--more like the relationship of Bigelow to Boeing wrt CST-100.  BO probably has some ideas, patented tech, or personnel that ULA likes, or perhaps they like the added political clout of Bezos himself.

Bezos also owns The Washington Post.  Possibly some back scratching for a favorable light in the news media?

All I'm saying is, every space company wants its own in-house ESVB (Eccentric Silicon Valley Billionaire)! 

"Mr. President, we must not allow... an ESVB gap!"  (from Dr. Strangelove, for those who are not classic-movie nuts)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 09/17/2014 12:40 am

Quote
Two little birds told me you have first hand ISS program knowledge, which is nice to know.  So you are saying that it's not a Commercial Crew provider issue, but an ISS scheduling issue that is outside of the control of the transportation providers?

Yes, ISS, and for that matter CCP.  Plus these schedules also appear to assume funding at the presidential request.

Quote
I'm not sure why it would matter to SpaceX if there is a second winner, unless you're assuming a split in the money will affect the schedule.  Could happen.  We'll know better once the award(s) are made and the schedules unveiled.

Because if you need NASA to review your products and NASA is too busy to review your products because they are also reviewing another companies products, you don't get there on the same schedule.  Note that this is not a case of a private company doing it on their own with NASA spot checking.  This will be NASA OVERSIGHT, for better or for worse.  SpaceX has not even begun to see how things are going to change.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: CapitalistOppressor on 09/17/2014 12:43 am
Lot of snippiness in this thread.  I really don't get the anti-Boeing sentiment (or the pro SNC sentiment for that matter).

This decision by NASA seems entirely logical.  They have a very firm requirement to get crew back into space on American launchers by 2017.  Going with a dual track effort provides a very high degree of assurance that they'll succeed in meeting the requirement. 

The amount they will pay for that mission assurance is doubtless going to be much less than the ~$6.8b award they announced, since that figure assumes a maximum award of 12 flights split between both contractors.  So assuming that the appropriations come through, this dual track structure is likely to be quite affordable (under $5b spent to get both into space?  The incremental cost per launch will be an interesting detail).

Going with Boeing makes a lot of sense because of their history.  There is a very high likelihood that they succeed, and given where they are in the development process, and the work they have to do (manrating Atlas V for instance) their $4.2b bid seems quite fair.

Going with SpaceX makes a lot of sense because of where they are, and what they are doing.  Many here in the forum probably think there is much more potential upside to the side projects that SpaceX seems to have going (me included), but they are clearly a riskier option than Boeing.  They seem to be much farther ahead, but there are many things that could trip them up (a failed abort test discovering a design flaw for instance).  If your only criteria is economics, then they are probably the clear winner, based on their low bid, and relatively high chance of success.  But "relatively high chance" is a pretty far cry from "mission assurance" at a time when relations with the Russians are shaky.

Going with SNC just seems like risk piled upon risk to me if my goal is to assure access to space for American crews.  This was a downselect waiting to happen considering the history of this program.  Why throw a long bomb if your only payback is cross range capability?  That's just my opinion obviously, but I just don't get it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/17/2014 12:44 am
Going with Boeing makes a lot of sense because of their history.  There is a very high likelihood that they succeed

Or get the project cancelled, walking away with the money and not having to produce anything.. as they've done countless times before.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: DaveH62 on 09/17/2014 12:45 am
Why aren't we excited. The meme is very negative, but the reality is we have a new space race. A space race for the first time in almost 50 years. It should not be about who got more money, but who is going to build a better ship, who is going to be first, who is going to build a sustainable, more than LEO, more than NASA passenger business model.

Sure SNC would have been great, but this is the safe technical and political path and we have two American competitors that could be fighting for contracts for the next 20 years. With 20 years of competition we have an opportunity to advance our space capabilities more than the last 45.

Not exactly. First of all I don't think Boeing is interested in building a "more than LEO" passenger business model. They made it pretty clear that they were only interested in developing their capsule for the NASA station crew use case. Second, it's not really even a "race" to LEO since both companies are funded and will get a chance to obtain their launches, irrespective of the development path of the other.

Glass half full, glass half empty. It's the first glass we've had in years.

*Correction, we have two glasses.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: robertross on 09/17/2014 12:48 am
Going with Boeing makes a lot of sense because of their history.  There is a very high likelihood that they succeed

Or get the project cancelled, walking away with the money and not having to produce anything.. as they've done countless times before.


well it's based on milestones, so if they walk away prematurely, they walk away from money
If NASA chooses SpaceX in the end, but Boeing have fullfilled their end of the contract, then that's the way the cookie crumbles
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/17/2014 12:49 am
Glass half full, glass half empty. It's the first glass we've had in years.

Well, it's a bartender promising to show up to work if you pay for his heart surgery. Also, there's no beer.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/17/2014 12:50 am
well it's based on milestones, so if they walk away prematurely, they walk away from money
If NASA chooses SpaceX in the end, but Boeing have fullfilled their end of the contract, then that's the way the cookie crumbles

Sounds like a great way to get free money. Hey, pay for the development of a new vehicle for us.. we'll do all the paperwork milestones but not build any actual hardware. Deal?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: DaveH62 on 09/17/2014 12:50 am
Glass half full, glass half empty. It's the first glass we've had in years.

Well, it's a bartender promising to show up to work if you pay for his heart surgery. Also, there's no beer.

No beer and too much whine.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: robertross on 09/17/2014 12:51 am
well it's based on milestones, so if they walk away prematurely, they walk away from money
If NASA chooses SpaceX in the end, but Boeing have fullfilled their end of the contract, then that's the way the cookie crumbles

Sounds like a great way to get free money. Hey, pay for the development of a new vehicle for us.. we'll do all the paperwork milestones but not build any actual hardware. Deal?


Huh?
It's not free money. You're saying the same thing for SpaceX then.
Have you seen the pressure capsule Boeing made? It's in this thread...

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/17/2014 12:52 am
On the question of why no more excitement from some of us, well, in my case it's quite simple: imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killed, while NASA chooses to use its limited resources to fund three different flavors of capsule designs. On a more abstract level, I think it reflects risk aversion and a lack of willingness to do new and interesting things. No longer are we the country that does things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AnalogMan on 09/17/2014 12:53 am
So this means SpaceX is funded to develop from 3 to 7 Dragon v2 crew modules? (Test flight, plus 2 to 6 ISS flights).

That should be a nice stockpile slightly used Dragons that can be used for other manned launches, assuming SpaceX can get even 2 or 3 flights out of each one, let alone if they meet the 10x re-use goal on some (probably too optimistic for the first batch of crewed dragon).

If nothing else, they should have all the hardware they need to test and eventually prove-out re-usability of the Dragon v2!

Yes. Although my recollection is that the RFP said that there would be a maximum of 6 post-certification missions for both providers. So SpaceX is more likely to get between 2 and 4 post-certification missions plus a crewed demo flight to the ISS. Although they didn't say it during the pressers, there is likely also an uncrewed flight. See this article for more info:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/nasa-outlines-plans-commercial-crew-certification/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/nasa-outlines-plans-commercial-crew-certification/)

A maximum of six flights for post-certification missions for multiple providers (total combined) was the restriction in the original RFP, but Amendment 2 changed that to a maximum of six flights for each contract awarded.  The minimum, if the provider requested them, was kept at 2 post-certification missions.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/17/2014 12:56 am
Huh?
It's not free money. You're saying the same thing for SpaceX then.
Have you seen the pressure capsule Boeing made? It's in this thread...

SpaceX actually wants to fly. Boeing just wants the money. There's a pressure capsule for Orion too..
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spacetraveler on 09/17/2014 01:01 am
imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killed
You still have Skylon.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 09/17/2014 01:05 am
I'm very excited because, SpaceX winning this award means that they are one step closer to Mars. I have to be honest, growing up in the 60's and 70's I was never a spaceplane fan except for the X programs. I was never a fan of the shuttle. (sorry Chris, don't kick me off the site LOL) If going with capsules means getting private space eventually to BEO then I think everyone's a winner long term.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 09/17/2014 01:12 am
On the question of why no more excitement from some of us, well, in my case it's quite simple: imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killed, while NASA chooses to use its limited resources to fund three different flavors of capsule designs. On a more abstract level, I think it reflects risk aversion and a lack of willingness to do new and interesting things. No longer are we the country that does things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

Even with no space planes, we may end up with some kind of hybrid future design between capsules and spaceplanes. Just look at what ESA is doing with their test reentry vehicle. That could point the way to a future we have not even thought of.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: robertross on 09/17/2014 01:18 am
Huh?
It's not free money. You're saying the same thing for SpaceX then.
Have you seen the pressure capsule Boeing made? It's in this thread...

SpaceX actually wants to fly. Boeing just wants the money. There's a pressure capsule for Orion too..

Make no mistake, SpaceX wants the money too. In fact more so, because it helps them towards their goal.
For Boeing, their goal is to make money, but they still need to produce the hardware to earn it, which means they need to fly.

As for Orion, that's been covered in this thread too: Lockheed Martin has that contract
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/17/2014 01:20 am
Do we know anything about what the actual cost per post certification mission will be?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/17/2014 01:22 am
For Boeing, their goal is to make money, but they still need to produce the hardware to earn it, which means they need to fly.

Huh? They just finished all the milestones of a contract in which they produced nothing but stacks of paper and they got paid the most to do it. They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract. As soon as it stops being profitable, and it will, they'll walk away.. as they've been doing on NASA contracts for years.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spacetraveler on 09/17/2014 01:25 am
They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract.

Just wondering, has the list of milestones or text of the contract been released?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/17/2014 01:27 am
Would be nice if all that coin going to Boeing got us to flight ops one year sooner, but I guess that wasn’t what this so called “competition” was all about...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 09/17/2014 01:29 am
For Boeing, their goal is to make money, but they still need to produce the hardware to earn it, which means they need to fly.

Huh? They just finished all the milestones of a contract in which they produced nothing but stacks of paper and they got paid the most to do it. They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract. As soon as it stops being profitable, and it will, they'll walk away.. as they've been doing on NASA contracts for years.

Wow, that is an incredibly pessimistic view. Not saying you're wrong but I certainly hope it's not the case with this project.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF on 09/17/2014 01:39 am
Huh? They just finished all the milestones of a contract in which they produced nothing but stacks of paper and they got paid the most to do it. They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract. As soon as it stops being profitable, and it will, they'll walk away.. as they've been doing on NASA contracts for years.

QuantumG you know quite well that they have produced more than paper, please stop with the FUD. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: R.Simko on 09/17/2014 01:41 am
I would like to offer my congratulations to both Boeing and SpaceX, for winning their CCiCAP contracts.  Well done.  I would have liked to have seen the money differential to be not so wide, but I am very glad to see two companies win contracts and the fact that in a few years, we will have redundancy in access to space.


Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: DaveH62 on 09/17/2014 01:42 am
We have a chance for two private companies to build a more cost effective option. At some point, perhaps we'll see some sanity and we'll apply this model to all of our exploration budget and have money for lower cost BFR, long duration habitats, landing and extraterrestrial exploration systems.

I see this as a big step. It is not an end state, but it is a huge step for commercial space.  There were certainly worse potential outcomes, and I'm certainly happy the WSJ lead was wrong. Without competition, however weak and imperfect, there is no real commercial space. If Boeing writes it in, as many think, then SpaceX will leave them in the dust. If NASA and Congress see value in competition, and learn that monopolies are not the low cost market solution, then Boeing can be replaced by SNC or Bezos or someone down the road. If Congress learned nothing other than monopolies are never the lowest cost solution, then this would be a victory for taxpayers and tax slayers everywhere.

Optimal, I have no idea. But we have a race, or at the very least a rally, and it's between the USA and the USA. No offense China or Russia, but I think this is great.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/17/2014 01:48 am
Huh? They just finished all the milestones of a contract in which they produced nothing but stacks of paper and they got paid the most to do it. They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract. As soon as it stops being profitable, and it will, they'll walk away.. as they've been doing on NASA contracts for years.

QuantumG you know quite well that they have produced more than paper, please stop with the FUD.

I don't know that "quite well". All they've done is produce paperwork for components built by others. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spacetraveler on 09/17/2014 01:52 am
QuantumG, do you have the milestone list or text of the contract? I assume so if you were able to make that statement.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: laika_fr on 09/17/2014 01:53 am
firm cost is a joke by now, Bg will have the money it wants and Spx the money it needs.

We're talking no less than the come back of America in space, right ? And everybody wants good news, you see.

So forget about those pity party crasha like lori and let's the circus begin.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/17/2014 01:56 am
QuantumG, do you have the milestone list or text of the contract? I assume so if you were able to make that statement.

What statement?

I presume you mean
They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract.

That's a given. It's development and certification, not operations.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spacetraveler on 09/17/2014 01:58 am
QuantumG, do you have the milestone list or text of the contract? I assume so if you were able to make that statement.

What statement?

I presume you mean
They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract.

That's a given. It's development and certification, not operations.

Of course, and no it is not a given. Your statement was completely uninformed. It is very likely that a test flight will be one of the requirements for certification. A test flight was required in COTS prior to cargo operations.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/17/2014 02:02 am
Of course, and no it is not a given. Your statement was completely uninformed. It is very likely that a test flight will be one of the requirements for certification. A test flight was required in COTS prior to cargo operations.

Excuse me? What part of "milestone" don't you understand? Who says they actually have to achieve certification before they walk away?

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JBF on 09/17/2014 02:04 am
Huh? They just finished all the milestones of a contract in which they produced nothing but stacks of paper and they got paid the most to do it. They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract. As soon as it stops being profitable, and it will, they'll walk away.. as they've been doing on NASA contracts for years.

QuantumG you know quite well that they have produced more than paper, please stop with the FUD.

I don't know that "quite well". All they've done is produce paperwork for components built by others. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

One thruster test and one pressure vessel as examples. It doesn't matter if they paid a subcontractor to manufacture them. It was done at their order and to their design.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/17/2014 02:05 am
Even with no space planes, we may end up with some kind of hybrid future design between capsules and spaceplanes. Just look at what ESA is doing with their test reentry vehicle. That could point the way to a future we have not even thought of.

Lots of maybe somedays out there, but DC was the only real chance of seeing NASA build on the shuttle legacy with a reusable spaceplane during my lifetime, or at least before I'm drawing social security.  So close, and yet so far...it will be interesting to see if SNC stands by its previous statement that the OTV test flight is happening regardless of future NASA decisions. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spacetraveler on 09/17/2014 02:09 am
Of course, and no it is not a given. Your statement was completely uninformed. It is very likely that a test flight will be one of the requirements for certification. A test flight was required in COTS prior to cargo operations.

Excuse me? What part of "milestone" don't you understand? Who says they actually have to achieve certification before they walk away?

I'm saying we don't know the specifics at all yet. We don't know what milestones are in the contract, we don't know what involves paperwork, what involves building flight hardware, or what involves actually flying. So how much money they can actually make by essentially doing no real work and then walking away in your hypothetical scenario is a total unknown.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: CommercialSpaceFan on 09/17/2014 02:10 am
Stop the whining, this is a huge step.  NASA has spent $3B a year for nearly a decade developing a crew launch system that won't fly for another 4 years.  Here is an opportunity to develop 2 crew systems for a fraction of this cost including multiple actual flights!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/17/2014 02:12 am
Even with no space planes, we may end up with some kind of hybrid future design between capsules and spaceplanes. Just look at what ESA is doing with their test reentry vehicle. That could point the way to a future we have not even thought of.

Lots of maybe somedays out there, but DC was the only real chance of seeing NASA build on the shuttle legacy with a reusable spaceplane during my lifetime, or at least before I'm drawing social security.  So close, and yet so far...it will be interesting to see if SNC stands by its previous statement that the OTV test flight is happening regardless of future NASA decisions.


I wouldn't be so morbid and dejected about it. There is a chance of a reusable space-plane during your life time and its orbiting overhead at the moment, has flown 3 times and its mostly automated. The tech in X-37B does build of the shuttle legacy, improve upon it and offer a path to a possible manned version in the future. :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/17/2014 02:14 am
Stop the whining, this is a huge step.  NASA has spent $3B a year for nearly a decade developing a crew launch system that won't fly for another 4 years.  Here is an opportunity to develop 2 crew systems for a fraction of this cost including multiple actual flights!

It's worth noting however that the unique vehicle with so much potential that lost out today could have been funded with just a fraction of what's going to said launch system.  And I have to wonder how much it would have required vs Boeing's $4 billion+ award.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rcoppola on 09/17/2014 02:18 am
Congratulations SpaceX!! Unbelievable what you have achieved in such a short time.

Congratulations Boeing! Always good to have you're heritage in the mix.

Condolences to SNC. The little shuttle that could. I'm sure we'll be seeing you again in the not too distant future. Don't give up on the dream!

Times...they sure are a changing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: todd5ski on 09/17/2014 02:18 am
Congrats to Both Boeing and SpaceX. I am looking forward to the next few years to see the progress they make.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/17/2014 02:20 am
Stop the whining, this is a huge step.

How is more of the same a huge step? How is changing the i to a t in what is essentially a continuation of an overblown paperwork exercise anything worth celebrating?

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/17/2014 02:21 am

It's worth noting however that the unique vehicle with so much potent......

The "potential" is grossly over stated.  Parachute or wings are means and not an end.  The recovery system on a spacecraft is in use a small fraction of its mission.  What matters is what it does on orbit and not how "gracefully" returns to earth.  So this passion for winged spacecraft is misplaced. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/17/2014 02:23 am
Stop the whining, this is a huge step.

How is more of the same a huge step? How is changing the i to a t in what is essentially a continuation of an overblown paperwork exercise anything worth celebrating?

Someone woke up grumpy.

This is more than paperwork.  Between these two and Orion there is going to be exciting history being made over the next 3 years.  After they are flying lots of options open up, not the least of which is a swing out to the moon 😃

Enjoy the development and ride.  Who knows when the next ones will get built. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: WindyCity on 09/17/2014 02:24 am
I am delighted that SpaceX's Dragon V2 got NASA's nod. DV2 is designed to do more than ferry astronauts to the ISS. Its heat shield can withstand the heat of reentry from cislunar and interplanetary space. Orion isn't the only vehicle that might one day carry people beyond LEO. While I believe that SpaceX would have "soldiered on" if the company hadn't won the competition, this will grease the wheels and allow R&D to proceed at optimal speed. I wouldn't be surprised to see a crewed flight before 2017.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/17/2014 02:30 am


The "potential" is grossly over stated.  Parachute or wings are means and not an end.  The recovery system on a spacecraft is in use a small fraction of its mission.  What matters is what it does on orbit and not how "gracefully" returns to earth.  So this passion for winged spacecraft is misplaced. 

At the very least, DC seemed to have more interest from other potential partners/users than the other s/c.  Whether that evaporates without the core NASA funding remains to be seen I guess. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/17/2014 02:31 am
This is more than paperwork.

No, it's not. In fact, this is the paperwork phase of the program. You can expect to see more paperwork milestones than ever before.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/17/2014 02:31 am
Look. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. So long as that opinion does not breach site rules, I'm not touching it.

A member can be overjoyed, they can be outraged. That is not against site rules.

I would, however, urge members to get their point across and not go on and on about it. Threads are for everyone, not just two people having a coffee morning chat about it in front of thousands of people reading these threads.

204,000 reads by the way. Blimey!

PS I've nearly finished my article on this. I'm beyond tired, so forgive me for not writing a 3,000 word epic feature. We'll get the news out, with a bit of "I actually give a crap about Dream Chaser too", and we'll do specific features over the coming period.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/17/2014 03:01 am
I wonder if SNC is going to continue with the Dreamchaser or just close up house on it?

I suspect Dreamchaser will die a slow, drawn-out death.  SNC will talk about how they'll continue the program but at a much slower pace.  Over time, little progress will be made, and in a few years it will be formally cancelled.

Actually, did a bit of research.  Don't think that's actually likley afterall.  The Japanese and Euopeans are VERY interested in the Dream Chaser.  JAXA is a ctually one of their partners.  So without NASA to compete with, I think that this bird may fly sooner rather than later or never.

The Japanese and Europeans have only demonstrated an interest in talking about Dream Chaser.  There's close to zero chance they'll spend money on it.  National space programs are all about spending money in their own countries.  Just look at how Ariannespace production is split among different countries in Europe.  They'd never agree to spend a large amount of their budget to have a foreign company develop and build a vehicle.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/17/2014 03:09 am
Boeing's CST-100 nearly puts me to sleep every-time I see it. The fact remains that it is nothing more than a 1960's Apollo Command Module stripped down and tied with duct tape to a Gemini Service module, then stuffed with as many people as possible inside. It has the capability to fly in space for a long weekend on its own. The two innovations it offers are landing in the dessert (except that was developed for Orion) and the liquid pusher abort system, which uses the already existing RS-88 Bantam. 

How is that worth over twice the asking price of the Dragon V2? Regardless of lifting body versus capsule, Dreamchaser (and Dragon) offered the ability to do freeflying microgravity experiments.  The payload version of Dreamchaser even offered a platform to return to satellite servicing, albeit much smaller and robotic than shuttle. CST-100 is just designed for maximum return on investment for Boeing with as little risk, at least SNC tried to work with other space agencies so NASA would not be the only client (wasnt that what they wanted to foster in the first place)

The only silver lining I can see is the possible use of DC for cargo flights.  Now that the DC doesnt need an abort system, cockpit displays/chairs or full eclss, maybe that full OTV has a chance to fly unmanned cargo flights (probably worth more money in total) for NASA and under the fairing on the Ariane 5/HTV. We might not get a family of DC's, but one flying version could still keep going.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 09/17/2014 03:17 am
The only silver lining I can see is the possible use of DC for cargo flights.  Now that the DC doesnt need an abort system, cockpit displays/chairs or full eclss, maybe that full OTV has a chance to fly unmanned cargo flights (probably worth more money in total) for NASA and under the fairing on the Ariane 5/HTV. We might not get a family of DC's, but one flying version could still keep going.

I was thinking something similar. By refocusing DC on unmanned cargo initially they might be able to simplify it enough to have a reasonable shot at CRS-2 (if they can move fast enough)... The unmanned version would also be more relevant to DoD and other non-NASA users. My guess is that without the abort system, and all the man-rating, they could probably finish a cargo DC for a small enough amount that SNC might just be able to afford it.

And if they did find a way to get a cargo vehicle flying and operating, it might be possible to bootstrap their way to a crew vehicle in time for a 2nd round of commercial crew flight contracts (if ISS keeps flying long enough).

Definitely a long-shot, I'd give it less than 30% chance of even a cargo-only Dreamchaser happening at this point. But I'd be really happy to see them pull it off--and not just because they're local.

~Jon
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/17/2014 03:20 am
If Europe and Japan want to be partners in ISS they need to pay some of the operational costs. Using the DC on their LVs to supply cargo keeps that money in local economy while paying for ISS's upkeep.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/17/2014 03:22 am
The immediate question is will SNC remain committed to completing OTV and following through on the 2016 orbital test flight, as previously stated?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: butters on 09/17/2014 03:23 am
I just hope that Boeing and SpaceX can demonstrate again that this type of milestone-based competitive procurement model works for NASA, that it more effectively harnesses the ingenuity of U.S. industry to deliver cost-effective solutions for NASA's space transportation needs. Do us space fans a favor and knock this out of the park.

It would be a shame if we wound up with three capsules and no human exploration program. Maybe NASA's next commercial program should focus on in-space vehicles, mkay? We just need to, you know, come up with some objectives, turn those into requirements, and see what the industry comes up with in terms of first-round milestones. Get that first round going and let's see our range of options take shape. Let's see what's possible and go from there rather than attempt design by committee yet again.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 09/17/2014 03:26 am
...What matters is what it does on orbit and not how "gracefully" returns to earth.  So this passion for winged spacecraft is misplaced.

I have to wonder, however, from a cost/benefit analysis whether those wings would have given long term-low cost reusability or not. The capsules are said to be reusable up to 10 times. Some here are speculating they may actually fly no more than 3 times each.

Certainly shuttle never lived up to its reusability cost advantage hype. Refurbishment costs of tiles, engines, boosters, and so many components were grossly understated when the system was proposed.

How much could we accurately predict whether DC would have been less expensive than shuttle to turn around? Could each spacecraft possibly have flown 100 times as opposed to the 3-10 predicted for the capsules? There would be no RS-25s to break down, inspect, and reassemble. Would the lower number of tiles have been easier to service? With the spacecraft atop the LV, could we assume TPS damage would be impossible, or would we need a miniature Canada Arm inspection on each flight? With the ever increasing amount of space debris, would the exposed TPS be at risk of MMOD strike while the covered heat shields on the capsules are not? (ISS cupola alone now has two.) Could a fleet of 3 or 4 have been built and then flown for decades while the production line for the capsules continues to churn them out? Would RTLS have saved money over capsule recovery, particularly water recovery requiring rental of an entire well deck ship for several days?

Sure, I was really disappointed. I wanted to see this bird flair out and those wheels touch gracefully down at KSC. But this contentious banter is providing no intellectual insight. I look forward to actual facts, the specific criteria upon which the decision was made. I just hope that we the taxpayers, as well as our international friends, are able to see that information.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/17/2014 03:27 am
There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/17/2014 03:31 am
There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.

Those chickens aint hatched yet.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/17/2014 03:33 am
There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.

Those chickens aint hatched yet.

I was going to say Dragons haven't hatched yet...but  ;D
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: WindyCity on 09/17/2014 03:38 am
The big winner may turn out to be crewed space flight to Mars. Giving SpaceX an R&D boost to finish DV2 for transporting crews to the ISS will also energize the company's long-term program.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/17/2014 03:59 am
The only other point I'd like to make is that, spaceplanes vs capsules aside, SNC seems to have made an impressive amount of progress and produced a lot of bang for the buck given its relative funding level.  It kills me that a program that has produced so much for so little is abandoned while NASA continues to have programs that produce so little with so much funding!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: nadreck on 09/17/2014 04:11 am
I mean no offence to DC supporters, but DC was not a space plane, it is a lifting body not all that dissimilar from the one that we saw in the opening credits of The Six Million Dollar Man. Skylon is a true space plane, but I don't think it is truly viable. I really don't think real space planes are practical with chemical engines. I do favour the Dragon over the CST-100, but mainly because in completely unrelated hardware (DC-X, Grasshopper, LEM, F9RDev1 etc) we (humanity) have proven that we really can do, and get better at, propulsive vertical impulse landings.

However just because the Dream Chaser was not a true space plane, does not take away from its value as a competitor, and I would have loved to have seen it funded too.

So, what happened today is NASA ponied up with money today that sounds like a big deal, but is peanuts compared to other program spending and is nothing compared to the wastage seen in false starts on the various manned projects that have come and gone before this.  The money committed today funds something absolutely necessary, manned space operations. There is paperwork, review and a lot of oversight before a new manned vehicle carries a person, but it is coming, it is coming tons cheaper than the Space Shuttle did, and it is coming with program redundancy to cover eventualities that are reality in the commercial world.

I salute everyone who gets to go ahead with work they love, I sympathise with those who lost out, and I am keenly aware of the potential to harness the products going forward.  To those looking at the dollar sign, NASA just committed (as much as it can under its own funding constraints) to pay to develop two different vehicles that in total (looking from this end of the process) will cost about 1/5th what the Dreamliner cost to develop.  At the end, the incremental per launch cost of the CST-100 will probably rival that of a brand new,reusable, Dreamliner and I a am wllling to bet a St Gaudin's Double Eagle that SpaceX will be able to fly a Dragon V2 5 times for that cost by 2020. Still, in either companies hands, it puts manned space flight back in the realm of possibility for a variety of uses.

NASA just bought us two dreams, sad it couldn't have been 3, but happy it was two and not just one. Also I am happy we simply have direction again in this area.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Seattle Dave on 09/17/2014 04:41 am
Chris's article.

Here's my first article on all of this:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/09/dream-chaser-misses-out-cctcap-dragon-cst-100-win/

Was a bit more edgy in draft with more source notes, but decided to straight shoot it in the end as this is about the award. We'll be doing more articles on this over time.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/17/2014 04:55 am
If it was true commercial I'd have all the companies make a full prototype product on their own dime and demonstrate it to me independently. I'd then discard all the companies except the best two.

And you'd find you had exactly zero choices because no company would put itself in that position.

Having a customer pay for the development of a product that has only one customer is very common in the purely commercial world.  I used to work for a chip company.  Some of our chips were for a broad market with lots of potential customers.  Those we would develop on our own dime and make available to anyone who wanted them.  Other chips were specifically focused on a specific customer's needs.  That customer would pay for the development of those chips.  The government wasn't involved in any way, all of this was one business selling a product to other businesses.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 09/17/2014 05:16 am
There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.

Those chickens aint hatched yet.

I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...

~Jon
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/17/2014 05:17 am
Boeing's CST-100 nearly puts me to sleep every-time I see it. The fact remains that it is nothing more than a 1960's Apollo Command Module stripped down and tied with duct tape to a Gemini Service module, then stuffed with as many people as possible inside.
CST-100 is bigger than Apollo, at 4.56 meters diameter.  It is also bigger than Dragon V2, which is 3.7 meters diameter.
Quote
How is that worth over twice the asking price of the Dragon V2?
The price included development and certification, and so isn't really an "asking price" for a certain number of spacecraft.  SpaceX is already flying its rocket.  Boeing still has to pay to certify two-engine Centaur and the other changes to Atlas 5.  SpaceX already has a factory already building Dragons.  Boeing still has to tool up a factory floor to build CST-100.  SpaceX has already won contracts totaling close to $2 billion for Dragon/Falcon 9 missions.  Boeing hasn't.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: friendly3 on 09/17/2014 05:28 am
Honestly after the SNC Dreamchaser ETA crash, the notification of the abandon of their own hybrid motors a few weeks before the CCtCAP decision definitely condemned them.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mlindner on 09/17/2014 05:29 am

It's worth noting however that the unique vehicle with so much potent......

The "potential" is grossly over stated.  Parachute or wings are means and not an end.  The recovery system on a spacecraft is in use a small fraction of its mission.  What matters is what it does on orbit and not how "gracefully" returns to earth.  So this passion for winged spacecraft is misplaced.

For once we entirely agree. I never understood the love for DC.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: friendly3 on 09/17/2014 05:54 am
$ for $, and assuming one test flight and six operational missions for each :

http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc458/friendly222/Dragon-CST100OK_zps10d72969.jpg[/img]
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ipsyd on 09/17/2014 06:03 am
$ for $, and assuming one test flight and six operational missions for each :

http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc458/friendly222/Dragon-CST100OK_zps10d72969.jpg[/img]

By your math there is no value in the dozen cargo flights in the SpaceX CRS contract.  Apples and oranges.   Nice graphic, but it's not accurate.

Come to think of it, the majority of the responses in this thread have turned into an apples and oranges conversation.  Bottom line is we have 2 new solid chances at crewed spaceflight.  This is a day to celebrate future space.

Thanks NASA!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/17/2014 06:03 am
The absolutely best part of this CCtCAP announcement was IMO that two providers will be fully funded to the point that they do a crewed test flight to ISS. This is GREAT news as I feared that a final down-select would be done before this point.

So assuming congress keeps funding the program, by the end of 2017 the US will have 3 human capable spacecraft. (Orion should be close as well then) That is GREAT news no matter how you slice it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 09/17/2014 06:07 am


Well, I think this whole decision stinks. Hopefully one day a commission will expose all the backroom dealing that went on, and those responsible will be held to account.

I look forward to reading the selection documentation once it's been re-written to fit today's selection.

>:( :(

What data are you basing  that accusation on?  You are actually saying that a crime was done.

NASA always wanted multiple providers so, OK, one is more expensive. Even after six flights, NASA will sign contracts for follow-on flights, and will have to pay whatever the second cheapest requires. These are the consequences of keeping two providers viable (and I suspect there will be a painful gap before purely commercial demand starts to shoulder part of the load.)

SpaceX was late with COTS, Boeing was late with Dreamliner. I don't know if either is really a completely safe pair of hands in terms of flying operationally in 2017. Actually, I suspect neither will, due to budgets. And I really don't see how SNC could make up their CCiCAP half award to fly in 2817.

We've had it drummed into us how the process is completely free from political interference. Reports that pressure might have affected the outcome are deeply disturbing. And I have no way to evaluate whether those reports are justified (and some will never be persuaded otherwise), but I repeat that the reports themselves are very disturbing, exactly because that would imply something criminal.

As counterpoint, there is always the possibility that these reports come from a faulty reading of the tea leaves beforehand, and that the announcement is just different than expected. Many warnings beforehand, of course, that even those close to the process often have a faulty read on what the outcome will be.

I don't know how we could get to the stage of resolving this, short of some whistle blower leaking a pre-release report, and comparing recommendations to awards. Major repercussions there, and I don't see it happening.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 09/17/2014 06:10 am
There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.

Those chickens aint hatched yet.

I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...

~Jon

I hope that you are wrong....
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 09/17/2014 06:21 am
The only silver lining I can see is the possible use of DC for cargo flights.  Now that the DC doesnt need an abort system, cockpit displays/chairs or full eclss, maybe that full OTV has a chance to fly unmanned cargo flights (probably worth more money in total) for NASA and under the fairing on the Ariane 5/HTV. We might not get a family of DC's, but one flying version could still keep going.

I was thinking something similar. By refocusing DC on unmanned cargo initially they might be able to simplify it enough to have a reasonable shot at CRS-2 (if they can move fast enough)... The unmanned version would also be more relevant to DoD and other non-NASA users. My guess is that without the abort system, and all the man-rating, they could probably finish a cargo DC for a small enough amount that SNC might just be able to afford it.

And if they did find a way to get a cargo vehicle flying and operating, it might be possible to bootstrap their way to a crew vehicle in time for a 2nd round of commercial crew flight contracts (if ISS keeps flying long enough).

Definitely a long-shot, I'd give it less than 30% chance of even a cargo-only Dreamchaser happening at this point. But I'd be really happy to see them pull it off--and not just because they're local.

~Jon

Why only 30%???
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: macpacheco on 09/17/2014 06:24 am
It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.

Not very surprising, sad to say.
I don't know about you. But for me Space is about human dreams, human aspirations.
SpaceX so far is fulfilling our dreams while making money.
Boeing, ULA, LockMart, RocketDyne are 100% for profit companies that are dream killers instead, with a history of taking cost plus contracts and consistently ending up costing more than predicted.
So, yeah, I Like pro SpaceX and anti Boeing posts. Deal.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/17/2014 06:44 am


Well, I think this whole decision stinks. Hopefully one day a commission will expose all the backroom dealing that went on, and those responsible will be held to account.

I look forward to reading the selection documentation once it's been re-written to fit today's selection.

>:( :(

What data are you basing  that accusation on?  You are actually saying that a crime was done.

NASA always wanted multiple providers so, OK, one is more expensive. Even after six flights, NASA will sign contracts for follow-on flights, and will have to pay whatever the second cheapest requires. These are the consequences of keeping two providers viable (and I suspect there will be a painful gap before purely commercial demand starts to shoulder part of the load.)

SpaceX was late with COTS, Boeing was late with Dreamliner. I don't know if either is really a completely safe pair of hands in terms of flying operationally in 2017. Actually, I suspect neither will, due to budgets. And I really don't see how SNC could make up their CCiCAP half award to fly in 2817.

We've had it drummed into us how the process is completely free from political interference. Reports that pressure might have affected the outcome are deeply disturbing. And I have no way to evaluate whether those reports are justified (and some will never be persuaded otherwise), but I repeat that the reports themselves are very disturbing, exactly because that would imply something criminal.

As counterpoint, there is always the possibility that these reports come from a faulty reading of the tea leaves beforehand, and that the announcement is just different than expected. Many warnings beforehand, of course, that even those close to the process often have a faulty read on what the outcome will be.

I don't know how we could get to the stage of resolving this, short of some whistle blower leaking a pre-release report, and comparing recommendations to awards. Major repercussions there, and I don't see it happening.

Cheers, Martin

What? Everything will have flown by 2817...even Skylon, SLS and VentureStar!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: GraniteHound92 on 09/17/2014 06:46 am
It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.

Not very surprising, sad to say.
I don't know about you. But for me Space is about human dreams, human aspirations.
SpaceX so far is fulfilling our dreams while making money.
Boeing, ULA, LockMart, RocketDyne are 100% for profit companies that are dream killers instead, with a history of taking cost plus contracts and consistently ending up costing more than predicted.
So, yeah, I Like pro SpaceX and anti Boeing posts. Deal.

I am a fan of SpaceX, and I think what they're doing for space exploration and the American space program cannot be understated.  However, the idea that Boeing, ULA, Lockheed Martin, and Rocketdyne are "dream killers," is incorrect.  These companies have been the back bone of the American aerospace industry for decades.  Most of whatever you think of when you think about space exploration can be attributed to these companies. 

Rocketdyne designed the F-1 rocket engine.  Every dream about space you've ever had lifted off with that engine.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: R7 on 09/17/2014 07:04 am
The two innovations it offers are landing in the dessert

Waiter, there's a capsule in my pudding!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 09/17/2014 07:20 am


There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.

Those chickens aint hatched yet.

I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...

~Jon

I hope that you are wrong....

I think that he is right, unfortunately...

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nibb31 on 09/17/2014 07:22 am
Boeing's CST-100 nearly puts me to sleep every-time I see it. The fact remains that it is nothing more than a 1960's Apollo Command Module stripped down and tied with duct tape to a Gemini Service module, then stuffed with as many people as possible inside.

By that logic, a Boeing 787 is nothing more than 1930's DC-3. Modern planes use the same layout as old planes because that's the design that works. We've tried other arrangements, pusher engines, dirigieables, and other stuff, but that doesn't meant that modern airliners are a "step back".

Quote
The only silver lining I can see is the possible use of DC for cargo flights.  Now that the DC doesnt need an abort system, cockpit displays/chairs or full eclss, maybe that full OTV has a chance to fly unmanned cargo flights (probably worth more money in total) for NASA and under the fairing on the Ariane 5/HTV. We might not get a family of DC's, but one flying version could still keep going.

A cargo DreamChaser would also need CBM berthing instead of a LIDS/IDSS/NDS or whatever it's called this week. There is no point in having reentry capability if you can't fit an ISPR through the hatch. Is DreamChaser's rear end tall enough to house a CBM without changing the moldline? I don't think so...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 09/17/2014 07:22 am
There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.

Those chickens aint hatched yet.

I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...

~Jon

I hope that you are wrong....

Me too!

~Jon
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 09/17/2014 07:25 am
The only silver lining I can see is the possible use of DC for cargo flights.  Now that the DC doesnt need an abort system, cockpit displays/chairs or full eclss, maybe that full OTV has a chance to fly unmanned cargo flights (probably worth more money in total) for NASA and under the fairing on the Ariane 5/HTV. We might not get a family of DC's, but one flying version could still keep going.

I was thinking something similar. By refocusing DC on unmanned cargo initially they might be able to simplify it enough to have a reasonable shot at CRS-2 (if they can move fast enough)... The unmanned version would also be more relevant to DoD and other non-NASA users. My guess is that without the abort system, and all the man-rating, they could probably finish a cargo DC for a small enough amount that SNC might just be able to afford it.

And if they did find a way to get a cargo vehicle flying and operating, it might be possible to bootstrap their way to a crew vehicle in time for a 2nd round of commercial crew flight contracts (if ISS keeps flying long enough).

Definitely a long-shot, I'd give it less than 30% chance of even a cargo-only Dreamchaser happening at this point. But I'd be really happy to see them pull it off--and not just because they're local.

~Jon

Why only 30%???

They'd basically have to get far enough along with DreamChaser 100% on their own dime to have a shot at competing for the CRS-2 contract. They'd then have to show how even in spite of having to self-fund how they'll be better than all the competition (Dragon V1, CST-100 cargo version, and Cygnus). Seems like a long-shot. Not impossible, but very, very risky unless they have a lock on some really unusual advantage, or can make a strong case for being cheaper...

I *wish* they had better odds, I just don't think they do.

~Jon
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: cambrianera on 09/17/2014 07:32 am
It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.

Not very surprising, sad to say.
I don't know about you. But for me Space is about human dreams, human aspirations.
SpaceX so far is fulfilling our dreams while making money.
Boeing, ULA, LockMart, RocketDyne are 100% for profit companies that are dream killers instead, with a history of taking cost plus contracts and consistently ending up costing more than predicted.
So, yeah, I Like pro SpaceX and anti Boeing posts. Deal.

I am a fan of SpaceX, and I think what they're doing for space exploration and the American space program cannot be understated.  However, the idea that Boeing, ULA, Lockheed Martin, and Rocketdyne are "dream killers," is incorrect.  These companies have been the back bone of the American aerospace industry for decades.  Most of whatever you think of when you think about space exploration can be attributed to these companies. 

Rocketdyne designed the F-1 rocket engine.  Every dream about space you've ever had lifted off with that engine.

The Dream was fully paid by American Taxpayer, only business as usual for the companies (except for the excitement of individuals inside the organization).
But "dream killers" is really a little bit harsh.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 09/17/2014 07:43 am

On the question of why no more excitement from some of us, well, in my case it's quite simple: imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killed, while NASA chooses to use its limited resources to fund three different flavors of capsule designs. On a more abstract level, I think it reflects risk aversion and a lack of willingness to do new and interesting things. No longer are we the country that does things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

There is already a spaceplane in use the X-37B & I suppose you could call the XS-1 one as well so they are still out there.:)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 09/17/2014 07:43 am
Remember that SpaceX has a head start on all this thanks to ISS cargo - a contract that has paid them billions already.

 - Ed Kyle
Just a tad short of 2 billion US$ actually. SpaceX was awarded 396 million US$ under COTS and then 1.6 billion US$ under CRS-1.


1.6 billion lower. For the same result.
SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO.  That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?

 - Ed Kyle
Nope. The capacity to launch a (cargo) capsule to ISS by SpaceX was developed and realized with NASA investing just 396 million US$ into SpaceX under COTS.
You are also ignoring the fact that SpaceX developed Falcon 9 v1.1 from money NOT coming from COTS and/or CRS-1. Elon stated that himself.
CRS-1 payments do not actually benefit the commercial crew efforts from SpaceX.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 09/17/2014 07:53 am
Remember that SpaceX has a head start on all this thanks to ISS cargo - a contract that has paid them billions already.

 - Ed Kyle
Just a tad short of 2 billion US$ actually. SpaceX was awarded 396 million US$ under COTS and then 1.6 billion US$ under CRS-1.
You're saying they've been paid for nine CRS flights that haven't happened yet?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: R7 on 09/17/2014 07:55 am
There is already a spaceplane in use the X-37B & I suppose you could call the XS-1 one as well so they are still out there.:)

And there are winged aspirations outside US too; Avatar from India
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 09/17/2014 07:58 am
Remember that SpaceX has a head start on all this thanks to ISS cargo - a contract that has paid them billions already.

 - Ed Kyle
Just a tad short of 2 billion US$ actually. SpaceX was awarded 396 million US$ under COTS and then 1.6 billion US$ under CRS-1.
You're saying they've been paid for nine CRS flights that haven't happened yet?

Cheers, Martin
No, the real sum of money received by SpaceX from NASA, AT THIS MOMENT, under COTS and CRS, is indeed lower than 2 billion US$ because a good number of CRS missions have not been performed yet. And thus, SpaceX has not been paid for those missions yet.

Ed is mistaken when stating that SpaceX had already received "billions" from NASA under COTS and CRS.
Fact is that upon completion of CRS-1 SpaceX will have received just a tad under 2 billion US$ from NASA (as I explained in my previous post).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: macpacheco on 09/17/2014 08:05 am
This is a HUGE win for SpaceX. Lets see. This is more money than if all currently booked/executed commercial launches in SpaceX were done with zero discount.
And being realistic, without Boeing on the same project, there would be a huge risk of congress just cutting funding because they're not getting their payoff.
On the other hand, Boeing, LockMart, ULA and Rocketdyne indeed are dreamkillers for me today. Until they play fair and stop mass bribing of the US federal legislation (even if its legal bribing) for me they are dreamkillers. I have some libertarian blood in me (although I agree less than 10% with the libertarian platform, where I do agree with them I agree with maximum intensity). I have a deep hatred of the revolving door system and the pork barrel practices. Call me Don Quixote for all I care.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jarnis on 09/17/2014 08:11 am
I agree they were higher risk and I think that was the determining factor.  And I can't shake the feeling that coming out with Boeing getting the biggest share of the pie doesn't also give NASA a better feeling when they go with their hat out to Congress for the money to fund this program.

This. Probably the main reason for selecting Boeing. They have the most pull in Congress. With SpaceX second in that department. Don't be fooled, this is purely a political decision; technical merit didn't really matter.

Technical merit definitely mattered. However, once they had established that all qualified on technical merit, the rest became politics.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/17/2014 08:16 am
For Boeing, their goal is to make money, but they still need to produce the hardware to earn it, which means they need to fly.

Huh? They just finished all the milestones of a contract in which they produced nothing but stacks of paper and they got paid the most to do it. They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract. As soon as it stops being profitable, and it will, they'll walk away.. as they've been doing on NASA contracts for years.


That will leave NASA with some money, remember the history of COTS.  I suggest that the first DreamChaser in space is named Phoenix.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 09/17/2014 08:22 am
Someone expressed deep disappointment about the high bid of SpaceX, arguing it does not fit with Elon Musks promises of low cost. I want to break the bid down a bit to see where the money goes.

There are 7 flights to the ISS including the demo flight. At the quoted price of 140 Million $ per flight that is already 1 Billion $.

There is one unmanned and (I think) one manned flight before that. There is also the package for additional NASA requirements. That's at least 400 Million $.

Remaining 1 Billion $. For that they finish developing Dragon V2, building the Control Center, modifying LC 39A. And probably the most expensive bit is doing all the coordination, preparation, and presentation for the milestones. Also any cost exceeding the 140 Million $ for the test flights. Those would be more expensive than operational flights later.

Does not seem grossly overpriced to me. :)

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/17/2014 08:44 am
To me, there are basically two reasons why Boeing got the larger of the two awards. One is purely technical and the other is political in both good and bad ways.

The simple fact is that SpaceX is further down the line to Dragon v.2 than Boeing-Bigelow is to CST-100. The launcher is flying in a crew-ready condition and an early variant of the spacecraft including most flight systems except the LAS is also flying. CST-100 hasn't even had a single flight article flown yet. So, yes, it needs much more money to get to the same goalpost.

Boeing is an old, storied company with spaceflight heritage going back generations. Having the name 'Boeing' on the program is just that much more reassuring to politicians than two relative newcomers whom, let's face it, are not exactly recipients of unquestioning Congressional confidence, unlike an old, big player like Boeing. Yes, I'm sure that there was intense lobbying and the implied threat that the contribution taps might be tightened slightly if CST-100 died.

However, I'm pretty sure that the main motive was the confidence that comes from the name. 'Boeing' inspires political confidence when 'SpaceX' aka 'loud-mouthed outsider/newcomer' and 'Sierra Nevada' aka 'who?' simply do not. NASA needed Boeing to convince Congress that Commercial Crew was a serious program and not just a subsidy for billionaires playing with their overgrown hobby rockets.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 09/17/2014 09:09 am
NASA must believe there is a bright future for HSF to LEO beyond the ISS, otherwise I don't see how funding 2 vehicles makes sense. Interesting.

To me, there are basically two reasons why Boeing got the larger of the two awards.

They got the larger award because their bid was higher.

We can only speculate why. Maybe they have higher costs, maybe they thought their offer was overall superior to that of the competitors etc.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 09/17/2014 09:19 am
Someone expressed deep disappointment about the high bid of SpaceX, arguing it does not fit with Elon Musks promises of low cost. I want to break the bid down a bit to see where the money goes.

There are 7 flights to the ISS including the demo flight. At the quoted price of 140 Million $ per flight that is already 1 Billion $.

There is one unmanned and (I think) one manned flight before that. There is also the package for additional NASA requirements. That's at least 400 Million $.

Remaining 1 Billion $. For that they finish developing Dragon V2, building the Control Center, modifying LC 39A. And probably the most expensive bit is doing all the coordination, preparation, and presentation for the milestones. Also any cost exceeding the 140 Million $ for the test flights. Those would be more expensive than operational flights later.

Does not seem grossly overpriced to me. :)

Not quite how I'd broken it down, but that's pretty much what I was about to post before I saw yours.

Basically, $500m per year over 3 years for development (including any flights before the seven), $150m for extra requirements, $1b for seven flights.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/17/2014 09:40 am
From what I was reading around, this is great news for SpaceX, probably the most they could have asked for. If the budget is to be cut NASA would have no choice but to stick with its more traditional and well proven contractor, Boeing.

Not true.  NASA has already decided they have confidence in both companies.  SpaceX, with its CRS cargo Dragon delivers, has much more relevant recent experience, and much more of a track record.

If spending cuts force a cut to one or the other, SpaceX wins both on cost and on track record.  They also win on being the only choice that doesn't use Russian engines.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: breadfan on 09/17/2014 09:52 am
Excuse the simple question - If one of the winners of the contract can get it done for less than the amount they are awarded, what happens to the surplus funds? Can they use them for whatever other purpose the company sees fit? Or is it returned?

edit:
VVVVVVVVV thanks, good news for the winners I guess if they can drive down costs.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: topsphere on 09/17/2014 09:54 am
Excuse the simple question - If one of the winners of the contract can get it done for less than the amount they are awarded, what happens to the surplus funds? Can they use them for whatever other purpose the company sees fit? Or is it returned?

They keep it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: space_dreamer on 09/17/2014 10:34 am
I'm sad the Dream Chaser won't be getting the money, at least there are two company's fully funded.

 (Looking for the silver lining)
I suppose that this is a good result for Bigalow Aerospace who were involved with the CST-100? 

It's in Boeing interest to have a commercial 330 space station as an extra destination for CST-100 (other than the ISS). I hope that Boeing will now use some of the money (and it's political clout) to help get the Bigalow 330 Station in orbit.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: aquanaut99 on 09/17/2014 10:50 am
Actually, I don't even really care anymore who got the contract. The real problem is that there will be no market for commercial companies post-2020, when ISS gets splashed (I don't believe in a prolongation, not in the current political climate and Bigelow habitats or some other station won't fly for lack of a budget). So we are really looking at 2, at most 3 flights per contractor (or 6 if only one succeeds). So maybe SNC is actually lucky to have gotten the boot.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/17/2014 10:55 am
@Aquanaut,

That's a very negative viewpoint and, frankly, I don't think that we can look six years ahead and say that we can be that certain of something.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jgoldader on 09/17/2014 11:10 am
I was hoping that the CC work would be a chance to bring innovation in hardware, process, and price to US spaceflight, breaking the monopoly of Old Space.  Boeing getting the lion's share really puts a damper on those hopes.  One could cynically game out a future where the Bigelow-Boeing-Blue Origin connection is used to reinforce the status quo.  SpaceX and SNC were envisioning a real hopeful future to human spaceflight; Boeing's layoff alerts show they envision the next government paycheck. 

The CST-100 would have been welcome 10 years ago as a bridge from shuttle to the next big thing, but as the next big thing itself, sucking most of the air out of the room, not so much (CST-100 is very similar to a proposal from John Young and... Vance Brand?...in the wake of STS-107.)

In a fantasy world, SNC's phone would ring with caller ID saying McGregor, TX, but I know there's little reason for Musk to even think of such a thing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Wigles on 09/17/2014 11:16 am
@Aquanaut,

That's a very negative viewpoint and, frankly, I don't think that we can look six years ahead and say that we can be that certain of something.

The only thing you can be certain about is that the current end of life for the ISS is 2020.

Extension beyond that requires a new commitment by the international partners (or a subset of them) and importantly more money. The politics and economics of this might get better before then, but it also might get worse. Additionally, lead times on a new multinational agreement (most likely including a refurb) are long, such that countries need to start agreeing to it and budgeting for it now in their forecast expenditures.

As for Bigelow... If ISS proved there was a viable business case for a private space station he would be in space already, or at least a lot further down the path.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/17/2014 11:20 am
imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killed
You still have Skylon.

He said "realistic".
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/17/2014 11:21 am
So America needs three new capsules?

Yeah, because you wouldn't want any particular kind of capsule to fly more than once or twice in any given year.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: RonM on 09/17/2014 11:37 am
As for Bigelow... If ISS proved there was a viable business case for a private space station he would be in space already, or at least a lot further down the path.


Not really. Why launch a space station when there is no way to reach it? Once Boeing and SpaceX are flying in 2017, then we'll see if Bigelow is serious.

Bigelow did launch two test stations a few years back. Putting hardware in orbit shows they are far down the path. Bigelow's problem has been having to wait for somebody to provide passenger access to LEO. The big question is can Bigelow stay in business while on hold for another three or four years. Boeing has worked with Bigelow and will probably want to help get a commercial space station in LEO to expand their market for CST-100.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Wigles on 09/17/2014 11:47 am
As for Bigelow... If ISS proved there was a viable business case for a private space station he would be in space already, or at least a lot further down the path.


Not really. Why launch a space station when there is no way to reach it? Once Boeing and SpaceX are flying in 2017, then we'll see if Bigelow is serious.

Bigelow did launch two test stations a few years back. Putting hardware in orbit shows they are far down the path. Bigelow's problem has been having to wait for somebody to provide passenger access to LEO. The big question is can Bigelow stay in business while on hold for another three or four years. Boeing has worked with Bigelow and will probably want to help get a commercial space station in LEO to expand their market for CST-100.

Ok... so in-space would be a bit of a stretch but they could be actively promoting a Bigelow station as a replacement for the ISS, soliciting tennants, starting to build, test & certify hardware etc... Taking a leaf out of Elon's book and playing on the current geopolitics by advertising a solution which doesnt require Russia for a cost which may be attractive compared to an ISS refurb (particularly if some ISS components are re-used, e.g. the arm).

I know they are making progress, but they don't appear to be ramping up to take advantage of a commercial crew capability which may only be 3-4 years away.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Dasun on 09/17/2014 11:49 am
What is it about government contracting people do not understand?  Request for proposals (RFP's) are put out, companies bid on those proposals (and all that paperwork really costs), government teams assess those proposals against criteria (legally they can not spill the details outside the assessment team) and a decision is finally made.

Boeing's bid cost more than SpaceX but outside the assessing team that would not have been known.  So, it is not about Boeing getting more than SpaceX, it  is rather that Boeing priced their RFP response higher.  The bid assessment team would have had a huge matrix of criteria to work through - technical, schedule and financial risk assessments would have been in the mix as well.  In the end they had to choose two players and the two that scored higher would have won.

Having been through the process it really boils down to that.  So stop, spitting the dummy that your favoured player did not get chosen or did not get more money, they played their best hand in their RFP response and lost.  Rather celebrate, that two technically solid solutions were chosen and that the US will have 3 manned spacecraft flying by decades end.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 09/17/2014 11:54 am
As for Bigelow... If ISS proved there was a viable business case for a private space station he would be in space already, or at least a lot further down the path.


Not really. Why launch a space station when there is no way to reach it? Once Boeing and SpaceX are flying in 2017, then we'll see if Bigelow is serious.

Bigelow did launch two test stations a few years back. Putting hardware in orbit shows they are far down the path. Bigelow's problem has been having to wait for somebody to provide passenger access to LEO. The big question is can Bigelow stay in business while on hold for another three or four years. Boeing has worked with Bigelow and will probably want to help get a commercial space station in LEO to expand their market for CST-100.

Those were simple shells.

Bigelow has moved so far beyond that, that they need funding from NASA to design a simple shell to attach to ISS (BEAM). This won't have any of the systems required for a free-floating platform, like ECLSS. It even lacks the spine that's an important part of their design.

Bigelow are a *long* way from being able to free-fly anything for a paying customer. I don't expect them to be providing an alternate destination for the CC providers in 2017 or 2018.

As for staying alive during the interim - since they seem to need more time than that to have a working system, they need to start development today even in order to be late to the party. Whenever they start, they'll need to find a lot of money to undertake their development.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 09/17/2014 11:58 am

imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killed
You still have Skylon.

He said "realistic".

I am not sure that's a particular constructive viewpoint & Skylon is perfectly realistic.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Borklund on 09/17/2014 12:06 pm

imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killed
You still have Skylon.

He said "realistic".

I am not sure that's a particular constructive viewpoint & Skylon is perfectly realistic.
Skylon is a perfectly realistic paper spacecraft. The only funding for anything Skylon related is to produce and test a single full-scale prototype SABRE engine. But this is getting a little off topic.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lourens on 09/17/2014 12:07 pm
Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.
Lot of snippiness in this thread.  I really don't get the anti-Boeing sentiment (or the pro SNC sentiment for that matter).

This decision by NASA seems entirely logical.  They have a very firm requirement to get crew back into space on American launchers by 2017.  Going with a dual track effort provides a very high degree of assurance that they'll succeed in meeting the requirement. 

<snip>

Going with SNC just seems like risk piled upon risk to me if my goal is to assure access to space for American crews.  This was a downselect waiting to happen considering the history of this program.  Why throw a long bomb if your only payback is cross range capability?  That's just my opinion obviously, but I just don't get it.

I'm disappointed at this decision, and a fan of SpaceX and Elon Musk, so maybe I can explain.

First, let me state that you are right. NASA have a set of requirements, and a political reality, and SpaceX and Boeing to really do seem to be a good bet for getting crews flying to ISS in 2017. An RFP was put out, three companies bid, the best proposals were selected. Without the detailed reasoning for the decision available, there's not much more to say.

So why am I disappointed that it's Boeing and not SNC? I'm not disappointed about the specific outcome, I'm disappointed about the spirit of the thing. In the 1960's, we went from suborbital hops to footprints on the moon (on the moon!) in a decade. We took risks, big risks. I think I read somewhere that the first lunar explorers thought they had about a 50/50 chance of making it back.

But they'd done everything they could to make it a success, so they got on that rocket and flew to the moon, and made it back safely. On television, Star Trek promised a future where humans would continue exploring, and "to boldly go where no man has gone before".

Unfortunately, it was never to be. Apollo ended and we got the Space Shuttle program, the goal of which was to make space flight cheap, safe, and routine. Go around safely inside the Van Allen belts, build a space station on our proverbial front porch, launch a space telescope.

The Shuttle was a beautiful machine and a technically audacious masterpiece of engineering, and the scientific returns of Shuttle, ISS and Hubble are fantastic. We learnt an incredible amount from them, and still are. But still, to me on the outside, it didn't feel like "explor[ing] strange new worlds" any more than driving an RV to the same camp site every year feels like exploring the countryside.

Now, the Space Launch System that Gen. Bolden was going on about at the press conference is supposed to bring back exploration. And they sure are building a big rocket, although if it'll ever be as big as what we once had we don't know, and it certainly doesn't come cheap. But worse, there are no missions! Again it's the spirit of the thing. Columbus didn't go to the Queen of Spain saying "I want money to build a big ship", he wanted to find a new route to the Orient, to explore the world. Yes, Congress talks about Mars, but we've been hearing about missions to Mars for decades now, and we're still stuck in LEO. I'm not holding my breath.

Enter Elon Musk. His goal is to make humanity a multiplanetary species. To settle Mars. That's a step beyond. That's exploration. That's audacity. That's "to boldly go where no one has gone before". That's the 21st century as it was supposed to be! I don't know if he can do it, and I don't believe he can do it in the timeframe he's suggested, but by Jove the man is trying, and he's not waiting for anyone else to write an RFP.

Meanwhile, NASA selects the CST-100 design, which is best described as "to meekly retreat to where we were half a century ago", and for exactly that reason!.

Colour me unimpressed.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Wigles on 09/17/2014 12:19 pm
@ Lourens

So you would rather a rapid and risky development process which has a 50/50 chance of scrapping US human space flight for at least another decade (the consequence of people being killed in todays environment) because "Establising routine access to LEO" isnt enough vision?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Dasun on 09/17/2014 12:22 pm
In the last 50 years I have not seen another Kennedy "We choose to go to the moon.." speech - that, the cold war, and his untimely demise were what drove Apollo not the thirst for Exploration.  Unique conditions led to unique outcomes.

Currently NASA has a requirement to haul 4 astronaut tails uphill to ISS and they used a tried and true process to make the selection.  It is not about entertaining the masses, it is about the technical solution. 

Columbus did not need to ask for a big ship to be built, they were already built. In SLS/BFR terms in the 2020's and 2030's they will already be there waiting to fulfill someone's exploration aspirations.

Look to the South Pole for an indication - 1912 first visited and then a 40+ year wait before anyone returned, and that was via aircraft just before they built a base.  Exploration is not a continuum it is a stop start thing.



Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/17/2014 12:26 pm
I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...

~Jon

The odds of at least one of SpaceX or Boeing succeeding at this point (maybe later but succeeding) are extremely high.  You effectively said Bigelow is not a sure bet.  Which doesn't exactly seem like going out on a limb to me...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: laszlo on 09/17/2014 12:41 pm
So NOW can we finally see the full DreamChaser landing video?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 09/17/2014 12:44 pm
Look to the South Pole for an indication - 1912 first visited and then a 40+ year wait before anyone returned, and that was via aircraft just before they built a base.  Exploration is not a continuum it is a stop start thing.

This analogy I like.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/17/2014 12:48 pm
It seems to me that having three different capsule designs for just two to three missions total a year is not a good way to run a cost effective program. If the CCtCAP vehicles are to help with costs, then surely only going with the cheaper option and saving $4.2B, that could be used for other actual missions beyond LEO, like building a large upper stage, cryogenic propulsion stage and Lunar lander, seems to me to be a better way to use the available money.

Personally, I wanted Sierra Nevada to win so as to give someone else a chance, just like NASA gave SpaceX a chance. Anyways, here's a summary of the total program costs.

CCDEV                     CCDEV1 CCDEV2 CCDEV2+ CCiCap   CPC  CCiCap2 CCtCAP  Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing                     $18.0  $92.3  $20.6  $460.0  $10.0  $20.0  $4200  $4820.9
SpaceX                      $0.0  $75.0   $0.0  $440.0   $9.6  $20.0  $2600  $3144.6
Sierra Nevada Corporation  $20.0  $80.0  $25.6  $212.5  $10.0  $15.0          $363.1
Blue Origin                 $3.7  $22.0                                        $25.7
ULA                         $6.7                                                $6.7
Paragon                     $1.4                                                $1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                      $49.8  $269.3 $46.2 $1112.5  $29.6  $55.0  $6800  $8362.4
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 09/17/2014 01:04 pm
I think one of the things that makes people like SNC & Dream Chaser is that they give the feeling somewhat more of being the Musk-style enthusiasts than you'd ever expect to get from Boeing.

But, as a thought experiment, imagine we're five years down the line and someone comes up with a proposal that involves getting crews to LEO.

Is that proposal really much less likely to proceed in today's universe (the one where Boeing won), than in the alternate (where SNC won)?

Hmm, could be the subject of a poll. Thoughts, anyone?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 09/17/2014 01:07 pm

Now, the Space Launch System that Gen. Bolden was going on about at the press conference is supposed to bring back exploration. And they sure are building a big rocket, although if it'll ever be as big as what we once had we don't know, and it certainly doesn't come cheap. But worse, there are no missions! Again it's the spirit of the thing. Columbus didn't go to the Queen of Spain saying "I want money to build a big ship", he wanted to find a new route to the Orient, to explore the world. Yes, Congress talks about Mars, but we've been hearing about missions to Mars for decades now, and we're still stuck in LEO. I'm not holding my breath.

Lourens, I'm probably one of the more 'rah rah Exploration types' that you'll find anywhere, but there is a major fallacy in the Columbus argument as you present it.

You hit on the right points but the wrong motivator.  Columbus' intent was not to 'explore for the sake of exploration', which is what the last 70 years of NACA/NASA space work has been about.  Columbus was exploring for the express purpose of 'getting rich'.  In other words, he presented a business case to the Queen of Spain that he could break the 'overland' and 'Horn of Africa' monopoly's on trade to India, China and the East Indies.  This was an economic motivator that drove him to explore westward for a 'shorter, more direct' route for that trade.

Currently, there is not an economic motivator for the type of exploration which you, me, (and probably most everyone on this board) wants.  Going to Mars won't get me from New York to Tokyo quicker.  Yes, spin-offs from space technology have, do, and will improve our lives.  We're the choir, we sing this as loud as we can, but to Joe Sixpack, voter and constituent, he can't see it, so he doesn't support it and he believes whatever tripe rolls out on his choice of visual infotainment (read as Hoaxer TV).

You find me a space or non terrestrial product or resource that beats everything that can be done on Earth in its niche and you'll have a billion Columbus queuing up and roaring to go.  The Queens of Spain will then follow.

edit: Minor grammar edits
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/17/2014 01:09 pm
I'll be as popular as Joey Stalin here for saying this but....that award they gave Boeing would pay for all the American and European expedition members to fly on Soyuz...until 2028, with about 300 million left over!

*oh well, its a national space program, so cost effectiveness is rarely ever the most important metric.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lourens on 09/17/2014 01:18 pm
@ Lourens

So you would rather a rapid and risky development process which has a 50/50 chance of scrapping US human space flight for at least another decade (the consequence of people being killed in todays environment) because "Establising routine access to LEO" isnt enough vision?

No, I want an environment where we accept that exploration is dangerous, and that there's always some risk that people get killed, but where we do it anyway, because it's worth it. I like Copenhagen Suborbitals. They say that they'll risk launching a person into space on their rocket when they get the risk down to the level of an extreme sport. Climbers die in the mountains every year, and yet we don't shut down Everest for a decade whenever that happens.

And yes, I have trouble getting excited over reestablishing the routine access to LEO that I grew up with in the 1980's and 1990's, except with smaller craft and fewer people. That seems to be the extent of the ambition of the CST-100. Progress is doing things that haven't been done before, like propulsive landing and rapid reusability. That's not to say that new is automatically better, but it's definitely more satisfying.

Edit: "smaller craft and fewer people"
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/17/2014 01:24 pm
It seems to me that having three different capsule designs for just two to three missions total a year is not a good way to run a cost effective program. If the CCtCAP vehicles are to help with costs, then surely only going with the cheaper option and saving $4.2B

And if that cheaper option fails, NASA is left holding the bag on another failed problem, no closer to regaining independence in access to space.  There are a lot of people acting like the fact that these two companies have been awarded CCtCAP contracts means the spacecraft are all but wrapped up neatly in a bow ready to use.

No, that's not acceptable, and I'm glad NASA is sticking to their guns (under substantial pressure from Congress) on keeping with two providers.  No, it's not the most cost effective solution, but it gives us options and that's a good thing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/17/2014 01:34 pm
Thanks for the article Chris. That was one of the “strangest” pressers I’ve ever seen as they could have just sent out a memo of the results. The reps from each company should have been there and Charlie had to sobbingly conflate CC with Orion/SLS in order to somehow create excitement and inspiration about the decision... Fail...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 09/17/2014 01:47 pm
It seems to me that having three different capsule designs for just two to three missions total a year is not a good way to run a cost effective program. If the CCtCAP vehicles are to help with costs, then surely only going with the cheaper option and saving $4.2B, that could be used for other actual missions beyond LEO, like building a large upper stage, cryogenic propulsion stage and Lunar lander, seems to me to be a better way to use the available money.

Personally, I wanted Sierra Nevada to win so as to give someone else a chance, just like NASA gave SpaceX a chance. Anyways, here's a summary of the total program costs.

CCDEV                     CCDEV1 CCDEV2 CCDEV2+ CCiCap   CPC  CCiCap2 CCtCAP  Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing                     $18.0  $92.3  $20.6  $460.0  $10.0  $20.0  $4200  $4820.9
SpaceX                      $0.0  $75.0   $0.0  $440.0   $9.6  $20.0  $2600  $3144.6
Sierra Nevada Corporation  $20.0  $80.0  $25.6  $212.5  $10.0  $15.0          $363.1
Blue Origin                 $3.7  $22.0                                        $25.7
ULA                         $6.7                                                $6.7
Paragon                     $1.4                                                $1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                      $49.8  $269.3 $46.2 $1112.5  $29.6  $55.0  $6800  $8362.4


Tapatalk really screws that up on mobile - doesn't honour the fixed-width font.

Let's see if this is any better:-

CCDEV  CCDEV1  CCDEV2  CCDEV2+  CCiCap     CPC  CCiCap2  CCtCAP     Total 
Boeing  $18.0  $92.3  $20.6 $460.0  $10.0  $20.0$4200$4820.9
SpaceX   $0.0  $75.0   $0.0 $440.0   $9.6  $20.0$2600$3144.6
Sierra Nevada Corporation    $20.0  $80.0  $25.6 $212.5  $10.0  $15.0 $363.1
Blue Origin   $3.7  $22.0  $25.7
ULA   $6.7   $6.7
Paragon   $1.4   $1.4
Total  $49.8 $269.3  $46.2$1112.5  $29.6  $55.0$6800$8362.4

cheers, Martin

Edit: nope. Epic fail there, TT.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/17/2014 01:47 pm
Remember that SpaceX has a head start on all this thanks to ISS cargo - a contract that has paid them billions already.

 - Ed Kyle
Just a tad short of 2 billion US$ actually. SpaceX was awarded 396 million US$ under COTS and then 1.6 billion US$ under CRS-1.
You're saying they've been paid for nine CRS flights that haven't happened yet?

Cheers, Martin
I'm saying that SpaceX didn't seriously "launch" its Falcon 9 or Dragon programs until it won COTS.  Until then it was a little company trying to launch Falcon 1 from Omelek (it had only tried once at the time, and failed) working out of a small shop in El Segundo.  COTS is the reason that the company moved to the ex-Northrop facility at Hawthorne.  It is why SpaceX moved into McGregor in a big way.  NASA is the core customer, the primary "backer".  The Agency marshaled all of this to create a clean-sheet method for reaching ISS.  Falcon 9 didn't have a dedicated non-Dragon launch until only about one year ago.  Falcon 9 and Dragon don't exist without that contract win, and the resulting billions (yes, billions, because it is more than two billion if you count the initial commercial crew money, and well more than $4.5 billion if you count yesterday's win).

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lourens on 09/17/2014 01:47 pm

Now, the Space Launch System that Gen. Bolden was going on about at the press conference is supposed to bring back exploration. And they sure are building a big rocket, although if it'll ever be as big as what we once had we don't know, and it certainly doesn't come cheap. But worse, there are no missions! Again it's the spirit of the thing. Columbus didn't go to the Queen of Spain saying "I want money to build a big ship", he wanted to find a new route to the Orient, to explore the world. Yes, Congress talks about Mars, but we've been hearing about missions to Mars for decades now, and we're still stuck in LEO. I'm not holding my breath.

Lourens, I'm probably one of the more 'rah rah Exploration types' that you'll find anywhere, but there is a major fallacy in the Columbus argument as you present it.

You hit on the right points but the wrong motivator.  Columbus' intent was not to 'explore for the sake of exploration', which is what the last 70 years of NACA/NASA space work has been about.  Columbus was exploring for the express purpose of 'getting rich'.  In other words, he presented a business case to the Queen of Spain that he could break the 'overland' and 'Horn of Africa' monopoly's on trade to India, China and the East Indies.  This was an economic motivator that drove him to explore westward for a 'shorter, more direct' route for that trade.

Currently, there is not an economic motivator for the type of exploration which you, me, (and probably most everyone on this board) wants.  Going to Mars won't get me from New York to Tokyo quicker.  Yes, spin-offs from space technology have, do, and will improve our lives.  We're the choir, we sing this as loud as we can, but to Joe Sixpack, voter and constituent, he can't see it, so he doesn't support it and he believes whatever tripe rolls out on his choice of visual infotainment (read as Hoaxer TV).

You find me a space or non terrestrial product or resource that beats everything that can be done on Earth in its niche and you'll have a billion Columbus queuing up and roaring to go.  The Queens of Spain will then follow.

edit: Minor grammar edits

You're right of course about Columbus, and I don't have a business case for colonising Mars, or for exploring BLEO. But that's exactly what makes the concept of innovation, and progress, and the spirit of the space program so important. There is no business case for watching football and buying team jerseys either, but Joe Sixpack spends $7.7 Billion a year on football (total NFL revenues), simply because it makes him feel good. If NASA could make space exploration as entertaining as football to the general public, make people feel excited again about their country exploring the universe, then maybe they'd up NASAs budget accordingly.

But to do that, they have to do spectacular new things. Not have amateurish press conferences about the government buying a couple new trucks. They should have had some more information about the CCtCap program, the three candidates, the vehicles, the companies, and then we'd have Gen. Bolden (sitting up straight and not flying off on SLS tangents) announce that the winner is...drumroll...Boeing and SpaceX! I'll stop short of demanding Elon Musk and James McNerney come down a big staircase with confetti flying, but if you compare this press conference to the Dragon V2 reveal, then I think it's clear where the enthusiasm for SpaceX is coming from.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: punder on 09/17/2014 02:01 pm
I'm sad the Dream Chaser won't be getting the money, at least there are two company's fully funded.

 (Looking for the silver lining)
I suppose that this is a good result for Bigalow Aerospace who were involved with the CST-100? 

It's in Boeing interest to have a commercial 330 space station as an extra destination for CST-100 (other than the ISS). I hope that Boeing will now use some of the money (and it's political clout) to help get the Bigalow 330 Station in orbit.

Now that they have this contract, Boeing's interest in Bigelow has suddenly fallen to zero.  Eventually, Mr. Bigelow will realize he's been left out in the cold and will turn to SpaceX.  Inevitable.  In my humble opinion of course!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jgoldader on 09/17/2014 02:01 pm
@ Lourens

So you would rather a rapid and risky development process which has a 50/50 chance of scrapping US human space flight for at least another decade (the consequence of people being killed in todays environment) because "Establising routine access to LEO" isnt enough vision?


Wigles, I believe your argument is way off base.

IMO, Boeing is the one that will be doing rapid development.  To go from a pressure vessel to proven spacecraft in 3 years, within budget, will be a significant feat.  Just look at Orion.

SpaceX has flown and recovered Dragon v1 safely several times, with no LOM/LOV (and so well under your 50/50 straw man).  Dragon v2 is different, adding the Super Dracos for NASA's safety statistics and Musk's reusability goals, but v1, by all appearances, could also get people to/from ISS in a pinch.  I don't know with the LOCV estimates are for Dragon v1, but I'd be surprised if they were much worse than shuttle, which we continued to use following two catastrophes.

SNC has flown a prototype Dream Chaser.  Yes, the landing gear failed, but the behavior of the airframe and GNC has been validated at low mach numbers.


I'm a firm believer that with enough money, you can make a brick fly (heck, we've done it with shuttle!) but you might be able to do better with less money.  If safety is your main goal in space travel, then it's safest not to travel in space at all.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: eywflyer on 09/17/2014 02:14 pm
Been lurking here for a few years but new to posting. I know very little about the relative technical merits of the various commercial crew options, but am personally disappointed that SNC was left out. I was a big fan of Shuttle, because even though it was strictly a LEO ride it had so much more versatility than a capsule. Not saying that Dream Chaser would have had anywhere near those capabilities, but I would have liked for a lifting body spacecraft to carry forward the Shuttle legacy in some form. Now it appears that we'll have capsules and only capsules for the foreseeable future.

CST-100 will probably get the job done, but on the inspiration scale I think it's down there with Soyuz. I know that there is a lot more love for SpaceX and Dragon around here, but I'm not sure the general public will be inspired by that either. Does the inspiration factor of the general public matter? Maybe not, but IMO the best hope for any substantial budget increase that would allow SLS to get proper funding, missions and launch rate is for the general public to get engaged/inspired about space again. It was interesting how a lot of folks (again talking general public here) seemed to only realize what they were losing with Shuttle when it was already retired and orbiters were being ferried to museum sites.

Would SNC/Dream Chaser have been any more inspirational? Seems unlikely at this point that we will ever know.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/17/2014 02:22 pm
Been lurking here for a few years but new to posting. I know very little about the relative technical merits of the various commercial crew options, but am personally disappointed that SNC was left out. I was a big fan of Shuttle, because even though it was strictly a LEO ride it had so much more versatility than a capsule. Not saying that Dream Chaser would have had anywhere near those capabilities, but I would have liked for a lifting body spacecraft carry forward the Shuttle legacy in some form. Now it appears that we'll have capsules and only capsules for the foreseeable future.

CST-100 will probably get the job done, but on the inspiration scale I think it's down there with Soyuz. I know that there is a lot more love for SpaceX and Dragon around here, but I'm not sure the general public will be inspired by that either. Does the inspiration factor of the general public matter? Maybe not, but IMO the best hope for any substantial budget increase that would allow SLS to get proper funding, missions and launch rate is for the general public to get engaged/inspired about space again. It was interesting how a lot of folks (again talking general public here) seemed to only realize what they were losing with Shuttle when it was already retired and orbiters were being ferried to museum sites.

Would SNC/Dream Chaser have been any more inspirational? Seems unlikely at this point that we will ever know.
It is important if it impacts interest in STEM...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Political Hack Wannabe on 09/17/2014 02:35 pm
Im just thinking about SNC's CCiCap - they had the optional milestones, that only were minimally exercised. 

Is there some way to get funding for those to be exercised? 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 09/17/2014 02:39 pm
It seems to me that having three different capsule designs for just two to three missions total a year is not a good way to run a cost effective program. If the CCtCAP vehicles are to help with costs, then surely only going with the cheaper option and saving $4.2B, that could be used for other actual missions beyond LEO, like building a large upper stage, cryogenic propulsion stage and Lunar lander, seems to me to be a better way to use the available money.

Personally, I wanted Sierra Nevada to win so as to give someone else a chance, just like NASA gave SpaceX a chance. Anyways, here's a summary of the total program costs.

CCDEV                     CCDEV1 CCDEV2 CCDEV2+ CCiCap   CPC  CCiCap2 CCtCAP  Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing                     $18.0  $92.3  $20.6  $460.0  $10.0  $20.0  $4200  $4820.9
SpaceX                      $0.0  $75.0   $0.0  $440.0   $9.6  $20.0  $2600  $3144.6
Sierra Nevada Corporation  $20.0  $80.0  $25.6  $212.5  $10.0  $15.0          $363.1
Blue Origin                 $3.7  $22.0                                        $25.7
ULA                         $6.7                                                $6.7
Paragon                     $1.4                                                $1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                      $49.8  $269.3 $46.2 $1112.5  $29.6  $55.0  $6800  $8362.4


Tapatalk really screws that up on mobile - doesn't honour the fixed-width font.

Let's see if this is any better:-

CCDEV  CCDEV1  CCDEV2  CCDEV2+  CCiCap     CPC  CCiCap2  CCtCAP     Total 
Boeing  $18.0  $92.3  $20.6 $460.0  $10.0  $20.0$4200$4820.9
SpaceX   $0.0  $75.0   $0.0 $440.0   $9.6  $20.0$2600$3144.6
Sierra Nevada Corporation    $20.0  $80.0  $25.6 $212.5  $10.0  $15.0 $363.1
Blue Origin   $3.7  $22.0  $25.7
ULA   $6.7   $6.7
Paragon   $1.4   $1.4
Total  $49.8 $269.3  $46.2$1112.5  $29.6  $55.0$6800$8362.4

cheers, Martin

Edit: nope. Epic fail there, TT.

Interesting thing to note... wish I'd seen this chart back during the Forum Poll on who would win.
Boeing is the only competitor to get funding at every step of the program.  Also, they got the largest or 2nd largest awards each time.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/17/2014 02:51 pm

Would SNC/Dream Chaser have been any more inspirational? Seems unlikely at this point that we will ever know.

Just from seeing the article view numbers, the forum views and interaction threads, the polls, the twitter reactions, it's my opinion that:

Dragon V2 - lots of interest and love.
Dream Chaser - lots and interest and love - probably even more than V2, but V2 was revealed much later.
CST-100 - Meh!

Yeah, I probably just made a Boeing guy spit out his morning coffee, but sorry - that's how I see it.

So, my opinion is, based on your comment, yes - Dream Chaser wipes the floor with CST-100 on inspiration. And I dare say Dream Chaser wipes the floor with CST-100 on capability. Dream Chaser was probably vastly cheaper to get to 2017 too.

Sure, what do I know, and my post on a messageboard is going to mean absolutely nothing (and rightly so), but I'm not seeing people running around with CST-100 baseball caps and "Capsules 4 EVA!" T-shirts this morning. ;) I am seeing a lot of upset for Dream Chaser, however.

Oh and welcome to the site's forum! :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: DavisSTS on 09/17/2014 03:07 pm
So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/17/2014 03:08 pm
So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?

Hopefully the Source Selection document will shed some light on that.

Although my twisted sense of humor makes me wonder if SNC's final review presentation to NASA went a bit like this: ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SG2Xplkvak
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 09/17/2014 03:11 pm
Good post. I was showing my son (13) an animation of Dragon 2 returning and his reaction was "that's so cool". I guarantee you the first powered landing (without chutes) that Dragon makes will get the public's attention.  It's what they see in the movies and it's what they expect to see in real life but only get chutes and water most of the time.

It will be look mom, no chute needed! That's what I like about SpaceX above Boeing. It's that they are willing to not stay with the present but to ask questions and change things up. Boeing is a good company and will "get the job done" but they won't inspire the next generation of space engineers. Space X might.

...

CST-100 will probably get the job done, but on the inspiration scale I think it's down there with Soyuz. I know that there is a lot more love for SpaceX and Dragon around here, but I'm not sure the general public will be inspired by that either. ...


Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/17/2014 03:11 pm
So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?

IMO? Boeing's continued involvement was critical to stop Congress defunding the whole program for being 'without credibility'. Not funding SpaceX, a company actually already flying the vehicle to the ISS, would instantly fail the laugh test and not even SpaceX's most vituperative Congressional enemy would want to be associated with such a decision. Only two vehicles were going to be funded. The rest is just math.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: eywflyer on 09/17/2014 03:19 pm
Good post. I was showing my son (13) an animation of Dragon 2 returning and his reaction was "that's so cool". I guarantee you the first powered landing (without chutes) that Dragon makes will get the public's attention.  It's what they see in the movies and it's what they expect to see in real life but only get chutes and water most of the time.

It will be look mom, no chute needed! That's what I like about SpaceX above Boeing. It's that they are willing to not stay with the present but to ask questions and change things up. Boeing is a good company and will "get the job done" but they won't inspire the next generation of space engineers. Space X might.

That's a good point - I had forgotten about the potential for Dragon V2 powered landing. I think that would draw a higher level of interest than chutes and splash. Curiosity's sky crane landing on Mars certainly did, and no one could watch that happen live.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: happyflower on 09/17/2014 03:22 pm
So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?

IMO? Boeing's continued involvement was critical to stop Congress defunding the whole program for being 'without credibility'. Not funding SpaceX, a company actually already flying the vehicle to the ISS, would instantly fail the laugh test and not even SpaceX's most vituperative Congressional enemy would want to be associated with such a decision. Only two vehicles were going to be funded. The rest is just math.

You are probably right, but I am just so sick and tired of politics being used to evaluate an engineering program...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 09/17/2014 03:35 pm
So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?

IMO? Boeing's continued involvement was critical to stop Congress defunding the whole program for being 'without credibility'. Not funding SpaceX, a company actually already flying the vehicle to the ISS, would instantly fail the laugh test and not even SpaceX's most vituperative Congressional enemy would want to be associated with such a decision. Only two vehicles were going to be funded. The rest is just math.

You are probably right, but I am just so sick and tired of politics being used to evaluate an engineering program...

He who holds the purse strings makes the rules.

That's why I like Elon and SpaceX.  He has a plan to hold his own purse strings for his projects.  Yes, he is selling to NASA and has to win their contracts, but he's doing that to fund a larger vision... not just make money for his investors.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/17/2014 03:38 pm
I have couple questions around launch vehicles.

How many actual launches are called for in the contract?  Is it 7 or more than that?  I was just doing some math and if we look at the Atlas-V as having a launch cost of $225M and the Falcon 9v1.1 at 60M this would be 1.155 Billion in extra launch costs for the Atlas-V over the Falcon 9 for 7 launches.  Which covers a good chunk of the 1.6 Billion difference in costs between the two companies bids.

Is the Falcon 9v1.1 already man-rated?  From what I read SpaceX designed the Falcon9 to be man-rated from the start.  Or will NASA need additional tests on the Falcon 9 Launch Vehicle? 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/17/2014 03:46 pm
I would have no problem with the decision if we just went with the president’s wishes when he was a candidate to investigate using ELV's.  Then we could have just cut a check to Boeing for a capsule and had it ready to fly after wheels stop of STS-135... We could have avoided all the dancing and had no gap...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Giovanni DS on 09/17/2014 03:56 pm
Could the decision be related to percieved risks with DC engines? all the news about engine changes just before the decision... may be they tried to address concerns about hybrids.

Giovanni
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: LouScheffer on 09/17/2014 04:08 pm
What is it about government contracting people do not understand?  Request for proposals (RFP's) are put out, companies bid on those proposals (and all that paperwork really costs), government teams assess those proposals against criteria (legally they can not spill the details outside the assessment team) and a decision is finally made.

Boeing's bid cost more than SpaceX but outside the assessing team that would not have been known.  So, it is not about Boeing getting more than SpaceX, it  is rather that Boeing priced their RFP response higher.  The bid assessment team would have had a huge matrix of criteria to work through - technical, schedule and financial risk assessments would have been in the mix as well.  In the end they had to choose two players and the two that scored higher would have won.

Exactly.  At least this appears to be a rational decision made by a more or less rational process.  If you take the requirement for independent access seriously (as I think it should be taken) then you will need to fund a non-lowest bidder, and confidence in the solution working will be a strong criterium. 

So I can appreciate this decision just as I can appreciate a Supreme Court decision, whether I agree with it or not.  At least they took a solid look at all the available evidence, and then decided.  Compared with deciding by legislative and politically driven fiat, that alone is a huge improvement.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: R7 on 09/17/2014 04:13 pm
I'm not seeing people running around with CST-100 baseball caps and "Capsules 4 EVA!" T-shirts this morning. ;)

[hint]People want their "Capsules 4 EVA!" T-shirts with NSF logo[/hint] ;D
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 09/17/2014 04:15 pm
Exploration is not a continuum it is a stop start thing.

True, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo discovered and claimed Alta California for Spain in 1542. The Spainish did not begin settling Alta California until Junipero Serra built Mission San Diego de Alcala in 1769, 227 years later. Even then, the missions were founded only because Russian seal hunters were moving in on that territory. If Tesla can provide the funding, I expect Musk to reach Mars. Colonies are far beyond his lifetime.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chalmer on 09/17/2014 04:24 pm
So I've been trying to figure out how the cctcap contract looks like. As far as i understand there are 3 parts.
1. Development part incl. one test flight to ISS
2. A "Services" part with 2-6 flight to ISS, which presumably will be flown after certification. This part is an optional extra that NASA can choose to exercise.
3. A Special Studies part. This part is probably not at big part of the award money.

I've tried to make an overview and calculate how big the different parts of the contracts are based on number released earlier for transportation to LEO on Spacex and Boeing rockets/spacecraft by Bigelow. Admittedly I have no basis to estimate the size of the Special Studies part, so i have assigned $50 Mill. ad hoc to both SpaceX and Boeing.

Table attached via image.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 09/17/2014 04:30 pm
So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?

I'm disappointed too, yet in spite of our thinking it's political, there may well be technical considerations we aren't thinking of. We're not at the Gravity stage yet, but the day is coming when debris is the major obstacle to space flight. The ISS cupola already has 2 MMOD strikes. A fully exposed TPS covering the entire ship is far more vulnerable than a heat shield fully covered on both sides. There is more debris around ISS than anywhere else except perhaps the Chinese kill zone. In that ISS is the destination, perhaps they decided the exposed TPS was too risky.

(Edit-yea, 1000th post-yippee!)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/17/2014 04:37 pm
So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?

I'm disappointed too, yet in spite of our thinking it's political, there may well be technical considerations we aren't thinking of. We're not at the Gravity stage yet, but the day is coming when debris is the major obstacle to space flight. The ISS cupola already has 2 MMOD strikes. A fully exposed TPS covering the entire ship is far more vulnerable than a heat shield fully covered on both sides. There is more debris around ISS than anywhere else except perhaps the Chinese kill zone. In that ISS is the destination, perhaps they decided the exposed TPS was too risky.

(Edit-yea, 1000th post-full member-yippee!)
Congrats on the 1G mark! :) I'd like to see the X-37B TPS after such long duration flights as a baseline....
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: watermod on 09/17/2014 04:47 pm
As a taxpayer I see a government entity making another large purchase with much higher costs with money they didn't earn.   If the Boeing costs were much closer to the SpaceX ones it wouldn't traumatize me as much.
It's the same problem I have with the Air Force's block buy and every other branch of government easily spending money earned by others.    I am not Libertarian  but this constant poor judgment with money is driving me that way.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/17/2014 04:52 pm
As a taxpayer I see a government entity making another large purchase with much higher costs with money they didn't earn.   If the Boeing costs were much closer to the SpaceX ones it wouldn't traumatize me as much.
It's the same problem I have with the Air Force's block buy and every other branch of government easily spending money earned by others.    I am not Libertarian  but this constant poor judgment with money is driving me that way.

If you are going to select two providers and two launch vehicles, what other Launch Vehicle would you have had selected besides the Falcon 9? 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/17/2014 04:58 pm

Exactly.  At least this appears to be a rational decision made by a more or less rational process.  If you take the requirement for independent access seriously (as I think it should be taken) then you will need to fund a non-lowest bidder, and confidence in the solution working will be a strong criterium. 

So I can appreciate this decision just as I can appreciate a Supreme Court decision, whether I agree with it or not.  At least they took a solid look at all the available evidence, and then decided.  Compared with deciding by legislative and politically driven fiat, that alone is a huge improvement.

Maybe the real problem is at a higher level, in the requirements set forth by NASA and Congress.  If the goal is truly just to obtain the cheapest, quickest option for near-term replacement of Soyuz and a limited ISS role lasting a few years, then going with a low risk, low tech solution makes sense.  But from a policy perspective, does it make sense in the long run to no longer value innovation and technological progress, or to discount any potential to evolve beyond the ISS role?  IMO the human spaceflight program sort of died when this country lost the will to follow through on ambitious efforts to push the boundaries.  Thankfully Elon Musk is working as much as he can to do just that (I'm sure I'm not the only one envious that he has the bucks and the talent to make his vision a reality!) but of course in a very measured, pragmatic, evolutionary manner.  The nation unfortunately does not have the will or desire to make a NASP or VentureStar type breakthrough a reality. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 09/17/2014 04:59 pm
I'd like to see the X-37B TPS after such long duration flights as a baseline....

Agreed, however it doesn't fly to ISS. The more craft that visit ISS, the more little junk there is in that orb. Having the exposed TPS would mean visual inspections including stills and video at each arrival and departure. DC had no Canada Arm and boom with which to inspect itself. Then you have the embarassing situation if you do find a strike causing them to return to ISS for safe harbor and the program is cancelled after that. Everyone would say, "After all the problems STS had with tiles, why did they go with that system again?" I loved DC, but maybe using a protected heat shield is just safer in this debris filled environment.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/17/2014 05:06 pm
So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?
It might not have been about SNC doing anything wrong.  The competition may simply have lined up better with what NASA's decision makers wanted. 

Still, there were some issues.  SNC was behind the others, due in part to less funding over time.  It was still working on aerodynamic testing, an effort that was set back by its crash landing (which helped remind everyone of the "hot" landings associated with lifting bodies).  There seemed to be something happening with propulsion, with a recent switch away from hybrid motor technology.  SpaceX and Boeing were way ahead on avionics compared to SNC by all appearances, so that would have been a big area of development effort (and a potential schedule hog).  Finally, having one capsule and one lifting body would have required maintenance and operation of both landing sites (runways, etc.) in more than one location and of recovery force options for capsule abort water landings.  Now they just have to worry about capsule landings.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: llanitedave on 09/17/2014 05:07 pm

And yes, I have trouble getting excited over reestablishing the routine access to LEO that I grew up with in the 1980's and 1990's, except with smaller craft and fewer people. That seems to be the extent of the ambition of the CST-100.

LEO access was NEVER "routine".
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/17/2014 05:11 pm
I'd like to see the X-37B TPS after such long duration flights as a baseline....

Agreed, however it doesn't fly to ISS. The more craft that visit ISS, the more little junk there is in that orb. Having the exposed TPS would mean visual inspections including stills and video at each arrival and departure. DC had no Canada Arm and boom with which to inspect itself. Then you have the embarassing situation if you do find a strike causing them to return to ISS for safe harbor and the program is cancelled after that. Everyone would say, "After all the problems STS had with tiles, why did they go with that system again?" I loved DC, but maybe using a protected heat shield is just safer in this debris filled environment.
The X-37B TPS is an "evolved" version of Shuttle's TPS and looked pretty clean from what they let us see...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Razvan on 09/17/2014 05:12 pm
Unfortunately, we have to live with this reality for a while. This sad situation has been created by the lack of competition on the market and the continued lack of interest from the side of the only adjudicated supplier - able to enforce its own terms - to improve their products both technologically and commercially, and it may be stopped by the merge of a strong market, abundant in competitive offers for reliable services within this field of interest.

NASA must not be condemned for trying to secure safety first and only after that the better commercial terms. SpaceX and other competitors, once certified and holding reliable, well proven products and services will then be able to induce the desired change into the market.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oli on 09/17/2014 05:13 pm
I'd like to see the X-37B TPS after such long duration flights as a baseline....

Agreed, however it doesn't fly to ISS. The more craft that visit ISS, the more little junk there is in that orb. Having the exposed TPS would mean visual inspections including stills and video at each arrival and departure. DC had no Canada Arm and boom with which to inspect itself. Then you have the embarassing situation if you do find a strike causing them to return to ISS for safe harbor and the program is cancelled after that. Everyone would say, "After all the problems STS had with tiles, why did they go with that system again?" I loved DC, but maybe using a protected heat shield is just safer in this debris filled environment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the inspection of the Shuttle's heat shield done because something could have hit it during launch? Dreamchaser would have been on top so no probs there.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/17/2014 05:18 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the inspection of the Shuttle's heat shield done because something could have hit it during launch? Dreamchaser would have been on top so no probs there.


Well, the MMOD risk would certainly be higher for DC, that I must admit.  Consider that the vehicle has more surface area, with exposed fragile aero surfaces and TPS.  The capsules will have less exposure, with a more compact shape and with the main heat shield somewhat protected on-orbit by the expendable trunk. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: SoundForesight on 09/17/2014 05:33 pm
I also posted this in "SNC Dream Chaser DISCUSSION Thread." If this is a faux pas, please excuse me.

I don't see this statement on either SNC's or SNC Space Systems' web site for press releases, but KRNV, a Reno, Nevada TV station reports the following as a statement issued by SNC:
http://www.mynews4.com/news/story/Sierra-Nevada-Corporation-misses-NASA-contract/LegXqlm0UUGPYgh2pcrH9A.cspx (http://www.mynews4.com/news/story/Sierra-Nevada-Corporation-misses-NASA-contract/LegXqlm0UUGPYgh2pcrH9A.cspx)

"Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) recognizes that NASA has made a selection of an alternative provider(s) in the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability Contract (CCtCap) competition. SNC is planning to have a debrief session with NASA soon to obtain the source selection statement and decision rationale. When this process is complete and after a thorough evaluation, SNC will elaborate further on its future options regarding the NASA Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract decision and the Dream Chaser program. Due to this pending activity SNC will have no further public statement at this time. We will be providing further information at a later date.

While SNC is disappointed NASA did not select its Dream Chaser® Space System for the CCtCap contract, SNC commends NASA for initiating the effort and is privileged to have been part of returning human space flight to the United States through our awarded contracts in all other phases of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program over the past four years."
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/17/2014 05:36 pm
Does not sound encouraging...brings back the familiar feelings of seeing similar statements at the end of the X-33 program, but knowing it was likely over.  (I wasn't even working on the program then, but I was still rooting for it and hoping the military might keep it alive.)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/17/2014 05:37 pm
SNC failing to get media releases out properly again.

Meanwhile:
Charles A. Lurio ‏@TheLurioReport  6m
CCtCap rumor1: Was to be SpaceX/SNC at about $5b total until the announcement delay about 2 wks ago. No disrespect Boeing but what happened?

You don't say!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ugordan on 09/17/2014 05:43 pm
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport  ·  5m (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/512293986602848256)

CCtCap rumor2: ULA stunned at Boeing selection-based on proposal, had concluded dead in water. Again:No
disrespect Boeing but what happened?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jarnis on 09/17/2014 05:50 pm
Bought and paid-for politicians busy at work. US system is fairly broken and the fact that it is very often shrugged off as business-as-usual looks pretty funny from an outsider perspective.

At least SpaceX got the contract as well, so it is not a total disaster.

SNC will almost certainly protest if the (yet-to-be-(re)written?) selection statement will give any opening for one.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Star One on 09/17/2014 05:59 pm

So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?

IMO? Boeing's continued involvement was critical to stop Congress defunding the whole program for being 'without credibility'. Not funding SpaceX, a company actually already flying the vehicle to the ISS, would instantly fail the laugh test and not even SpaceX's most vituperative Congressional enemy would want to be associated with such a decision. Only two vehicles were going to be funded. The rest is just math.

I agree they needed a familiar and I would say trusted name to congress onboard to keep them on side, and to stop them pulling the plug on the program in a fit of nervous worry over its prospects without such a reassuring name attached.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mijoh on 09/17/2014 06:03 pm
Not a total disaster, but very easily could have been. I think SpaceX was lucky to get in at all. The fix is definitely in and the only reason SpaceX made the cut, instead of just rewarding the whole thing to Boeing is optics. It would have caused an uproar if the whole deal was rewarded to Boeing straight out. Can't be too obvious with the graft. Too bad DC got the shyt end of the stick here. The have a very nice forward looking vehicle that hopefully will get put to use somewhere.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/17/2014 06:09 pm
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport  ·  5m (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/512293986602848256)

CCtCap rumor2: ULA stunned at Boeing selection-based on proposal, had concluded dead in water. Again:No
disrespect Boeing but what happened?

Wow, wonder if that's why Bolden's press conference was so weird and devoid of any real enthusiasm.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ugordan on 09/17/2014 06:12 pm
Wow, wonder if that's why Bolden's press conference was so weird and devoid of any real enthusiasm.

Oh, he was "enthusiastic", all right. About SLS/Orion.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 09/17/2014 06:14 pm
Possibly Boeing is running interference for SpaceX?!!. Not intentionally but, that may be the outcome especially if SpaceX launches ahead of them in very late 2015 Early 2016 timeline. Boeing most likely will take longer with product development.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/17/2014 06:17 pm
Not a total disaster, but very easily could have been. I think SpaceX was lucky to get in at all. The fix is definitely in and the only reason SpaceX made the cut, instead of just rewarding the whole thing to Boeing is optics. It would have caused an uproar if the whole deal was rewarded to Boeing straight out. Can't be too obvious with the graft. Too bad DC got the shyt end of the stick here. The have a very nice forward looking vehicle that hopefully will get put to use somewhere.

I disagree about the reason that SpaceX got in.  The reason that it made the cut was the Falcon 9.  The launch vehicle isn't dependent on Russian Rocket engines.  By choosing SpaceX you get two different Capsules and two different launch vehicles.   

I would be interested to know what was SNC's bid on the contract.  Will we ever get that information?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jarnis on 09/17/2014 06:20 pm
Not a total disaster, but very easily could have been. I think SpaceX was lucky to get in at all. The fix is definitely in and the only reason SpaceX made the cut, instead of just rewarding the whole thing to Boeing is optics. It would have caused an uproar if the whole deal was rewarded to Boeing straight out. Can't be too obvious with the graft. Too bad DC got the shyt end of the stick here. The have a very nice forward looking vehicle that hopefully will get put to use somewhere.

I disagree about the reason that SpaceX got in.  The reason that it made the cut was the Falcon 9.  The launch vehicle isn't dependent on Russian Rocket engines.  By choosing SpaceX you get two different Capsules and two different launch vehicles.   

I would be interested to know what was SNC's bid on the contract.  Will we ever get that information?

Based on this tweet and some math, only slightly more than SpaceX ($2.6B?) *NOTE: the total value is a rumor, not a verified fact*

Quote
Charles A. Lurio ‏@TheLurioReport  6m
CCtCap rumor1: Was to be SpaceX/SNC at about $5b total until the announcement delay about 2 wks ago. No disrespect Boeing but what happened?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: aameise9 on 09/17/2014 06:20 pm

Wow, wonder if that's why Bolden's press conference was so weird and devoid of any real enthusiasm.

Probably reading tea leaves but I, too, perceived the press conference to be weird.  Bolden was enthusastic about everything except the award.  The other two speakers were bland and vacuous, respectively.  The entire presentation seemed scripted to AVOID expressing institutional (NASA) support of the award.  May well be just my perception, of course.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ugordan on 09/17/2014 06:22 pm
The reason that it made the cut was the Falcon 9.

I would instead say it was Dragon and the flight experience it has, at least some portion of which will translate to Dragon V2.

Whether the engines below are Russian or not, Atlas is currently a much better-proven vehicle than F9 v1.1. The latter isn't even up to 10 flights and is not "out of the woods yet". NASA might have even identified the F9 baseline as a risk and SpaceX quite likely presented contingency plans on Dragon on Atlas as part of their program risk mitigation steps.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 09/17/2014 06:23 pm
Remember Boeing can launch on Falcon 9. It may have been part of Boeing's plan all along to have a co provider that can launch their capsule as well. With both in the game and Falcon 9 man rated to NASA standards, it makes for a double punch for CST-100 and an obvious advantage.  Wonder if Boeing reps made this known as a favorable co partner in commercial crew for them? In other words, Boeing said if we are chosen, We'd like to have SpaceX chosen as the co participant in order to have guaranteed dual launcher access. We will never know but, there was a meeting between SpaceX and Boeing sometime ago. Maybe this was talked about by the two companies.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: swampcat on 09/17/2014 06:27 pm
Haven't seen it mentioned here, but Fox Business News will be interviewing Elon Musk at 3pm ET.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 09/17/2014 06:33 pm
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport  ·  5m (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/512293986602848256)

CCtCap rumor2: ULA stunned at Boeing selection-based on proposal, had concluded dead in water. Again:No
disrespect Boeing but what happened?

Here's my theory on how the rumors turned out wrong: Boeing had the lowest risk assessment. Spacex and SNC were riskier, but well within what most people considered acceptable (based on experience with COTS for example). Spacex and SNC were cheaper and looked cooler too.

At the last minute, the administration looked at the international political scene and the tight schedule* and decided that the risks and consequences of a delay were unacceptable and must be minimized at any cost. What's the lead time to order more Soyuz seats? Who wants that on their hands right now?

Another thing is the 4.2 and 2.6 figures are the maximum possible amount. My theory is that the certification costs for Boeing and Spacex are closer than the numbers suggest, with the primary difference being in the cost of the post certification missions.
(complete guesswork): certification + 2 PCMs for Spacex: ~1.5B, Boeing: ~2.2B.

*the margins to make 2017 are razor thin. If nothing else everyone should agree on this.

**no matter what he's announcing, people accuse Bolden of "acting weird." Stop trying to read too much into it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/17/2014 06:37 pm
Remember Boeing can launch on Falcon 9. It may have been part of Boeing's plan all along to have a co provider that can launch their capsule as well. With both in the game and Falcon 9 man rated to NASA standards, it makes for a double punch for CST-100 and an obvious advantage.  Wonder if Boeing reps made this known as a favorable co partner in commercial crew for them? In other words, Boeing said if we are chosen, We'd like to have SpaceX chosen as the co participant in order to have guaranteed dual launcher access. We will never know but, there was a meeting between SpaceX and Boeing sometime ago. Maybe this was talked about by the two companies.

That is interesting if Boeing is planning some launches on the Falcon 9.  Is Falcon 9 already man rated?  I thought that SpaceX designed the Falcon to NASA man rating standards from the start.  What has to be tested now is the capsule.  I wouldn't be surprised if NASA wants to not use the Atlas-V to much for launches considering it cost around $225 Million a launch and Falcon 9 is around $60 Million. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/17/2014 06:40 pm
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport  ·  5m (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/512293986602848256)

CCtCap rumor2: ULA stunned at Boeing selection-based on proposal, had concluded dead in water. Again:No
disrespect Boeing but what happened?

Here's my theory on how the rumors turned out wrong: Boeing had the lowest risk assessment. Spacex and SNC were riskier, but well within what most people considered acceptable (based on experience with COTS for example). Spacex and SNC were cheaper and looked cooler too.

At the last minute, the administration looked at the international political scene and the tight schedule* and decided that the risks and consequences of a delay were unacceptable and must be minimized at any cost. What's the lead time to order more Soyuz seats? Who wants that on their hands right now?

Another thing is the 4.2 and 2.6 figures are the maximum possible amount. My theory is that the certification costs for Boeing and Spacex are closer than the numbers suggest, with the primary difference being in the cost of the post certification missions.
(complete guesswork): certification + 2 PCMs for Spacex: ~1.5B, Boeing: ~2.2B.

*the margins to make 2017 are razor thin. If nothing else everyone should agree on this.


I think most of the difference is in Launch Vehicle Costs if Boeing is planning on using the Atlas-V for all launches in the contract.  If we look at 7 launches that is a extra cost of 1.155 Billion for the Atlas versus the Falcon if we assume a Atlas launch cost of 225 Million and Falcon 9 launch cost of 60 Million. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Dasun on 09/17/2014 06:41 pm
Some people still do not get it.  This decision was not a couple of good 'ol boys sitting around the table grumbling about how little kick back was coming their way from those fancy pants new boys not was it a bunch of heavy weight politicians threating to cut funding if the decision did not cut their way.

It was the product of a months long process by an army of experts forensically examining the bids submitted and scoring them against the requirements NASA set.  If there is any biasing in the outcome it came from the requirements NASA formulated and against which the bids were scored.

This is standard government stuff.  It is certainly not visionary and it can be as boring as hell.  The vision comes from above, the product comes from an interminable paperwork process.  Apollo was built the same way, so was Shuttle.   
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/17/2014 06:42 pm
The reason that it made the cut was the Falcon 9.

I would instead say it was Dragon and the flight experience it has, at least some portion of which will translate to Dragon V2.

Whether the engines below are Russian or not, Atlas is currently a much better-proven vehicle than F9 v1.1. The latter isn't even up to 10 flights and is not "out of the woods yet". NASA might have even identified the F9 baseline as a risk and SpaceX quite likely presented contingency plans on Dragon on Atlas as part of their program risk mitigation steps.

What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle?  Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights? 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jarnis on 09/17/2014 06:45 pm
Some people still do not get it.  This decision was not a couple of good 'ol boys sitting around the table grumbling about how little kick back was coming their way from those fancy pants new boys not was it a bunch of heavy weight politicians threating to cut funding if the decision did not cut their way.

It was the product of a months long process by an army of experts forensically examining the bids submitted and scoring them against the requirements NASA set.  If there is any biasing in the outcome it came from the requirements NASA formulated and against which the bids were scored.

This is standard government stuff.  It is certainly not visionary and it can be as boring as hell.  The vision comes from above, the product comes from an interminable paperwork process.  Apollo was built the same way, so was Shuttle.

Then why there were strong rumors that as late as two weeks ago, it was supposed to be SNC/SpaceX, and at a much lower total cost?

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ugordan on 09/17/2014 06:50 pm
What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle?  Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights? 

There's no threshold that makes a vehicle "proven". I simply stated A-V is better-proven than F9 on account of its significantly bigger flight history.

The more successful flights, the better. The fewer anomalies on any given flight, the better. Constant He leaks and other last-minute, unspecified anomalies and delays are not a sign of a mature vehicle.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/17/2014 06:51 pm
Some people still do not get it.  This decision was not a couple of good 'ol boys sitting around the table grumbling about how little kick back was coming their way from those fancy pants new boys not was it a bunch of heavy weight politicians threating to cut funding if the decision did not cut their way.

It was the product of a months long process by an army of experts forensically examining the bids submitted and scoring them against the requirements NASA set.  If there is any biasing in the outcome it came from the requirements NASA formulated and against which the bids were scored.

This is standard government stuff.  It is certainly not visionary and it can be as boring as hell.  The vision comes from above, the product comes from an interminable paperwork process.  Apollo was built the same way, so was Shuttle.

Then why there were strong rumors that as late as two weeks ago, it was supposed to be SNC/SpaceX, and at a much lower total cost?

I am guessing that the lower figure ($5B) was based on DC on a Falcon 9. I don't see how else DC could only ask for $2.4B.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Dasun on 09/17/2014 06:52 pm
Rumours are just that rumours - strong or otherwise.

If the companies are not happy with the outcome there are legal avenues they can pursue.  The whole process is documented to hell and back just in case that happens and there is a legal reason to justify the decision made.  IIRC - and do not hold me to it - but Boeing made an appeal against Airbus being selected for the airborne tanker currently being built by Boeing and won. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/17/2014 06:56 pm
Bunch of nonsense and BS.  Not one bit of truth in this post

What about Lurio's tweets?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/17/2014 06:56 pm

Then why there were strong rumors that as late as two weeks ago, it was supposed to be SNC/SpaceX, and at a much lower total cost?


You believe rumors, especially on the internet?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/17/2014 06:58 pm
Bunch of nonsense and BS.  Not one bit of truth in this post

What about Lurio's tweets?

Who is that?  Was he on the selection board?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/17/2014 07:02 pm
I hear alot about our paying the Russians $71M per seat to fly to the ISS, but I can't find information on what the estimated cost will be per seat on the CST 100 and manned Dragon. Is this information published any where?

We don't know. A reporter asked that question yesterday but NASA declined to answer the question for now. NASA has indicated in the past that it should be competitive with Soyuz. My guess is that SpaceX will come out under but Boeing will come out slightly over that price. I am guessing $150M-$180M per flight for SpaceX versus $250M-$300M for Boeing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: qralt on 09/17/2014 07:03 pm
A very coherent argument as to why Boeing got more:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/41897sn-blog-no-real-surprise-that-boeing%E2%80%99s-cctcap-award-is-bigger-than-spacex%E2%80%99s


Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Dasun on 09/17/2014 07:03 pm
If the selection board was leaking - and it can be proved in court - then that will nullify the selection process and the whole thing will have to  be done all over again.  The process is designed to be as fair and unbiased as humanely possible.  You may not like the outcome but it is the result of a rigorous process.

Rumours are really an unreliable source of info - who knows, how or why they start.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/17/2014 07:05 pm
Bunch of nonsense and BS.  Not one bit of truth in this post

What about Lurio's tweets?

Who is that?  Was he on the selection board?

Charles Lurio is a journalist. He writes the Lurio report. The information that he received was similar to what Chris heard through his sources. It's possible that the sources are the same.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Dasun on 09/17/2014 07:08 pm
Regarding the spacenews opinion piece: SpaceX got what they bid for, Boeing got what they bid for -as that is the amounts they submitted in their respective bids. 

The selection board did not - repeat did not -decide on project funding allocation.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lourens on 09/17/2014 07:11 pm
NASA must not be condemned for trying to secure safety first and only after that the better commercial terms. SpaceX and other competitors, once certified and holding reliable, well proven products and services will then be able to induce the desired change into the market.

Oh absolutely. I'm not saying that NASA should needlessly endanger human lives. I'm saying that if you don't accept any risk at all, there will be no progress (and I don't think that it will really reduce actual risk either). But it's not actually relevant to the CCtCap award, since all three vehicles would rightly be held to the same safety standards anyway.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Poole Amateur on 09/17/2014 07:11 pm
I made the mistake yesterday of posting the thoughts of my heart before my brain (in mitigation,  I was suffering from a few Southampton Boatshow beers). Jim pulled me up in one of his few word posts and got me to thinking straight this morning. No matter how cynical we can all get, when people like Jim, who work so much more closely to matters probably than 99.9% of us, tells us to shut away conspiracy theories,  we should probably listen. Actually,  we should be celebrating as things are so much more exciting now than they have been in the last 40 years. Thank you Jim for keeping us on the straight and narrow, for being brutally frank and for telling us what we need to hear rather than want to hear.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/17/2014 07:11 pm
Who is that?  Was he on the selection board?

No, but neither were you.

Fine, it's a rumor, I get it.  Will be interesting to see if more rumors come up.  Also will be interesting to see what SNC does once they have the full report.

For the record, I predicted that SpaceX and Boeing would be the winners (see the poll thread), and I think there are good reasons Boeing was chosen.  I just find the idea that there might have been such a radical change in the selection result two weeks ago alarming.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 09/17/2014 07:21 pm
Given how poorly run and rushed the press conference was, it is not hard to suspect something fishy.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: matthewkantar on 09/17/2014 07:22 pm
One difference between Boeing and Spacex, I occasionally search Youtube for "Spacex". More times than not over this summer, a paid ad for CST-100 would come up above the results. I am pretty sure Spacex is not spending money on Youtube ads.

Enjoy
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/17/2014 07:23 pm

1.  No, but neither were you.

2.  Fine, it's a rumor, I get it.  Will be interesting to see if more rumors come up.  Also will be interesting to see what SNC does once they have the full report.

3.  For the record, I predicted that SpaceX and Boeing would be the winners (see the poll thread), and I think there are good reasons Boeing was chosen.  I just find the idea that there might have been such a radical change in the selection result two weeks ago alarming.


1.  And I have the same amount of information as anybody that wasn't on the selection board.  That is my point. 
I have been on selection boards, I know the process
2.  it doesn't matter, they are still rumors.
3.  What radical change?  Rumors don't count
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/17/2014 07:23 pm
Given how poorly run and rushed the press conference was, it is not hard to suspect something fishy.


Seeing something where there is nothing.

How many of these have you watched?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Avron on 09/17/2014 07:24 pm
One difference between Boeing and Spacex, I occasionally search Youtube for "Spacex". More times than not over this summer, a paid ad for CST-100 would come up above the results. I am pretty sure Spacex is not spending money on Youtube ads.

Enjoy

I don't think Musk's companies, apart from Solar city pay for any Advertising
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: WindyCity on 09/17/2014 07:29 pm
Been lurking here for a few years but new to posting. I know very little about the relative technical merits of the various commercial crew options, but am personally disappointed that SNC was left out. I was a big fan of Shuttle, because even though it was strictly a LEO ride it had so much more versatility than a capsule. Not saying that Dream Chaser would have had anywhere near those capabilities, but I would have liked for a lifting body spacecraft to carry forward the Shuttle legacy in some form. Now it appears that we'll have capsules and only capsules for the foreseeable future.

CST-100 will probably get the job done, but on the inspiration scale I think it's down there with Soyuz. I know that there is a lot more love for SpaceX and Dragon around here, but I'm not sure the general public will be inspired by that either. Does the inspiration factor of the general public matter? Maybe not, but IMO the best hope for any substantial budget increase that would allow SLS to get proper funding, missions and launch rate is for the general public to get engaged/inspired about space again. It was interesting how a lot of folks (again talking general public here) seemed to only realize what they were losing with Shuttle when it was already retired and orbiters were being ferried to museum sites.

Would SNC/Dream Chaser have been any more inspirational? Seems unlikely at this point that we will ever know.

When people see Dv2 land propulsively at the base it launched from, that will be inspiring.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Dasun on 09/17/2014 07:29 pm
Stop reading the tea leaves and listening to rumours. 

Take off the tin-foil hats

Stop trying to see spots where there are none

Jim - as usual - is spot on.

The decision made was based on a rigorous process, the funding allocated was what they bid for.

Like it or lump-it that is where we are....and by 2020 3 US manned vehicles will be flying and that is a good thing.



Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/17/2014 07:33 pm
Bunch of nonsense and BS.  Not one bit of truth in this post

What about Lurio's tweets?

Who is that?  Was he on the selection board?

Charles Lurio is a journalist. He writes the Lurio report. The information that he received was similar to what Chris heard through his sources. It's possible that the sources are the same.

No. The sources are not the same. It's just *so many* people knew about it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/17/2014 07:34 pm
What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle?  Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights? 

There's no threshold that makes a vehicle "proven". I simply stated A-V is better-proven than F9 on account of its significantly bigger flight history.

The more successful flights, the better. The fewer anomalies on any given flight, the better. Constant He leaks and other last-minute, unspecified anomalies and delays are not a sign of a mature vehicle.

Both vehicle's have proven through repeated launches that they can get the job done.   
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/17/2014 07:44 pm
A very coherent argument as to why Boeing got more:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/41897sn-blog-no-real-surprise-that-boeing%E2%80%99s-cctcap-award-is-bigger-than-spacex%E2%80%99s

To me the argument leaves out the fact that the Boeing Capsule is planning to use the Atlas-V and the SpaceX uses the Falcon 9v1.1 which is 1/3 the cost of the Atlas-V.  IMHO that has to play into the price difference in bidding.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: adrianwyard on 09/17/2014 07:44 pm
Stepping back a little, does the $6.8 billion price tag for this phase in CC tell us anything about how successful this public/private-commercial experiment is going?

Total CC bill seems to be getting high to me, but I've never built a spacecraft before... At some point it would have cost fewer tax dollars if NASA had gone to Boeing or LM in 2010 and said "please build us a spaceship, you know the drill: cost-plus".

In theory freeing up companies to design to specs, coupled with competition should have kept prices low. Is there evidence this has happened? To amateur eyes the disparity in what Boeing is charging for the same work as SpaceX suggests they have not been phased by the presence of SNC and SpaceX in the competition. But others may know differently.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Mongo62 on 09/17/2014 07:58 pm
What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle?  Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights?

One flight more than however many they've flown at that point in time, it appears.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: chuck34 on 09/17/2014 08:04 pm
IIRC - and do not hold me to it - but Boeing made an appeal against Airbus being selected for the airborne tanker currently being built by Boeing and won.

THIS, In my humble opinion, is more apt to this situation that you think.  You do realize that Airbus actually did win that contract based on the merits?  But then some "good 'ole boys in the back room" got together and politics trumped the decision of the selection board.  Now I personally believe those political considerations had valid weight to them (US Defense shouldn't be reliant on foreign nations when there is a US alternative).  And maybe there are good political reasons for Boeing to be included at the last minute here (if that's true, and I have no idea). 

But please realize that, by your own example, the selection board is not always 100% apolitical, nor are they immune from outside influence. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/17/2014 08:07 pm
Stepping back a little, does the $6.8 billion price tag for this phase in CC tell us anything about how successful this public/private-commercial experiment is going?

Total CC bill seems to be getting high to me, but I've never built a spacecraft before... At some point it would have cost fewer tax dollars if NASA had gone to Boeing or LM in 2010 and said "please build us a spaceship, you know the drill: cost-plus".

In theory freeing up companies to design to specs, coupled with competition should have kept prices low. Is there evidence this has happened? To amateur eyes the disparity in what Boeing is charging for the same work as SpaceX suggests they have not been phased by the presence of SNC and SpaceX in the competition. But others may know differently.

Remember that is just not buying a new spacecraft.  It is also buying 12 crew launches plus test launches.  I don't see how for 6.8 Billion under cost plus you would have gotten 12 crew launches and full development paid for a single new capsule.  Not even mentioning that 6.8 Billion you are getting two new capsules. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/17/2014 08:08 pm
Stepping back a little, does the $6.8 billion price tag for this phase in CC tell us anything about how successful this public/private-commercial experiment is going?

Total CC bill seems to be getting high to me, but I've never built a spacecraft before... At some point it would have cost fewer tax dollars if NASA had gone to Boeing or LM in 2010 and said "please build us a spaceship, you know the drill: cost-plus".

In theory freeing up companies to design to specs, coupled with competition should have kept prices low. Is there evidence this has happened? To amateur eyes the disparity in what Boeing is charging for the same work as SpaceX suggests they have not been phased by the presence of SNC and SpaceX in the competition. But others may know differently.
Heh Adrian, you pretty much said what I said 5 pages back. They could of just cut a check to Boeing several years back and we wouldn't be on Soyuz today or needing to ride trampolines... ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Dasun on 09/17/2014 08:09 pm
Chuck34 - I have forgotten most of the details regarding the overturning of Airbus's selection but as far as I recall it was done in the public space.  For political reasons - and I think sound -the Airbus selection was challenged and the competition rerun.  It was not done in the dark via back room deals - it was announced, protested, rerun and awarded to Boeing - exactly as the process is meant to happen.  I am guessing the new selection board had different criteria to score against! But this is off topic.

Jim has a better handle on this than me - check a few posts down.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/17/2014 08:13 pm
In my humble opinion, is more apt to this situation that you think.  You do realize that Airbus actually did win that contract based on the merits?

No, they won at first because the source selection criteria was changed mid stream.  Exceeding requirements wasn't supposed to be a factor.  See the GAO report.


But please realize that, by your own example, the selection board is not always 100% apolitical, nor are they immune from outside influence. 

Yes, they are .  Your example is wrong.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: chuck34 on 09/17/2014 08:19 pm
In my humble opinion, is more apt to this situation that you think.  You do realize that Airbus actually did win that contract based on the merits?

No, they won at first because the source selection criteria was changed mid stream.  Exceeding requirements wasn't supposed to be a factor.  See the GAO report.


But please realize that, by your own example, the selection board is not always 100% apolitical, nor are they immune from outside influence. 

Yes, they are .  Your example is wrong.

Quick Google search.  Sounds eerily familiar.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/business/25tanker.html?_r=0

Quote
Boeing, its supporters in Congress and independent analysts were all surprised by the outcome, because in recent days, the Chicago-based company seemed to have given up hope of winning.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: bad_astra on 09/17/2014 08:30 pm
I don't really understand the anti-Boeing negativity, and I really like Dream Chaster.

CST-100 is a sound design that can do the job it was designed for. That's whats needed. Maybe I am not jaded enough, but I am excited about any human carrying spacecraft.

Whoever you like, the issue of all issues is that Congress is almost certainly not going to give NASA the money it needs to do this by 2017, and that is unfortunately. I hope I am wrong, but of all the entrants capable, if funded, of delivering on time, the CST-100 makes sense.

And frankly, if I were going up there, I'd want to be on the best funded, most conservative design. A vehicle like CST-100 is something I wish we had come out of from OSP.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: punder on 09/17/2014 08:31 pm
Being somewhat familiar with human nature, I would be very afraid to make a blanket statement that NASA or DOD selection boards are always apolitical and immune to outside influence.

Certainly not saying that's the case here... but every human on the planet can be manipulated.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Davinator on 09/17/2014 08:33 pm
Thread trim due to low quality posts.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 09/17/2014 08:34 pm
I think NASA prefer choose just Boeing, but  they were worry about Boeing coming back asking for more money, until project is canceled by Congress, I think  they choose Spacex to keep Boeing on leash.
I think NASA is becoming worry about Spacex, make NASA purpose on Space exploration obsolete.
What you need to explore solar system and land on Mars  and what NASA and Spacex are doing:
BFR
NASA  - will have something around 2025, but probably get cancel because money overrun
Spacex - will probably have BFR after 2020, if they will be able  due to reusability rocket took at least 50 % launch market($35B with their discount revenue could be around $15-20B)

Land big rocket propulsively with precision
To land rocket with capsule to bring back people on the Mars orbit
- NASA not even planing such tests
-Spacex already testing rocket landing(around 2024, they could hundred landing on earth and will be ready to try on Mars)

Landing on Mars
NASA- system to land on Mars couldn't be used to land crew due weight limits, they have to invent new system
Spacex - will soon test propulsive landing from the orbit, suitable also for Mars landing. Around 2024 will have tons landing on the Earth ready to do it on Mars.
Life support system                
NASA- have lot of experiences, will test 3 D printing
Spacex - not sure, but 3D printing could change ball game

MTV
NASA - Orion is not suitable for Mars trip
Spacex-not sure how far they are with MCT

Mars Habitat
NASA - not know
Spacex - not know

Rovers:
NASA - have rower that could be modify and use
Spacex - not know


In the most expensive items(BFR,Propulsive landing,capsule)  Spacex is ahead of NASA or NASA even didn't try included in their preparation for Mars exploration.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 09/17/2014 08:44 pm
Bigelow are a *long* way from being able to free-fly anything for a paying customer. I don't expect them to be providing an alternate destination for the CC providers in 2017 or 2018.

While I like Bigelow, I agree with this assessment. They've got a lot of work to do, and it's far from unclear that they have a lead that couldn't be surmounted by a competitor--inflatable modules aren't the only way to do large commercial space stations...

~Jon
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 09/17/2014 08:48 pm
I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...

~Jon

The odds of at least one of SpaceX or Boeing succeeding at this point (maybe later but succeeding) are extremely high.  You effectively said Bigelow is not a sure bet.  Which doesn't exactly seem like going out on a limb to me...

I was trying to be nice. Bigelow has a long way to go before they have either the technology or the engineering organization capable of doing what he wants to do. They might make it, but I only give them a little higher odds than I do SNC for making Dreamchaser work without a CCtCap award.

~Jon
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/17/2014 08:56 pm
I don't really understand the anti-Boeing negativity, and I really like Dream Chaster.

CST-100 is a sound design that can do the job it was designed for. That's whats needed. Maybe I am not jaded enough, but I am excited about any human carrying spacecraft.

Whoever you like, the issue of all issues is that Congress is almost certainly not going to give NASA the money it needs to do this by 2017, and that is unfortunately. I hope I am wrong, but of all the entrants capable, if funded, of delivering on time, the CST-100 makes sense.

And frankly, if I were going up there, I'd want to be on the best funded, most conservative design. A vehicle like CST-100 is something I wish we had come out of from OSP.

The problem with that is that Dragon v1 is already flying versus CST-100. 

 IMHO,  with Dragon v2 SpaceX will sending it with crew into orbit by 2017 regardless of Congressional funding.  With NASA they didn't want to exclude SpaceX and just fund Boeing.  Then turn around and have delays from Boeing and have them asking for more money.  While at the same time you have SpaceX building it's Dragon V2 and sending it into orbit with a crew as a test.  Then while NASA is still working with Boeing to get into space.  SpaceX has a press conference after the first Dragon V2 crewed test flight and you have Musk putting a "This Capsule for rent sign on the outside", with pricing listed.  NASA figured that at least with SpaceX as a partner they will not be overally disruptive to overall commercial crew program. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/17/2014 08:59 pm
What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle?  Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights?

One flight more than however many they've flown at that point in time, it appears.

Yeah isn't it amazing how the bar always keeps shifting when SpaceX has another success. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: adrianwyard on 09/17/2014 09:00 pm
Remember that is just not buying a new spacecraft.  It is also buying 12 crew launches plus test launches.  I don't see how for 6.8 Billion under cost plus you would have gotten 12 crew launches and full development paid for a single new capsule.  Not even mentioning that 6.8 Billion you are getting two new capsules.
You need to include prior CC programs, so the cost will be $8.3B. Mind you it looks like Orion will be pushing ~$13B to get passed tests and operational, but this is not an apples:apples comparison.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 09/17/2014 09:05 pm
Remember that is just not buying a new spacecraft.  It is also buying 12 crew launches plus test launches.  I don't see how for 6.8 Billion under cost plus you would have gotten 12 crew launches and full development paid for a single new capsule.  Not even mentioning that 6.8 Billion you are getting two new capsules.
You need to include prior CC programs, so the cost will be $8.3B. Mind you it looks like Orion will be pushing ~$13B to get passed tests and operational, but this is not an apples:apples comparison.

If you included the full Orion cost from start of development through it's 12th manned operational flight, including the fixed cost of keeping the program running through flight #12 (but left out any mission-specific engineering costs), my guess is it would be a lot higher than $13B... and that's without booking any launcher costs to Orion which is probably a big share of the costs in that CCtCap award.

~Jon
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/17/2014 09:07 pm
Remember that is just not buying a new spacecraft.  It is also buying 12 crew launches plus test launches.  I don't see how for 6.8 Billion under cost plus you would have gotten 12 crew launches and full development paid for a single new capsule.  Not even mentioning that 6.8 Billion you are getting two new capsules.
You need to include prior CC programs, so the cost will be $8.3B. Mind you it looks like Orion will be pushing ~$13B to get passed tests and operational, but this is not an apples:apples comparison.

True I didn't include the earlier costs, thank you for correcting that.  You have to include the package of crew launches as part of the consideration, which is not insignificantt.  I also strongly suspect that any future commercial crew bidding beyond the contracted launches will be significantly cheaper.  Is orion going to be that much different than the Commercial crew contracted Capsules?   
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/17/2014 09:10 pm
I don't really understand the anti-Boeing negativity, and I really like Dream Chaster.

CST-100 is a sound design that can do the job it was designed for. That's whats needed. Maybe I am not jaded enough, but I am excited about any human carrying spacecraft.

I think maybe it's at a higher level that I have a problem, and this is just a symptom of NASA's current mission.  We have no less than three separate manned vehicles under development now, and not a single one will be pushing the envelope in terms of technology or truly making spaceflight more routine.  Gone are the days of visionary projects like NASP and VentureStar.  Ill conceived as they may have been, they had the goal of pushing boundaries and advancing the state of the art. 

Of the three vehicles that I'll likely live to see fly in my lifetime, only the SpaceX Dragon gives me any level of excitement and optimism over its potential to evolve and play a part in opening up the frontier. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ugordan on 09/17/2014 09:13 pm
What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle?  Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights?

One flight more than however many they've flown at that point in time, it appears.

Yeah isn't it amazing how the bar always keeps shifting when SpaceX has another success. 

Oh, please. You can't seriously be telling me F9 v1.1 and Atlas are near the same level of reliability and maturity. One has 49 launches under its belt, the other has 7. So far, F9 is off to a good start, but it's not the strength of the SpaceX CCtCAP proposal. The strength is the Dragon and its flight heritage. A variant of the vehicle that will become Dragon V2 has already flown several times, whereas the competition has flown their proposed vehicle exactly zero times.

Just as NASA is likely to view F9 as the more riskier of the two vehicles, it's likely to view Dragon as less risky than other proposals. Doesn't mean these SpaceX-fanboi-like, knee-jerk reactions are in order just because someone dared to say F9 v1.1 has not yet proven itself to be the most reliable vehicle this side of the known universe.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: brokndodge on 09/17/2014 09:13 pm
Does anyone have a link to the Fox Business News interview with Elon Musk? I've only been able to find the first 7 minutes of the interview:  http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3790635789001/elon-musk-on-the-next-step-for-spacex-nevada-gigafactory/#sp=show-clips
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/17/2014 09:15 pm
I don't really understand the anti-Boeing negativity, and I really like Dream Chaster.

CST-100 is a sound design that can do the job it was designed for. That's whats needed. Maybe I am not jaded enough, but I am excited about any human carrying spacecraft.

I think maybe it's at a higher level that I have a problem, and this is just a symptom of NASA's current mission.  We have no less than three separate manned vehicles under development now, and not a single one will be pushing the envelope in terms of technology or truly making spaceflight more routine.  Gone are the days of visionary projects like NASP and VentureStar.  Ill conceived as they may have been, they had the goal of pushing boundaries and advancing the state of the art. 

Of the three vehicles that I'll likely live to see fly in my lifetime, only the SpaceX Dragon gives me any level of excitement and optimism over its potential to evolve and play a part in opening up the frontier.

What is going to make spaceflight routine is launch vehicles not the actual spacecraft.  The DragonV2 Capsule paired with a Falcon9R has the greatest chance of making spaceflight routine.  I don't know about you but for me having a Falcon 9 1st stage coming back down and landing would be pushing boundaries. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: brokndodge on 09/17/2014 09:16 pm
What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle?  Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights?

One flight more than however many they've flown at that point in time, it appears.

Yeah isn't it amazing how the bar always keeps shifting when SpaceX has another success. 

Oh, please. You can't seriously be telling me F9 v1.1 and Atlas are near the same level of reliability and maturity. One has 49 launches under its belt, the other has 7. So far, F9 is off to a good start, but it's not the strength of the SpaceX CCtCAP proposal. The strength is the Dragon and its flight heritage. A variant of the vehicle that will become Dragon V2 has already flown several times, whereas the competition has flown their proposed vehicle exactly zero times.

Just as NASA is likely to view F9 as the more riskier of the two vehicles, it's likely to view Dragon as less risky than other proposals. Doesn't mean these SpaceX-fanboi-like, knee-jerk reactions are in order just because someone dared to say F9 v1.1 has not yet proven itself to be the most reliable vehicle this side of the known universe.

Technically, since Atlas V will be getting new engines for CCtCap then it [new man rated Altas V] has not yet flown even once. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/17/2014 09:23 pm

Oh, please. You can't seriously be telling me F9 v1.1 and Atlas are near the same level of reliability and maturity. One has 49 launches under its belt, the other has 7. So far, F9 is off to a good start, but it's not the strength of the SpaceX CCtCAP proposal. The strength is the Dragon and its flight heritage. A variant of the vehicle that will become Dragon V2 has already flown several times, whereas the competition has flown their proposed vehicle exactly zero times.

Just as NASA is likely to view F9 as the more riskier of the two vehicles, it's likely to view Dragon as less risky than other proposals. Doesn't mean these SpaceX-fanboi-like, knee-jerk reactions are in order just because someone dared to say F9 v1.1 has not yet proven itself to be the most reliable vehicle this side of the known universe.

No but both the Atlas-V and Falcon 9v1.1 both meet the reliability criteria that NASA was looking for, even if the Atlas-V has a longer history.  You are also leaving out a huge strength for the Falcon 9 versus the Atlas-V, cost.  What is a complete launch cost for the Atlas-V?  I have seen figures of around $200+ Million and the rocket still needs to be human rated.  The Falcon 9v1.1 has a launch cost of 61.2 Million.  This is what I believe the most significant factor in the difference in pricing we are seeing between Boeing and SpaceX.   
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ugordan on 09/17/2014 09:27 pm
Technically, since Atlas V will be getting new engines for CCtCap then it [new man rated Altas V] has not yet flown even once. 

If you're talking about the dual-engine Centaur, you do have a point. Although, one could argue that would be reintroducing a configuration that already existed on an earlier Atlas and for purposes of crew safety and criticality of abort (due to atmospheric flight), the boost stage is more critical. As far as I know, the Atlas boost stage will be the same as before.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ugordan on 09/17/2014 09:29 pm
You are also leaving out a huge strength for the Falcon 9 versus the Atlas-V, cost. 

Yes, but as NASA likes to say, "safety first" so cost would be a secondary consideration in their mind. IMHO, at least. In any case, the original point I was making is about LV reliability statistics.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/17/2014 09:31 pm
I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...

~Jon

The odds of at least one of SpaceX or Boeing succeeding at this point (maybe later but succeeding) are extremely high.  You effectively said Bigelow is not a sure bet.  Which doesn't exactly seem like going out on a limb to me...

I was trying to be nice. Bigelow has a long way to go before they have either the technology or the engineering organization capable of doing what he wants to do. They might make it, but I only give them a little higher odds than I do SNC for making Dreamchaser work without a CCtCap award.

~Jon

Bigelow's habitats seems to be part of NASA's forward plans. DC isn't part of NASA's forward plans unless it wins a CRS2 contract.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/17/2014 09:34 pm
You are also leaving out a huge strength for the Falcon 9 versus the Atlas-V, cost. 

Yes, but as NASA likes to say, "safety first" so cost would be a secondary consideration in their mind. IMHO, at least. In any case, the original point I was making is about LV reliability statistics.

Price was actually ranked before safety according to the selection criteria in the RFP. But safety is a precondition to certification.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/17/2014 09:52 pm
I have trouble getting excited over reestablishing the routine access to LEO that I grew up with in the 1980's and 1990's, except with smaller craft and fewer people. That seems to be the extent of the ambition of the CST-100. Progress is doing things that haven't been done before, like propulsive landing and rapid reusability. That's not to say that new is automatically better, but it's definitely more satisfying.

Was the Model T not progress?  There were lots of cars before the Model T, but they didn't make much of an impact.  The Model T changed the world because it was cheap enough to scale up.

I'm excited by commercial crew because it's all about moving toward a Model T.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: seanpg71 on 09/17/2014 09:56 pm
I don't really understand the anti-Boeing negativity, and I really like Dream Chaster.

CST-100 is a sound design that can do the job it was designed for. That's whats needed. Maybe I am not jaded enough, but I am excited about any human carrying spacecraft.
...

I work in Higher Ed IT.  Occasionally we have to do an RFP for something like a pay-for-print system or a ticketing system.

We'd expect bids on those from various companies that create those sorts of software packages and market them to other similar institutions, with some added costs for the specific support model or any customizations that we'd want.

This situation feels a bit like if Boeing responding to our RFP and saying "Yeah - We'd be happy to write you a ticketing system to your specs, we make custom software all the time and have great people. - Granted, it'll cost us twice as much but that's just because you haven't paid us to start work yet."

Their proposed solution could be quite nice, and they may indeed be quite skilled at writing custom software and Boeing sure is a big name.  But the goal of our RFP was to find some cheap commercial solution we could buy into.  Not to just create expensive one-off custom software.

This Commercial Crew award was never going to be a totally off-the-shelf, because there isn't an existing market.  But Boeing seems especially uninterested in having any sort of goal with CST-100 at all other than just building a one-off design for the government and making money.  And if that's the direction we wanted to go with this, we should have just given them a cost plus contract to design a capsule for us years ago instead of messing around with various programs to spur commercial growth.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/17/2014 09:58 pm
I think the biggest loser in all of this is ULA.  NASA doing a very deep investigation into Falcon 9 and certifying it to fly NASA astronauts makes any claim that Falcon 9 isn't reliable enough for national security payloads look so silly that it's untennable.

And once Falcon 9 is considered reliable enough for national security payloads, it's not long before Falcon Heavy also has to be considered reliable enough, given the commonality between the two.

If NASA is booking flights for astronauts on Falcon 9 starting in 2017, what justification is there for the Air Force to say it's not safe enough for any launch after 2017?

The CCtCap award killed ULA.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/17/2014 10:28 pm
Technically, since Atlas V will be getting new engines for CCtCap then it [new man rated Altas V] has not yet flown even once. 

If you're talking about the dual-engine Centaur, you do have a point. Although, one could argue that would be reintroducing a configuration that already existed on an earlier Atlas and for purposes of crew safety and criticality of abort (due to atmospheric flight), the boost stage is more critical. As far as I know, the Atlas boost stage will be the same as before.
In order to achieve LEO, the Atlas upper stage have to work.

AFAIK, all Atlas V have fly only with the SEC version Centaur. The plumbing, avionics and actuators are totally different than the older DEC versions. So we really don't know how it will perform until the first DEC goes up. 

By the way SpaceX have hot-tested 50 Merlin engine in actual flown missions this year. Just how many RD-180 have flown in total?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: brokndodge on 09/17/2014 10:46 pm
Technically, since Atlas V will be getting new engines for CCtCap then it [new man rated Altas V] has not yet flown even once. 

If you're talking about the dual-engine Centaur, you do have a point. Although, one could argue that would be reintroducing a configuration that already existed on an earlier Atlas and for purposes of crew safety and criticality of abort (due to atmospheric flight), the boost stage is more critical. As far as I know, the Atlas boost stage will be the same as before.

I was referring to the RD-180.  The article linked to below [1] indicates that the new BE-4 engine is intended to replace the RD-180.  While it doesn't specifically state so.  Due to the vague information from that article I went looking for the actual press release [2].  "The BE-4 is a liquid oxygen, liquefied natural gas (LNG) rocket engine that delivers 550,000-lbf of thrust at sea level. Two BE-4s will power each ULA booster, providing 1,100,000-lbf thrust at liftoff."  There isn't specific mention of first stage or second stage.  Still too vague to determine exactly what this new engine is being built for. 

Edit: Found the real poop on this new engine in a FAQ [3] from the press release.
Quote
Q. Does the BE-4 replace the RD-180 engine that is imported through RD AMROSS?
A. The BE-4 is not a direct replacement for the RD-180 that powers ULA’s Atlas V rocket, however two
BE-4s are expected to provide the engine thrust for the next generation ULA vehicles. The details
related to ULA’s next generation vehicles – which will maintain the key heritage components of ULA’s
Atlas and Delta rockets that provide world class mission assurance and reliability – will be announced at
a later date.

[1] http://www.cnet.com/news/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-to-develop-rocket-engine-for-boeing-and-lockheed-martin/
[2] http://www.blueorigin.com/media/press_release/united-launch-alliance-and-blue-origin-announce-partnership-to-develop-new
[3] https://d1ljm9hc65qhyd.cloudfront.net/press-releases/2014-09-17/ULA-Blue-Origin-FAQ.pdf
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 09/17/2014 11:06 pm
I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...

~Jon

The odds of at least one of SpaceX or Boeing succeeding at this point (maybe later but succeeding) are extremely high.  You effectively said Bigelow is not a sure bet.  Which doesn't exactly seem like going out on a limb to me...

I was trying to be nice. Bigelow has a long way to go before they have either the technology or the engineering organization capable of doing what he wants to do. They might make it, but I only give them a little higher odds than I do SNC for making Dreamchaser work without a CCtCap award.

~Jon

Bigelow's habitats seems to be part of NASA's forward plans. DC isn't part of NASA's forward plans unless it wins a CRS2 contract.

No, inflatable structures are part of their notional forward plans. Bigelow isn't the only developer in this field that does inflatable habitats. There's also ILC Dover and Thin Red Line Aerospace. I still stand behind my original statement. I think they're both long-shots, but at least SNC has demonstrated it has a solid engineering culture with a team with extensive experience building flight hardware. Bigelow lost most of its flight hardware team after Genesis 1 and 2. They're rebuilding it with BEAM, but we haven't seen yet if the underlying engineering culture issues there have been solved. I hope he does, because SpaceX, Boeing, and others like SNC could all use additional, non-ISS destinations. I'm just not holding my breath and wouldn't be surprised if someone else beat them to the punch at the rate things have been going.

~Jon
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/17/2014 11:53 pm
...This Commercial Crew award was never going to be a totally off-the-shelf, because there isn't an existing market.  But Boeing seems especially uninterested in having any sort of goal with CST-100 at all other than just building a one-off design for the government and making money.  And if that's the direction we wanted to go with this, we should have just given them a cost plus contract to design a capsule for us years ago instead of messing around with various programs to spur commercial growth.

I nominate this for post of the day!  I have to ask, if this was the inevitable outcome, what was the point of funding DC at all with our tax dollars, if it provided no incentive for Boeing to streamline and cut costs?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/17/2014 11:56 pm
I nominate this for post of the day!  I have to ask, if this was the inevitable outcome, what was the point of funding DC at all with our tax dollars, if it provided no incentive for Boeing to streamline and cut costs?

What if Boeing and SpaceX had flubbed on their CCiCAP commitments?  What if SNC had done even better than they did with CCiCAP?  You're making a lot of assumptions based on what we know now, as opposed to what they knew then.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/18/2014 12:12 am
...This Commercial Crew award was never going to be a totally off-the-shelf, because there isn't an existing market.  But Boeing seems especially uninterested in having any sort of goal with CST-100 at all other than just building a one-off design for the government and making money.  And if that's the direction we wanted to go with this, we should have just given them a cost plus contract to design a capsule for us years ago instead of messing around with various programs to spur commercial growth.

I nominate this for post of the day!  I have to ask, if this was the inevitable outcome, what was the point of funding DC at all with our tax dollars, if it provided no incentive for Boeing to streamline and cut costs?
I glad he agreed with me... ;D
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: robertross on 09/18/2014 12:26 am
...This Commercial Crew award was never going to be a totally off-the-shelf, because there isn't an existing market.  But Boeing seems especially uninterested in having any sort of goal with CST-100 at all other than just building a one-off design for the government and making money.  And if that's the direction we wanted to go with this, we should have just given them a cost plus contract to design a capsule for us years ago instead of messing around with various programs to spur commercial growth.

I nominate this for post of the day!  I have to ask, if this was the inevitable outcome, what was the point of funding DC at all with our tax dollars, if it provided no incentive for Boeing to streamline and cut costs?

You know, that actually makes a lot of sense.

But we had to play the political card and see this through in this manner, I suppose. make people 'think' that the process had changed for a different outcome.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2014 12:57 am

Quote
Boeing, its supporters in Congress and independent analysts were all surprised by the outcome, because in recent days, the Chicago-based company seemed to have given up hope of winning.

Who says Boeing had given up hope of winning this contract or that Boeing, its supporters in Congress and independent analysts were all surprised by the outcome?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2014 01:00 am
.  I don't know about you but for me having a Falcon 9 1st stage coming back down and landing would be pushing boundaries.

Meaningless if it can't be reused
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2014 01:03 am
I think the biggest loser in all of this is ULA.  NASA doing a very deep investigation into Falcon 9 and certifying it to fly NASA astronauts makes any claim that Falcon 9 isn't reliable enough for national security payloads look so silly that it's untennable.

And once Falcon 9 is considered reliable enough for national security payloads, it's not long before Falcon Heavy also has to be considered reliable enough, given the commonality between the two.

If NASA is booking flights for astronauts on Falcon 9 starting in 2017, what justification is there for the Air Force to say it's not safe enough for any launch after 2017?

The CCtCap award killed ULA.


Not true at all.  Crew vehicles have abort systems.  NASA isn't going to look that deep
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 09/18/2014 02:06 am
Gingrich criticizes CCtCAP decision and rips SLS:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/opinion/gingrich-nasa-contract/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/18/2014 02:14 am
.  I don't know about you but for me having a Falcon 9 1st stage coming back down and landing would be pushing boundaries.

Meaningless if it can't be reused

Why wouldn't it be re-used at some point? 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/18/2014 02:18 am
I think the biggest loser in all of this is ULA.  NASA doing a very deep investigation into Falcon 9 and certifying it to fly NASA astronauts makes any claim that Falcon 9 isn't reliable enough for national security payloads look so silly that it's untennable.

And once Falcon 9 is considered reliable enough for national security payloads, it's not long before Falcon Heavy also has to be considered reliable enough, given the commonality between the two.

If NASA is booking flights for astronauts on Falcon 9 starting in 2017, what justification is there for the Air Force to say it's not safe enough for any launch after 2017?

The CCtCap award killed ULA.


Not true at all.  Crew vehicles have abort systems.  NASA isn't going to look that deep

Do we know the difference in requirements between USAF certification for DOD payloads and NASA certification for human-rating a rocket? 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2014 02:30 am

Do we know the difference in requirements between USAF certification for DOD payloads and NASA certification for human-rating a rocket? 

NASA is not human rating any of the crew launch vehicles.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2014 02:31 am
.  I don't know about you but for me having a Falcon 9 1st stage coming back down and landing would be pushing boundaries.

Meaningless if it can't be reused

Why wouldn't it be re-used at some point? 

We don't know if it can be reused or how much.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Mike Harris-Stone on 09/18/2014 02:40 am
I'm a big Dream Chaser fan -- my Dad was NASA's project manager for HL-20 on which Dream Chaser is based, so naturally I'm very disappointed.  Then today I ran across the obscure but fascinating fact.

SNC's new subsidiary -- Orbitec -- is making the life support and environmental control system for the CST-100.  So a bit of the CST-100 belongs to Sierra Nevada.  How odd.  Link is below:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/nasa-commercial-space-announcement-very-disappointing-for-madison-s-orbitec/article_f06abd1a-0b3e-5e28-af4b-a1b31414818c.html
 ::)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/18/2014 02:56 am

We don't know if it can be reused or how much.

The 1st stage of F9v1.1 has been designed with re-usability in mind.  The Merlin 1D engines have been tested through multiple cycles of firing.  If they get the 1st stage to land vertically on land there is a high degree of confidence it can be re-used as it was designed to do.  I don't know how much more excitement you want.  You have a private company  trying to do what NASA has never done before in spaceflight. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/18/2014 02:57 am

Do we know the difference in requirements between USAF certification for DOD payloads and NASA certification for human-rating a rocket? 

NASA is not human rating any of the crew launch vehicles.

Not specifically the crew launch vehicles.  However they are human rating the entire Commercial Crew transport system which includes the spacecraft and Launch vehicle. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/18/2014 03:07 am
I'm a big Dream Chaser fan -- my Dad was NASA's project manager for HL-20 on which Dream Chaser is based, so naturally I'm very disappointed. 

Wow! Very cool!

Welcome to the site's forum!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/18/2014 03:19 am
What a long, strange road it's been for the HL-20!  I just hope that the final chapter has not yet been written.  Oh how I wish I had Elon Musk type $$ to actually do something about it, but alas, all I can do in my present state is volunteer to stand outside of storefronts with a "Save Dream Chaser" collection plate!  ;) 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: brokndodge on 09/18/2014 03:20 am
I'm a big Dream Chaser fan -- my Dad was NASA's project manager for HL-20 on which Dream Chaser is based, so naturally I'm very disappointed.  Then today I ran across the obscure but fascinating fact.

SNC's new subsidiary -- Orbitec -- is making the life support and environmental control system for the CST-100.  So a bit of the CST-100 belongs to Sierra Nevada.  How odd.  Link is below:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/nasa-commercial-space-announcement-very-disappointing-for-madison-s-orbitec/article_f06abd1a-0b3e-5e28-af4b-a1b31414818c.html
 ::)

Between the Blue Origin deal and this deal, Boeing is spreading the wealth around pretty well.  Where I come from we call those "good ole boys".
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/18/2014 03:25 am
I have been on selection boards, I know the process
Jim, could you elaborate on the process a bit?  Don't these selections involve a multi-step process that might, at one point, produce a document that ranks competitors in several areas and that might be interpreted by some as favoring one or two over the others, even though it is only an input to the final decision making process?  I wonder if something like that happened here, offering one explanation for the rumors.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Mike Harris-Stone on 09/18/2014 03:53 am
Quote
Wow! Very cool!

Welcome to the site's forum!

Thanks!  I've been keeping my Dad up to date on Dream Chaser's progress since the Space Dev days.  A couple of years ago, SNC even had a special event at LRC to thank the old HL-20 crew for their contribution which my Dad and Mom attended.  Very classy of SNC.

Quote
all I can do in my present state is volunteer to stand outside of storefronts with a "Save Dream Chaser" collection plate!  ;)
  I'd like to join you in that effort.

One thing that gave me a sinking feeling in the days leading up to the announcement was the realization that both CST-100 and Dragon V2 can boost the ISS's oribt.  Dreamchaser can't do that, not with the engines pointed at the station while she is docked.  If Russia does abandon the station early, that capability will be needed and may have been a factor in the decision.

Speaking of engines, does anyone know what went wrong with SNC's hybrid technology?  Both Virgin Galactic and SNC seem to have abandoned it.  Or is that covered somewhere else in the forum?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: FinalFrontier on 09/18/2014 04:32 am
Read over alot of the material surrounding the down-select decision. I was rather upset, though not surprised, to SNC shorted out, in my view. Was not surprised however because I expected it would be unlikely, despite how little real world progress has been made on the Boeing vehicle, that they would get shorted when it came to this contract.


I am upset however, because I view this distinctly as an inside the loop "were sorry for not giving you JSF so have this" type deal, and I have my reasons for that, I also believe both SNC and Spacex have made far more real world progress than Boeing, with both their vehicles actually built and hardware being tested where as Boeing lags behind, in addition to the fact that Boeing already has major contracts for SLS, so I really do not view it as a fair or fiscally responsible decision. I hope SNC is able to continue to move forward but I know in reality that will be unlikely (having watched JSF itself many years ago very closely it is winner take all regardless of what NASA may say).

Still, I hope Boeing continues forward and is able to get their vehicle flying, and I look forward to SpaceX, hopefully, getting flying as well (though personally I can't lie I'd like to see dragon fly crew first), just getting us off the bloody Russians right now would be a godsend. So good luck to both companies.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/18/2014 05:17 am
I distinctly remember reading a quote about the 2016 Dream Chaser test launch happening regardless of the NASA decision, but it'll be interesting to see if that still holds true.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: woods170 on 09/18/2014 08:15 am
Gingrich criticizes CCtCAP decision and rips SLS:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/opinion/gingrich-nasa-contract/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Boring and hypocritical piece by Gingrich. First part of his piece he's lashing out to US politicians. He seems to be forgetting he has been one of those for a substantial part of his life.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/18/2014 08:23 am
And if that cheaper option fails, NASA is left holding the bag on another failed problem, no closer to regaining independence in access to space.  There are a lot of people acting like the fact that these two companies have been awarded CCtCAP contracts means the spacecraft are all but wrapped up neatly in a bow ready to use.

No, that's not acceptable, and I'm glad NASA is sticking to their guns (under substantial pressure from Congress) on keeping with two providers.  No, it's not the most cost effective solution, but it gives us options and that's a good thing.

If redundancy is required, there are much cheaper options. For example, flying Orion on Falcon Heavy or simply paying the Russians until the problems are fixed. The US vehicle would also be the backup for Soyuz as well. Having three capsules means more money is tied up into only going to LEO.

By the way SpaceX have hot-tested 50 Merlin engine in actual flown missions this year. Just how many RD-180 have flown in total?

Six on Atlas III and 49 on Atlas V, for 55 in total.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: raketa on 09/18/2014 08:37 am
Quote
Wow! Very cool!

Welcome to the site's forum!

Thanks!  I've been keeping my Dad up to date on Dream Chaser's progress since the Space Dev days.  A couple of years ago, SNC even had a special event at LRC to thank the old HL-20 crew for their contribution which my Dad and Mom attended.  Very classy of SNC.

Quote
all I can do in my present state is volunteer to stand outside of storefronts with a "Save Dream Chaser" collection plate!  ;)
  I'd like to join you in that effort.

One thing that gave me a sinking feeling in the days leading up to the announcement was the realization that both CST-100 and Dragon V2 can boost the ISS's orbit.  Dreamchaser can't do that, not with the engines pointed at the station while she is docked.  If Russia does abandon the station early, that capability will be needed and may have been a factor in the decision.

Speaking of engines, does anyone know what went wrong with SNC's hybrid technology?  Both Virgin Galactic and SNC seem to have abandoned it.  Or is that covered somewhere else in the forum?
There is problem with stability and smoothness trust of hybrid engines
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ugordan on 09/18/2014 09:04 am
I was referring to the RD-180.  The article linked to below [1] indicates that the new BE-4 engine is intended to replace the RD-180.  While it doesn't specifically state so. 

That's not an Atlas V anymore and it's not related to the CCtCAP award.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spectre9 on 09/18/2014 09:13 am
Some very interesting remarks about the demise of Dream Chaser in this thread.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33182.0

I still think they should have shown the video. Now they're cut and it's over.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Proponent on 09/18/2014 09:22 am
Gingrich criticizes CCtCAP decision and rips SLS:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/opinion/gingrich-nasa-contract/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Boring and hypocritical piece by Gingrich. First part of his piece he's lashing out to US politicians. He seems to be forgetting he has been one of those for a substantial part of his life.

Indeed, he blames NASA, and by extension the Obama administration, and suggests that Congress would do something about it, ignoring the fact that Congress created SLS over the administration's objections and Congress has been unsupportive of commercial crew.  The is a nonsensical hatchet job.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spectre9 on 09/18/2014 09:32 am
I like CST-100.

It lands on land. Good for live coverage of egress.

Good internal volume for the diameter.

Service module propellant is used for abort. Solid abort tractor tower I find icky in comparison.

Shape can handle BEO reentry.

It's light enough to launch on existing rockets.

Compared to Orion it's a hot rod dream machine.

Today is the day Orion became obsolete in my eyes.

Well done to Boeing. Get it on SLS and go to The Moon.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/18/2014 10:02 am
I think the biggest loser in all of this is ULA.  NASA doing a very deep investigation into Falcon 9 and certifying it to fly NASA astronauts makes any claim that Falcon 9 isn't reliable enough for national security payloads look so silly that it's untennable.

And once Falcon 9 is considered reliable enough for national security payloads, it's not long before Falcon Heavy also has to be considered reliable enough, given the commonality between the two.

If NASA is booking flights for astronauts on Falcon 9 starting in 2017, what justification is there for the Air Force to say it's not safe enough for any launch after 2017?

The CCtCap award killed ULA.


Not true at all.  Crew vehicles have abort systems.  NASA isn't going to look that deep

What expected failure rate for the launch vehicle would NASA accept?  What expected failure rate for the launch vehicle would the Air Force accept for the highest-priority national security payloads?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/18/2014 10:26 am
The crew isn't gaurenteed to survive if the LV has an issue even with an abort system. There is a probability of LV failure and a probability of abort failure. You need to minimize both in order to maximize crew survivability. NASA definately has an interest in LV reliability for crew systems, and if they aren't looking at it, they are putting on the exact same pair of blinders they did in the past - with potentially disastrous results. A future accident investigation where NASA is blamed for not qualifying the LV to carry humans as a result of an LV exploding and the abort malfunctioning or the capsule being damaged by the explosion ... Let's just try to avoid this? Not looking at the reliability of the LV is equivalent to ignoring foam insulation.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jtrame on 09/18/2014 10:43 am
I like CST-100.

It lands on land. Good for live coverage of egress.

Good internal volume for the diameter.

Service module propellant is used for abort. Solid abort tractor tower I find icky in comparison.

Shape can handle BEO reentry.

It's light enough to launch on existing rockets.

Compared to Orion it's a hot rod dream machine.

Today is the day Orion became obsolete in my eyes.

Well done to Boeing. Get it on SLS and go to The Moon.

I'll add reusability to that list.  Another of Orion's original specs since abandoned.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Marslauncher on 09/18/2014 11:19 am
Why do the people that interview Musk ask all the wrong questions?

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/tech/2014/09/18/orig-jag-space-race-space-war.cnn.html?hpt=hp_t2


Apart from NSF that is  :D
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Proponent on 09/18/2014 12:00 pm
Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.

I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN.  Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: chuck34 on 09/18/2014 12:04 pm

Quote
Boeing, its supporters in Congress and independent analysts were all surprised by the outcome, because in recent days, the Chicago-based company seemed to have given up hope of winning.

Who says Boeing had given up hope of winning this contract or that Boeing, its supporters in Congress and independent analysts were all surprised by the outcome?

That was a quote from the article.  The author didn't give out his sources, sorry.  One of the Congressmen quoted (not a Boeing supporter in this instance) was Sen. Shelby.  I'm sure you will have lots of rebuttals about how these guys don't know anything, etc. etc.  Fine.  All I'm saying is that when there is smoke, there is well ummm.... smoke.  I'm not making claims that something illegal or even necessarily bad happened here, just that there may have been considerations outside of pure engineering involved.  Is that really so hard to believe?

Frankly those of you who are trying to portray this process as some sort of completely above board, separate from politics, and somehow sacred process are sounding a bit absurd.  To borrow a line from Casablanca, "There's politics in government contracting?  I'm SHOCKED!"
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2014 12:22 pm

Not specifically the crew launch vehicles.  However they are human rating the entire Commercial Crew transport system which includes the spacecraft and Launch vehicle. 

NASA is not doing that.  NASA levied requirements on the contractors.  NASA has insight but not oversight. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2014 12:25 pm

  I'm not making claims that something illegal or even necessarily bad happened here, just that there may have been considerations outside of pure engineering involved.  Is that really so hard to believe?


That is in the selection criteria that is known to everybody.  Again, what smoke? 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2014 12:37 pm
The crew isn't gaurenteed to survive if the LV has an issue even with an abort system. There is a probability of LV failure and a probability of abort failure. You need to minimize both in order to maximize crew survivability. NASA definately has an interest in LV reliability for crew systems, and if they aren't looking at it, they are putting on the exact same pair of blinders they did in the past - with potentially disastrous results. A future accident investigation where NASA is blamed for not qualifying the LV to carry humans as a result of an LV exploding and the abort malfunctioning or the capsule being damaged by the explosion ... Let's just try to avoid this? Not looking at the reliability of the LV is equivalent to ignoring foam insulation.

Did I say they weren't looking at it or didn't have an interest?  I just said NASA isn't certifying it or mandating the vehicles. that is for the contractor to do.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: tobi453 on 09/18/2014 12:38 pm
Maybe the engineering board did favour SNC and SpaceX but the selection authority disagreed. This has happened before with Planetspace/Orbital. Planetspace sued and lost.

I guess we will find out soon.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/18/2014 12:38 pm
Frankly those of you who are trying to portray this process as some sort of completely above board, separate from politics, and somehow sacred process are sounding a bit absurd.  To borrow a line from Casablanca, "There's politics in government contracting?  I'm SHOCKED!"

There's nothing absurd about believing it's likely that this particular decision-making process was above board and separate from politics.  A special selection committee was set up of people who are not politicians and over whom no politician holds sway.  Political influence on such a setup would be illegal.  If "the fix was in", why would they make it so hard on themselves?  SLS awarded far more money without a competitive process, and non-competitive pork spending like that is common.

What's absurd is to think that if politicians really had fixed it they wouldn't have just openly made it a non-competed award rather than put themselves through all the trouble and legal risks of setting up a competitive award process.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/18/2014 12:43 pm
Also, for those who think all government decisions are just automatically corrupt: if that were true, the United States would be no different from third world countries that are riddled with corruption.  A big part of what separates the rich countries from the poor countries is the relative lack of corruption in the rich countries.

Of course, that's not to say there isn't room for improvement in the United States.  But the mindless posts assuming corruption just because the decision went against what they thought it should be betray a deep ignorance about the level of corruption in the U.S. government.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: chuck34 on 09/18/2014 12:48 pm

  I'm not making claims that something illegal or even necessarily bad happened here, just that there may have been considerations outside of pure engineering involved.  Is that really so hard to believe?


That is in the selection criteria that is known to everybody.  Again, what smoke?

The smoke is in the fact that on two separate bid processes almost identical statements have been made.  Boeing thought they were out, the experts thought they had lost, etc.  Now sure, everyone could have been wrong.  It simply seems strange to me that two separate sets of reporters would end up thinking the same things about two separate programs. 

But you are right, no politics (from politicians or bureaucrats or low level functionaries) could have possibly entered into anyone's minds even at a low level.  Those on the selection committees are 100% impartial, just like you Jim.   ::)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: chuck34 on 09/18/2014 12:51 pm
Also, for those who think all government decisions are just automatically corrupt: if that were true, the United States would be no different from third world countries that are riddled with corruption.  A big part of what separates the rich countries from the poor countries is the relative lack of corruption in the rich countries.

Of course, that's not to say there isn't room for improvement in the United States.  But the mindless posts assuming corruption just because the decision went against what they thought it should be betray a deep ignorance about the level of corruption in the U.S. government.

Oh come on.  That is ridiculous.  OF COURSE there is corruption within the US government.  Are you kidding me?  It is not necessarily automatic.  But it is also not automatic that there is none.  The fact that on two completely separate bid processes there are stories that sound very similar should at least make one think, no?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/18/2014 12:52 pm

Not specifically the crew launch vehicles.  However they are human rating the entire Commercial Crew transport system which includes the spacecraft and Launch vehicle. 

NASA is not doing that.  NASA levied requirements on the contractors.  NASA has insight but not oversight.

The Commercial Crew Transport system has to meet NASA human-rating standards for the NASA commercial crew contract.  It is a contractual requirement that the contractors have to meet for NASA crew launches.  If they don't meet NASA human-rating standards then they don't get paid and they don't launch NASA astronauts.  I don't see why you are are trying to split hairs about this and where you are trying to go.

However as far as meeting DOD launch standards  I don't really consider the Commercial Crew contract human-rating that relevant because probably by the end of the year or early next year the Falcon 9v1.1 will be certified to compete for DOD launches.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: chuck34 on 09/18/2014 12:53 pm
And just to be completely 100% clear here.  I am NOT saying that there was anything illegal at all with this bid process.  Simply that there are other factors involved than pure engineering.  Plus, I actually think that the winners are correct, Boeing and SpaceX.  Dream Chaser just didn't seem to tick off all the right boxes, and seemed to have a lot more technical hurdles/unknowns than CST-100 or Dragon.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Mongo62 on 09/18/2014 12:53 pm
Boring and hypocritical piece by Gingrich. First part of his piece he's lashing out to US politicians. He seems to be forgetting he has been one of those for a substantial part of his life.

To be fair, he's not ripping ALL politicians, only those US politicians behind the SLS pork-distribution project.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/18/2014 12:54 pm

  I'm not making claims that something illegal or even necessarily bad happened here, just that there may have been considerations outside of pure engineering involved.  Is that really so hard to believe?


That is in the selection criteria that is known to everybody.  Again, what smoke?

The fact that on two separate bid processes almost identical statements have been made.  Boeing thought they were out, the experts thought they had lost, etc.  Now sure, everyone could have been wrong.  It simply seems strange to me that two separate sets of reporters would end up thinking the same things about two separate programs. 

But you are right, no politics (from politicians or bureaucrats) could have possibly entered into anyone's minds even at a low level.  Those on the selection committees are 100% impartial, just like you Jim.   ::)

People believing rumors that turned out to be different from what the final selection announcement said doesn't require a late change in the decision.  All it requires is that the rumor wasn't based on correct information.

Guess what?  Rumors based on incorrect information happen all the time.  They're almost inevitable when there's a lack of genuine information and a strong desire for information.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/18/2014 12:56 pm
Also, for those who think all government decisions are just automatically corrupt: if that were true, the United States would be no different from third world countries that are riddled with corruption.  A big part of what separates the rich countries from the poor countries is the relative lack of corruption in the rich countries.

Of course, that's not to say there isn't room for improvement in the United States.  But the mindless posts assuming corruption just because the decision went against what they thought it should be betray a deep ignorance about the level of corruption in the U.S. government.

Oh come on.  That is ridiculous.  OF COURSE there is corruption within the US government.  Are you kidding me?  It is not necessarily automatic.  But it is also not automatic that there is none.  The fact that on two completely separate bid processes there are stories that sound very similar should at least make one think, no?

I never said there's no corruption.  I said it isn't so widespread that corruption is a better explanation than a groundless rumor for the fact that people believed one thing a few weeks before the announcement and the announcement was different.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: chuck34 on 09/18/2014 12:57 pm

  I'm not making claims that something illegal or even necessarily bad happened here, just that there may have been considerations outside of pure engineering involved.  Is that really so hard to believe?


That is in the selection criteria that is known to everybody.  Again, what smoke?

The fact that on two separate bid processes almost identical statements have been made.  Boeing thought they were out, the experts thought they had lost, etc.  Now sure, everyone could have been wrong.  It simply seems strange to me that two separate sets of reporters would end up thinking the same things about two separate programs. 

But you are right, no politics (from politicians or bureaucrats) could have possibly entered into anyone's minds even at a low level.  Those on the selection committees are 100% impartial, just like you Jim.   ::)

People believing rumors that turned out to be different from what the final selection announcement said doesn't require a late change in the decision.  All it requires is that the rumor wasn't based on correct information.

Guess what?  Rumors based on incorrect information happen all the time.  They're almost inevitable when there's a lack of genuine information and a strong desire for information.

I agree with this statement 100%.

But what if those rumors are almost exactly the same on two separate programs?  Can't you at least see that that might constitute a pattern, and that maybe reasonable people could have questions?

Quote
I never said there's no corruption.  I said it isn't so widespread that corruption is a better explanation than a groundless rumor for the fact that people believed one thing a few weeks before the announcement and the announcement was different.

But the same rumors on two separate projects??  And these are actual reporters reporting these "rumors".  You do realize that reporting is a dying profession, and that if you are wrong too often that bodes poorly for your career.  Most of these guys are fairly well connected and usually fairly accurate.  It's not simply internet forum rumors. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/18/2014 01:04 pm
Why do the people that interview Musk ask all the wrong questions?

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/tech/2014/09/18/orig-jag-space-race-space-war.cnn.html?hpt=hp_t2


Apart from NSF that is  :D

Well Musk doing what he does normally which is throw some potshots at other companies.  I imagine there is some dart boards at Boeing with Musk's face on them. 

(http://i1053.photobucket.com/albums/s479/brovane/musk_unicorn_zpsed698601.jpg)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2014 01:19 pm

I imagine there is some dart boards at Boeing with Musk's face on them. 


Jeesh.   Really?  Why would you think that?  They are not in the same class, Boeing is more concerned about planes.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2014 01:22 pm

The smoke is in the fact that on two separate bid processes almost identical statements have been made.  Boeing thought they were out, the experts thought they had lost, etc.  Now sure, everyone could have been wrong.  It simply seems strange to me that two separate sets of reporters would end up thinking the same things about two separate programs. 

But you are right, no politics (from politicians or bureaucrats or low level functionaries) could have possibly entered into anyone's minds even at a low level.  Those on the selection committees are 100% impartial, just like you Jim.   ::)

wrong, You have not shown that they are similar or have identical statements.  Show me where Boeing had given up. Again, you are seeing things that are not there.  Since you are quoting the internet, I suppose you also think that we maybe didn't go to the moon either?   What else do you believe on the internet?

And yes, I am impartial when I am on selection committee.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/18/2014 01:32 pm

I imagine there is some dart boards at Boeing with Musk's face on them. 


Jeesh.   Really?  Why would you think that?  They are not in the same class, Boeing is more concerned about planes.

Boeing is more concerned about airplanes but just as with any big company there is divisions.  I would imagine that there is sometimes some harsh language about Musk over at Boeing Launch Services division. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: chuck34 on 09/18/2014 01:45 pm

The smoke is in the fact that on two separate bid processes almost identical statements have been made.  Boeing thought they were out, the experts thought they had lost, etc.  Now sure, everyone could have been wrong.  It simply seems strange to me that two separate sets of reporters would end up thinking the same things about two separate programs. 

But you are right, no politics (from politicians or bureaucrats or low level functionaries) could have possibly entered into anyone's minds even at a low level.  Those on the selection committees are 100% impartial, just like you Jim.   ::)

wrong, You have not shown that they are similar or have identical statements.  Show me where Boeing had given up. Again, you are seeing things that are not there.  Since you are quoting the internet, I suppose you also think that we maybe didn't go to the moon either?   What else do you believe on the internet?

And yes, I am impartial when I am on selection committee.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/09/dream-chaser-misses-out-cctcap-dragon-cst-100-win/
Quote
Just weeks ago, it was widely believed both SpaceX’s Dragon V2 and SNC’s Dream Chaser spacecraft were likely to progress into the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) phase of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. On Tuesday, NASA announced Boeing’s CST-100 was the winner of billions of dollars alongside the SpaceX spacecraft.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: symbios on 09/18/2014 01:47 pm

Not specifically the crew launch vehicles.  However they are human rating the entire Commercial Crew transport system which includes the spacecraft and Launch vehicle. 

NASA is not doing that.  NASA levied requirements on the contractors.  NASA has insight but not oversight.

I think you should adjust your statement. They have oversight on safety related issues.

They do have the go, no go order on any safety related issue. Maybe they do not get a diploma saying they are certified. But if NASA do not think they are safe, then it is a no go.

We are not talking on what bolts to use, but by that order they are approving (certifying) that the system is safe according to their criteria.   
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/18/2014 02:11 pm
With this type of US tax dollar investment, true competition should include an orbital and sucessful return fly-off... Then decide from there... My morning 2 cents...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2014 02:22 pm

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/09/dream-chaser-misses-out-cctcap-dragon-cst-100-win/
Quote
Just weeks ago, it was widely believed both SpaceX’s Dragon V2 and SNC’s Dream Chaser spacecraft were likely to progress into the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) phase of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. On Tuesday, NASA announced Boeing’s CST-100 was the winner of billions of dollars alongside the SpaceX spacecraft.


It says nothing about Boeing giving up, so it doesn't parallel the tanker. 
Also, I don't believe the sources used for the article.  Rumors are hearsay and not facts.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: CraigLieb on 09/18/2014 02:26 pm
Sorry for the rambling post:
On the Blue Origin contract to build a new engine for some future launch system like a follow-on Atlas or Delta rocket:
- Why can Boeing stick the costs of this contract in their bid for the Crew Transport and get away with it?

- Would this be considered a new launch system which if it is used for future military launches be required to go through the same certification like SpaceX is being required to meet before qualifying for contracts (3 flights, submit tons of data, have their design processes examined for years, etc.)?

And on Man-rating the Atlas in general:

-  Can you man-rate the current Atlas rocket with existing design margins without significant re-design, beefing up structures (it has got to add weight), and what does that do to performance? Or do you relax your standards, and just accept the risk with lower margins (e.g. It has launched successfully in the past enough, so margins are OK as is)?

-  If you have to re-design it and beef it up, how many launches do you need to qualify it for human occupied flight? It sounds like the contract only calls for two flights. Why are only two flights acceptable for NASA while the military needs three flights to certify platforms for launching their missions?

Seems like it is a lot more than just building and qualifying a capsule for Boeing. Seems they wil be a busy team for the next N years.  Anyone want to predict the number of years before they fly this whole modified system? 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: chuck34 on 09/18/2014 02:35 pm

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/09/dream-chaser-misses-out-cctcap-dragon-cst-100-win/
Quote
Just weeks ago, it was widely believed both SpaceX’s Dragon V2 and SNC’s Dream Chaser spacecraft were likely to progress into the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) phase of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. On Tuesday, NASA announced Boeing’s CST-100 was the winner of billions of dollars alongside the SpaceX spacecraft.


One quote and it says nothing about Boeing giving up.

I could find more, but I don't feel like it as you won't even consider any point of view other than yours.  And I don't think that Boeing giving up is the point.  The point is that it looked to many as they were out.  But again, you don't see it that way, won't see it that way, it's Jim's way or the highway.  It's sad that even though we agree (Boeing should be included for any number of reasons), you have to be argumentative to anyone that even suggests that there is more than pure engineering involved in the decision. 

All I, and many others, are saying is that there are some legitimate questions.  I understand that you have an unquestioning devotion to authority, but some of us do not.  We have seen the world for what it is (messy, and too often political) rather than what we would like it to be (logical, and ordered).  I am fully prepared to be wrong.  I've said many many times that I don't honestly think there is anything illegal or even really immoral going on here.  Are you prepared to be wrong if 2017 comes and goes and Boeing is asking for more time and money?

You edited your post as I was typing
Quote
Also, I don't believe the sources used for the article.  Rumors are hearsay and not facts.
You will have to take that up with the author of the article.  I for one tend to believe what is published as news on this site.  If you don't that's with you.  Rumors can be partial facts from well placed sources within the industry that might not have all the facts. 

Anyway, I'm done with this now.  I've said my peace. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/18/2014 02:39 pm
Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.

I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN.  Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.

I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2014 02:43 pm
Sorry for the rambling post:
1.  On the Blue Origin contract to build a new engine for some future launch system like a follow-on Atlas or Delta rocket:
- Why can Boeing stick the costs of this contract in their bid for the Crew Transport and get away with it?

2.  - Would this be considered a new launch system which if it is used for future military launches be required to go through the same certification like SpaceX is being required to meet before qualifying for contracts (3 flights, submit tons of data, have their design processes examined for years, etc.)?

And on Man-rating the Atlas in general:

3.  -  Can you man-rate the current Atlas rocket with existing design margins without significant re-design, beefing up structures (it has got to add weight), and what does that do to performance? Or do you relax your standards, and just accept the risk with lower margins (e.g. It has launched successfully in the past enough, so margins are OK as is)?

4.  -  If you have to re-design it and beef it up, how many launches do you need to qualify it for human occupied flight? It sounds like the contract only calls for two flights. Why are only two flights acceptable for NASA while the military needs three flights to certify platforms for launching their missions?



1.  The new engine is not related to the Boeing win.  Boeing will used the existing Atlas

2.  It isn't a new system, it is modified system and the USAF would be involved in the whole process

3.  The point is that existing margins are already ok. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 09/18/2014 02:44 pm
I will tell my plausible scenario.
1) The technical committee was in love with the DreamChaser proposal.
2) SpaceX proposal was cheaper and had the best chance of IOC by 2016 of any contract.
3) The SNC contract was comparable to the CST-100, but had higher technical and schedule risks.
4) Given the Russian situation, the decision officer considered that not achieving IOC by 2017 was not an option.
5) If you wanted to minimize IOC date risk, SpaceX and CST-100 were the right choice. SpaceX could shave one year on IOC, but if they didn't CST-100 was the safest choice to IOC by 2017.

Plain and simple. Nothing strange, no lobby, just a great schedule risk aversion explains everything.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2014 02:50 pm

1.  I could find more, but I don't feel like it as you won't even consider any point of view other than yours.  And I don't think that Boeing giving up is the point.  The point is that it looked to many as they were out.

2.  All I, and many others, are saying is that there are some legitimate questions.


1.  Just the same rumors being repeated over and over.

2.  The legitimacy of the questions are based on the legitimacy of the rumors.


I understand that you have an unquestioning devotion to authority, but some of us do not.

No, I just don't believe much less have unquestioning devotion to internet rumors unlike you.
Have you hear this information face to face or just read it online?

Are you prepared to be wrong if 2017 comes and goes and Boeing is asking for more time and money?


Can't happen, it is a fixed price contract and schedule can be changed (see how many times Spacex slipped COTS and CRS launches)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/18/2014 02:52 pm
I will tell my plausible scenario.
1) The technical committee was in love with the DreamChaser proposal.
2) SpaceX proposal was cheaper and had the best chance of IOC by 2016 of any contract.
3) The SNC contract was comparable to the CST-100, but had higher technical and schedule risks.
4) Given the Russian situation, the decision officer considered that not achieving IOC by 2017 was not an option.
5) If you wanted to minimize IOC date risk, SpaceX and CST-100 were the right choice. SpaceX could shave one year on IOC, but if they didn't CST-100 was the safest choice to IOC by 2017.

Plain and simple. Nothing strange, no lobby, just a great schedule risk aversion explains everything.

The selection committee had to follow very specific criteria. Price was the most important criteria.

Quote
(b) Evaluation Factors and Subfactors: The Government will use the evaluation factors Mission
Suitability, Price, and Past Performance, as described in NFS 1815.304-70, NASA Evaluation
Factors, to evaluate each proposal. [...]

(e) Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability and Past
Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price. The Price factor is more
important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance.

See page 161 of the RFP (the second document in this post):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32412.msg1257904#msg1257904
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/18/2014 02:54 pm
Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.

I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN.  Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.

I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.

Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2014 02:57 pm

Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.

Has no bearing on the matter, it is crew transport and not unpressurized cargo.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/18/2014 02:58 pm
Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.

I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN.  Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.

I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.

Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.

Good point. Although the CST-100 can carry a maximum of 10 persons whereas Dargon V2 can only carry 7 persons. NASA will only be using 4 seats but the empty seats can be replaced by cargo. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/18/2014 03:01 pm

Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.

Has no bearing on the matter, it is crew transport and not unpressurized cargo.

Perhaps but it could explain his twice as much claim. Although, it is obviously an exaggeration.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 09/18/2014 03:09 pm
Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.

I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN.  Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.

I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.

You should know by now how EM speaks to the clueless MSM. That is with generalities and theoretical capabilities. This what not a tech conference. Not to mention Musk is always selling his company.

They both do the same things for NASA ISS, but DV2 is designed to do more things beyond this one NASA contract.

I will dare to suggest that we will never see CST being used for anything other than official NASA ISS, but we will see DV2.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jongoff on 09/18/2014 03:12 pm

We don't know if it can be reused or how much.

The 1st stage of F9v1.1 has been designed with re-usability in mind.  The Merlin 1D engines have been tested through multiple cycles of firing.  If they get the 1st stage to land vertically on land there is a high degree of confidence it can be re-used as it was designed to do.  I don't know how much more excitement you want.  You have a private company  trying to do what NASA has never done before in spaceflight.

I'm super excited for them, but as a former VTVLer I wouldn't recommend underestimating the number of unknown unknowns left to retire before they get there. Do I think they'll get there? Yeah, I give them pretty good odds of eventually getting to the point where they can reuse their stage a few times. Enough to make a noticeable economic difference.

Cautiously excited for my friends at SpaceX,

~Jon
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/18/2014 03:16 pm
Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.

I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN.  Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.

I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.

Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.

Good point. Although the CST-100 can carry a maximum of 10 persons whereas Dargon V2 can only carry 7 persons. NASA will only be using 4 seats but the empty seats can be replaced by cargo. 

10 people in coach vs 7 people first class? What is the internal volume of each? I have always heard CST-100 had a crew of 7.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: LouScheffer on 09/18/2014 03:27 pm
With this type of US tax dollar investment, true competition should include an orbital and sucessful return fly-off... Then decide from there... My morning 2 cents...
In the big picture, that's exactly what this is.  Both companies will build their spacecraft and try a few (<=6) missions.  Then the next contract can be based on the cost, results, schedules, etc. achieved on these efforts.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/18/2014 03:30 pm
With this type of US tax dollar investment, true competition should include an orbital and sucessful return fly-off... Then decide from there... My morning 2 cents...
In the big picture, that's exactly what this is.  Both companies will build their spacecraft and try a few (<=6) missions.  Then the next contract can be based on the cost, results, schedules, etc. achieved on these efforts.

Kind of defeats the purpose of "commercial crew" though to eliminate one of the innovators and then give the least innovative proposal a significantly higher amount of funding.  But really, I'd rather see CST-100 replace Orion which is the real waste of money (along with the white elephant SLS), and the two "newspace" innovators allowed to proceed on commercial crew.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 09/18/2014 03:32 pm
Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.

I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN.  Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.

I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.

Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.

Good point. Although the CST-100 can carry a maximum of 10 persons whereas Dargon V2 can only carry 7 persons. NASA will only be using 4 seats but the empty seats can be replaced by cargo. 

10 people in coach vs 7 people first class? What is the internal volume of each? I have always heard CST-100 had a crew of 7.

ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.

The 10 seat configuration is a proposed derivative for tourism flights.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/18/2014 04:02 pm
ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.

At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).

Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.

Has that changed?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/18/2014 04:10 pm
With this type of US tax dollar investment, true competition should include an orbital and sucessful return fly-off... Then decide from there... My morning 2 cents...
In the big picture, that's exactly what this is.  Both companies will build their spacecraft and try a few (<=6) missions.  Then the next contract can be based on the cost, results, schedules, etc. achieved on these efforts.
I'm sorry Lou I should had stated in a clearer way, I mean all three companies are in the fly-off, then selection is made...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 09/18/2014 04:43 pm
ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.

At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).

Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.

Has that changed?

Boeing wants to sell the 5th seat via Space Adventures.

We'll see if they can convince NASA to let them.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 09/18/2014 04:50 pm
Out of curiosity, assuming the Russians do decide to pull out of the ISS program, and not deorbit the rig, how soon, realistically, could we have a man rated craft available for both Taxi service and reboost?

I know that NASA has set a deadline of December 2017, but I get the impression that at least one company is far enough along that they may be able to beat this by a year or more.

Anybody got any ideas?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: jimvela on 09/18/2014 04:51 pm
Boeing wants to sell the 5th seat via Space Adventures.
We'll see if they can convince NASA to let them.

Boeing also has the one thing likely to be able to convince NASA:  The ears of congress...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 09/18/2014 05:43 pm
I knew Spacex pretty much had this in the bag as they had a reentry vehicle flying.

But I'm rather surprised and disappointed SNC lost out to Boeing when Dream Chaser is clearly a more capable and innovative then the CST-100.


Boeing also has the one thing likely to be able to convince NASA:  The ears of congress...

I suspect the same since SNC's vehicle was clearly a better vehicle and seemed to have been farther along.
Plus cheaper per flight and possible safer due to less configuration changes during a nominal flight.
It's only big negative is it cannot provide significant reboost for ISS.
I think DC probably could have given Dragon some real competition as the reoccurring cost for the in space hardware likely would have been similar since it like Dragon needs little in the way of new parts between flights.
No service module, and the heat shield can be reused.
As for being tied to Atlas 5 so is the CST-100 as there doesn't seem to be any plans to man rate the Delta IV.
The only reasons I can think up outside of politics or confidence to meet the deadline or NASA wants a new vehicle for each commercial crew mission.
DC's vehicle would likely be more expensive to build per unit.


Kind of defeats the purpose of "commercial crew" though to eliminate one of the innovators and then give the least innovative proposal a significantly higher amount of funding.  But really, I'd rather see CST-100 replace Orion which is the real waste of money (along with the white elephant SLS), and the two "newspace" innovators allowed to proceed on commercial crew.

Then NASA would be able to concentrate on building in space vehicles with exotic propulsion like Nautilus-X and landers for the Moon and Mars.
The space program would look more like the one in 2001 a space odyssey vs Apollo 2.0.
If you had an in space vehicle like Nautilus-X  or even just a NTR spaced tug like in the LANTR concept you don't need anything much more capable then the CST-100 with better TPS for an Earth reentry vehicle on deep space missions.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 09/18/2014 06:08 pm
Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.

I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN.  Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.

I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.
My understanding is that CST-100 is strictly a LEO space station taxi, which is only about half reusable, whereas Dragon V2 is meant to be capable of relatively long independent stays in space, high-energy BEO returns, and propulsive landings on Mars, and is about 95% reusable (only the interstage/solar array/escape fins are expendable, with the heat shield reusable for "on the order of ten" flights before refurbishment).

This isn't just a contract for a dozen crew transporation missions to the ISS.  The main purpose of this program is to develop capabilities for future NASA consumption.

They only asked for certain capabilities, and with the CST-100, that's about all they're getting.  With the Dragon V2, they're getting a lot more.

Imagine that NASA has an off-the-shelf option for Mars missions.  "Want a payload on the Mars surface?  $200 million, all-inclusive.  We put the Dragon V2 on the Falcon Heavy, you put your payload inside, we put it on Mars."

Or how about commercial crew transport to and from lunar orbit, at similar bargain prices?  Having the Dragon V2 and Falcon Heavy puts it within spitting distance.

Implying that the Dragon V2 will be twice as useful to NASA as the CST-100 may prove to be a comical understatement rather than a vain boast.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2014 06:12 pm

This isn't just a contract for a dozen crew transporation missions to the ISS.


Yes, it is as far as NASA is concerned.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MTom on 09/18/2014 06:23 pm
Maybe discussed earlier, I didn't found:
What about if SpaceX will be ready earlier than 2017? (I wouldn't be surprised).
Could they begin with the launches earlier under this contract?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: nadreck on 09/18/2014 06:37 pm

This isn't just a contract for a dozen crew transporation missions to the ISS.  The main purpose of this program is to develop capabilities for future NASA consumption.

Hmm, while I would like to think that there will be follow on missions after the 2-6 awarded in this contact. This will really be a bit of a waste if we only see future NASA consumption (unless of course they build a replacement for ISS with a much larger crew). We need non NASA future consumption. If the numbers that have been bandied about here fit, a single use F9 and Dragon V2 flight will cost somewhere in the order of $150M in 2020 vs $300M maybe for the CST-100. Will this pricing stimulate any such non NASA consumption? Could re-use of first stage and Dragon bring a launch cost down to $50M? Would that (and say a $50M price tag on a 90 day rental of a Bigelow or other orbital facility) be enough to see business use in space.

I guess, I would like to get a better handle on what pricing in 2020 would be for chartering a CST-100, a Dragon V2, a Soyuz. I would also like to see destinations created and hope that we have the first couple (however temporary) of these by 2020.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/18/2014 06:46 pm
ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.

At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).

Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.

Has that changed?

No that hasn't changed. The 7 or 10 seat configuration would be for Bigelow. I am not sure what the 5 seat CST-100 configuration would be for. Possibly for a space taxi model with a Boeing taxi driver and 4 NASA astronauts. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MTom on 09/18/2014 07:04 pm
ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.

At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).

Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.

Has that changed?

No that hasn't changed. The 7 or 10 seat configuration would be for Bigelow. I am not sure what the 5 seat CST-100 configuration would be for. Possibly for a space taxi model with a Boeing taxi driver and 4 NASA astronauts.

Here you find the possible answer (one extra seat for tourists to ISS).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1258230#msg1258230
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/18/2014 07:29 pm
ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.

At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).

Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.

Has that changed?

No that hasn't changed. The 7 or 10 seat configuration would be for Bigelow. I am not sure what the 5 seat CST-100 configuration would be for. Possibly for a space taxi model with a Boeing taxi driver and 4 NASA astronauts.

Here you find the possible answer (one extra seat for tourists to ISS).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1258230#msg1258230

Yes that is likely it. Interesting article. This suggests that Boieng opted for the rental model since there is no designated seat for a taxi driver. I wonder if SpaceX will also have tourists on their flights. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/18/2014 07:33 pm
ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.

At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).

Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.

Has that changed?

No that hasn't changed. The 7 or 10 seat configuration would be for Bigelow. I am not sure what the 5 seat CST-100 configuration would be for. Possibly for a space taxi model with a Boeing taxi driver and 4 NASA astronauts.

Here you find the possible answer (one extra seat for tourists to ISS).

Ah, that makes sense, but is it likely to happen?

The model supposedly being used by NASA is the "car rental" model, where SpaceX and Boeing provide the vehicle and NASA fills it up however they want (NASA personnel also operate the vehicle).  So with that model Boeing would not have a seat to "sell", and NASA is unlikely to be getting into the tourism business.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/18/2014 08:08 pm
ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.

At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).

Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.

Has that changed?

No that hasn't changed. The 7 or 10 seat configuration would be for Bigelow. I am not sure what the 5 seat CST-100 configuration would be for. Possibly for a space taxi model with a Boeing taxi driver and 4 NASA astronauts.

Here you find the possible answer (one extra seat for tourists to ISS).

Ah, that makes sense, but is it likely to happen?

The model supposedly being used by NASA is the "car rental" model, where SpaceX and Boeing provide the vehicle and NASA fills it up however they want (NASA personnel also operate the vehicle).  So with that model Boeing would not have a seat to "sell", and NASA is unlikely to be getting into the tourism business.

The other thing is : how does the tourist come home? This only works if SpaceX agrees to bring the tourist home on the returning flight and there is a direct handover. Is that even possible?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 09/18/2014 08:15 pm
Has there been any mention of whether CST-100 or DV2 will be used as a lifeboat?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/18/2014 08:18 pm
Has there been any mention of whether CST-100 or DV2 will be used as a lifeboat?

Yes, it's a requirement.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: oiorionsbelt on 09/18/2014 08:20 pm
On orbit time requirement, 6 months?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 09/18/2014 08:28 pm

[...]

The other thing is : how does the tourist come home? This only works if SpaceX agrees to bring the tourist home on the returning flight and there is a direct handover. Is that even possible?

I'd love to see the actual details, but we've got nothing.

My assumption is that the tourist stays on orbit for 6 months and sleeps in CST. Most of capsule's stowage capacity is taken over by the tourist's provisions. There are obviously all kinds of reasons NASA may not be okay with this. One challenge I wasn't expecting was that, at $80,000/kg. or more, NASA may simply outbid any potentially spaceflight participants. NASA wants that cargo badly.

On orbit time requirement, 6 months?

210 days IIRC.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 09/18/2014 08:31 pm
Maybe discussed earlier, I didn't found:
What about if SpaceX will be ready earlier than 2017? (I wouldn't be surprised).
Could they begin with the launches earlier under this contract?
Congress would have to appropriate more funding to do this. Seats until 2017 have already been purchased on Soyuz and CC program funding is estimated to run from 2017-end of program. To start launches earlier Congress would have to buy the same astronaut a second seat on a different launcher and that would be a hard sell.


The model supposedly being used by NASA is the "car rental" model, where SpaceX and Boeing provide the vehicle and NASA fills it up however they want (NASA personnel also operate the vehicle).  So with that model Boeing would not have a seat to "sell", and NASA is unlikely to be getting into the tourism business.

NASA won't sell out seats on their flights, they aren't in the commercial space business. It's kind of the crux of this whole program in fact, having commercial providers able to sell the service instead of NASA.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/18/2014 08:36 pm
On orbit time requirement, 6 months?

210 days.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: JasonAW3 on 09/18/2014 08:39 pm
You know, I think I understand why Boeing won instead of SNC.

Of the three companies competing, only Boeing had any provision to be able to reboost the station.

SpaceX is becoming a proven commidoty and with the commercial contracts that they are getting, they could finish their manned flight capibilities without NASA.   Boeing has a track record with them. And SNC's bird reminded NASA too much of the Space Shuttle.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: dror on 09/18/2014 09:01 pm
Is there a requirment for a fast track rendezvous?
Is it planed for Dv2 and CST100?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/18/2014 09:08 pm
NASA won't sell out seats on their flights, they aren't in the commercial space business. It's kind of the crux of this whole program in fact, having commercial providers able to sell the service instead of NASA.

That's the way I see it too.

However either Boeing or SpaceX could, on their own, fly to the ISS with passengers.  Would need to have one of the ISS partners sponsor it no doubt (Russia was the sponsor for the prior tourist visits), and no doubt NASA would NOT be in favor of it.  Or Boeing and SpaceX could do it as a partnership with a company like Space Adventures.  I think people will be looking at doing it, but it's probably a low probability of happening anytime soon after 2017.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 09/18/2014 09:10 pm

[...]

The other thing is : how does the tourist come home? This only works if SpaceX agrees to bring the tourist home on the returning flight and there is a direct handover. Is that even possible?

I'd love to see the actual details, but we've got nothing.

My assumption is that the tourist stays on orbit for 6 months and sleeps in CST. Most of capsule's stowage capacity is taken over by the tourist's provisions. There are obviously all kinds of reasons NASA may not be okay with this. One challenge I wasn't expecting was that, at $80,000/kg. or more, NASA may simply outbid any potentially spaceflight participants. NASA wants that cargo badly.

On orbit time requirement, 6 months?

210 days IIRC.

That would have been one advantage of DC since it's larger in volume then the other vehicles though space would still be limited.

But I figure the tourist would only stay up a few days and could ride the old commercial crew vehicle back as done on Soyuz.

Now can two be docked at one given time if another docking adapter is brought up?

Interestingly there is a spare probe and drogue port since the ATV is retired.
I wonder could an adapter be used there or some commercial vehicles fitted with that docking system?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/18/2014 09:14 pm
The other thing is : how does the tourist come home? This only works if SpaceX agrees to bring the tourist home on the returning flight and there is a direct handover. Is that even possible?

If NASA is renting the vehicle, then NASA decides when it comes home, not Boeing or SpaceX.

It has been talked about for having extra people go up for a quick stay during a changeover (like what happened with the Shuttle), but that requires two docking ports, and I don't recall two for Commercial Crew vehicles being installed.  Can anybody could confirm that?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 09/18/2014 09:19 pm
You know, I think I understand why Boeing won instead of SNC.

Of the three companies competing, only Boeing had any provision to be able to reboost the station.

SpaceX is becoming a proven commidoty and with the commercial contracts that they are getting, they could finish their manned flight capibilities without NASA.   Boeing has a track record with them. And SNC's bird reminded NASA too much of the Space Shuttle.
I think it's more likely a combination of Boeing's lobbying power combined with uncertainty about the Dream Chaser engine and concern with risk management after revelations of the details of Dragon V2.

There have been indications and rumors that Dream Chaser would switch from a hybrid engine to a liquid-fuelled one.  They've denied that this is decided, or that it would lead to a delay, but acknowledged that they are exploring the option.  The declaration that it wouldn't cause a delay came after fear, uncertainty, and doubt were spreading about SNC abandoning hybrid motors, so it wasn't entirely convincing.  In any case, SNC is generally now behaving as if they know that hybrid motors were a mistake, to be moved away from at first opportunity.

Besides, as a matter of risk management, Dream Chaser and Dragon V2 are both extremely ambitious vehicles.  CST-100 is pedestrian, mediocre, safe.  If Dragon V2 had seemed more like a fallback option, if it was just the Dragon capsule with life support and a LAS module, Dream Chaser might have won alongside Dragon.

When Dragon V2 turned out to be this extremely ambitious design, with propulsive landing capability, it couldn't be treated as the fallback anymore.  Failures in the DragonFly test program could lead to delays in Dragon V2 being ready for service.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: nadreck on 09/18/2014 09:22 pm
Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/18/2014 09:46 pm
Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?

There is also a Soyuz lifeboat for the other 3 astronauts. So everyone is covered by a lifeboat.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: dlapine on 09/18/2014 09:47 pm
Besides, as a matter of risk management, Dream Chaser and Dragon V2 are both extremely ambitious vehicles.  CST-100 is pedestrian, mediocre, safe.  If Dragon V2 had seemed more like a fallback option, if it was just the Dragon capsule with life support and a LAS module, Dream Chaser might have won alongside Dragon.

When Dragon V2 turned out to be this extremely ambitious design, with propulsive landing capability, it couldn't be treated as the fallback anymore.  Failures in the DragonFly test program could lead to delays in Dragon V2 being ready for service.

You do know that Dragon V2 doesn't require propulsive landing to return crew and cargo, right? You keep using the phrase, "extremely ambitious design" for Dragon. It's a capsule, with parachute landing capability, and pusher style abort system, just like the CST-100. While the design includes more ambitious options, they aren't required for it to function.

In terms of risk management, one can easily argue that Dragon capsules, with flight heritage to ISS already are the less risky option than a capsule from Boeing, who hasn't built one since Apollo.

In light of that, I pretty sure that "risk management" wasn't the reason CST-100 had to be included. At least, not a reason that holds up to rational calculation.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: robertross on 09/18/2014 09:49 pm
Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?

I suppose that's possible.

The USTV designation is designed to dock on N1 Nadir & N2 Nadir (after PMM relocation). Currently (L2 document) they have only 1-month docked stays shown. However, SpaceX, Orbital, and HTV all use those same two docking ports for cargo, and JAXA plans on providing an additional 2 modules in the future (yay). So it makes it very congested.

I do believe however that there are plans for an additional port? I can't remember 100% though.

edit to add: 'ISS' Pete is the authority on here to figure this stuff out.  ;)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 09/18/2014 09:53 pm
You know, I think I understand why Boeing won instead of SNC.

Of the three companies competing, only Boeing had any provision to be able to reboost the station.

SpaceX is becoming a proven commidoty and with the commercial contracts that they are getting, they could finish their manned flight capibilities without NASA.   Boeing has a track record with them. And SNC's bird reminded NASA too much of the Space Shuttle.
I think it's more likely a combination of Boeing's lobbying power combined with uncertainty about the Dream Chaser engine and concern with risk management after revelations of the details of Dragon V2.

There have been indications and rumors that Dream Chaser would switch from a hybrid engine to a liquid-fuelled one.  They've denied that this is decided, or that it would lead to a delay, but acknowledged that they are exploring the option.  The declaration that it wouldn't cause a delay came after fear, uncertainty, and doubt were spreading about SNC abandoning hybrid motors, so it wasn't entirely convincing.  In any case, SNC is generally now behaving as if they know that hybrid motors were a mistake, to be moved away from at first opportunity.

Besides, as a matter of risk management, Dream Chaser and Dragon V2 are both extremely ambitious vehicles.  CST-100 is pedestrian, mediocre, safe.  If Dragon V2 had seemed more like a fallback option, if it was just the Dragon capsule with life support and a LAS module, Dream Chaser might have won alongside Dragon.

When Dragon V2 turned out to be this extremely ambitious design, with propulsive landing capability, it couldn't be treated as the fallback anymore.  Failures in the DragonFly test program could lead to delays in Dragon V2 being ready for service.

True the CST-100 with it's old school design and landing mode is pretty much guaranteed to work.
The only new part is the airbags while the rest is been there done that.

The second most risky is DC but  the landing mode is probably one of the most thoroughly proven spacecraft landing modes despite it's complexity.
STS flew roughly the number of times as Soyuz but had less mishaps associated with it's landing mode.

If SNC chose liquid propulsion I wonder if they would have won out as then the forward RCS could have been used for reboost if they shared propellant with the OMS/Abort engines.
But they seemed set on having a non toxic RCS plus they already had a high thrust hybrid in the works.

Dragon V2 has a lot of unknowns but could be landed Soyuz style with parachutes plus rockets.



Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Brovane on 09/18/2014 10:15 pm

Dragon V2 has a lot of unknowns but could be landed Soyuz style with parachutes plus rockets.

The biggest unknown about DragonV2 is what might come out of Elon's mouth.  The capsule builds on the DragonV1 which has already been tested multiple times in orbit.  It isn't that radical of design jump. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: nadreck on 09/18/2014 10:18 pm
Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?

There is also a Soyuz lifeboat for the other 3 astronauts. So everyone is covered by a lifeboat.
Yes but at one time there was talk of more than coverage of each astronaut, having an extra crew return vehicle for unforseen events such as taking a crew member off for a medical emergency, or, covering off evacuation in the event of a catastrophe that impacted one of the regular return vehicles. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 09/18/2014 10:28 pm
You do know that Dragon V2 doesn't require propulsive landing to return crew and cargo, right? You keep using the phrase, "extremely ambitious design" for Dragon. It's a capsule, with parachute landing capability, and pusher style abort system, just like the CST-100. While the design includes more ambitious options, they aren't required for it to function.
Unlike the CST-100, the abort system comes down with the crew, and unlike Soyuz, the rockets used to soften the parachute landing are liquid-fuelled with NTO/MMH, and are capable at full throttle of launching the capsule upward at about 6g.  They're certainly capable of boosting it high in the air and wrecking the parachute before hammering the capsule into the ground, wrong-side up.

A pure parachute landing in Dragon V2 is basically meant to be a surviveable crash.  With the big NTO and MMH tanks onboard.  And it's not like they can do an extensive crash test program, as if they were designing a mass-market car.

The possibility that the propulsive landing system / LAS doesn't work as designed isn't equivalent to the case where it's not present.  If it malfunctions, it is capable of destroying the capsule or killing the crew in a variety of ways.

This kind of design will be great if they can dramatically lower launch costs and increase launch availability (both stages reusable), so it can be flight tested extensively like a commercial aircraft, but being able to trust it enough to put people in it after just one unmanned test flight is harder than with a simpler design that has less to go wrong.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/18/2014 10:37 pm
A pure parachute landing in Dragon V2 is basically meant to be a surviveable crash.  With the big NTO and MMH tanks onboard.  And it's not like they can do an extensive crash test program, as if they were designing a mass-market car.

The possibility that the propulsive landing system / LAS doesn't work as designed isn't equivalent to the case where it's not present.  If it malfunctions, it is capable of destroying the capsule or killing the crew in a variety of ways.

This kind of design will be great if they can dramatically lower launch costs and increase launch availability (both stages reusable), so it can be flight tested extensively like a commercial aircraft, but being able to trust it enough to put people in it after just one unmanned test flight is harder than with a simpler design that has less to go wrong.

This is where the DragonFly test program comes in. There will be a lot of tests before any crewed propulsive landing is made.

It will perhaps never be as thorough as car crash test programs, but they are working on mitigating the risks.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 09/18/2014 11:07 pm
This is where the DragonFly test program comes in.
...but what I'm saying is that the DragonFly test program needs to be completed for this system to be trustworthy even with a parachute-assisted landing.

LAS doesn't need to be highly reliable.  If you launch on a 98% reliable rocket, and your LAS is 90% reliable, you have a 99.8% crew survival probability.  Maybe higher, since the rocket can fail in flight and only the parachutes, or even good shock-absorbing seats and a water impact site, need to work for the crew to survive.

Routine landings need to be highly reliable.  Your landing rockets can't blow the capsule up 1% of the time, or you're down under 99% crew survival probability, which isn't good enough by modern standards.  You don't prove that your landing rockets don't kill the crew 1% of the time with a couple of launch aborts, one or two drop tests, and a single unmanned orbital flight.

If things go badly with DragonFly, they're not going to say, "Oh well, we'll just land with parachutes."  It's going to be at least a delay, and maybe a contract cancellation.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: laika_fr on 09/18/2014 11:17 pm
ISS taxi + tourism + boca chica = Spacex is announcing FH-R here
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 09/18/2014 11:30 pm
Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?

There is also a Soyuz lifeboat for the other 3 astronauts. So everyone is covered by a lifeboat.
Yes but at one time there was talk of more than coverage of each astronaut, having an extra crew return vehicle for unforseen events such as taking a crew member off for a medical emergency, or, covering off evacuation in the event of a catastrophe that impacted one of the regular return vehicles. 

Medical emergencies is one of the advantages DC had over the other vehicles because of it's low g reentry and it could land at an airport.

If you land in the boondocks far from a hospital you would be going from the frying pan into the fire.

I'm really surprised Boeing got 4.2 billion dollars while Spacex only got 2.6 billion.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 09/18/2014 11:42 pm
Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?

I suppose that's possible.

The USTV designation is designed to dock on N1 Nadir & N2 Nadir (after PMM relocation). Currently (L2 document) they have only 1-month docked stays shown. However, SpaceX, Orbital, and HTV all use those same two docking ports for cargo, and JAXA plans on providing an additional 2 modules in the future (yay). So it makes it very congested.

I do believe however that there are plans for an additional port? I can't remember 100% though.

edit to add: 'ISS' Pete is the authority on here to figure this stuff out.  ;)

USTV is the CRS2 cargo vehicles. Look for "USCV"

Should be Node 2 Fwd and Node 2 Zenith.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: robertross on 09/18/2014 11:58 pm
Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?

I suppose that's possible.

The USTV designation is designed to dock on N1 Nadir & N2 Nadir (after PMM relocation). Currently (L2 document) they have only 1-month docked stays shown. However, SpaceX, Orbital, and HTV all use those same two docking ports for cargo, and JAXA plans on providing an additional 2 modules in the future (yay). So it makes it very congested.

I do believe however that there are plans for an additional port? I can't remember 100% though.

edit to add: 'ISS' Pete is the authority on here to figure this stuff out.  ;)

USTV is the CRS2 cargo vehicles. Look for "USCV"

Should be Node 2 Fwd and Node 2 Zenith.

Ah yes (it was on another document). Thanks for clearing that up
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 09/19/2014 12:23 am
Quote

But I'm rather surprised and disappointed SNC lost out to Boeing when Dream Chaser is clearly a more capable and innovative then the CST-100.


Innovative can be, and appears to have been, an achilles heel.

Quote

I suspect the same since SNC's vehicle was clearly a better vehicle and seemed to have been farther along.


Folks, understandably you don't have all the data.  You cannot make the above statement with any accuracy based on press releases and this message board.  NASA CCP has been carefully reviewing the progress of all 3 partners.  The results were actually not that surprising once you see that NASA was willing to pay for 2 providers.


Quote

Kind of defeats the purpose of "commercial crew" though to eliminate one of the innovators and then give the least innovative proposal a significantly higher amount of funding.  But really, I'd rather see CST-100 replace

As I had been trying to say to folks, this was not the intent.  The intent really was access, not new space, not innovation, not beyond NASA commercialization.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/19/2014 12:27 am
I'm really surprised Boeing got 4.2 billion dollars while Spacex only got 2.6 billion.

I'm too cynical to be surprised.  If the goal was simply to get the lowest risk solution to supplementing Soyuz for the few remaining years of ISS life, then it makes sense.  But then we should have just awarded a cost-plus contract years ago, as that's a poor basis for trying to spur an innovative commercial spaceflight revolution.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/19/2014 12:47 am
I'm really surprised Boeing got 4.2 billion dollars while Spacex only got 2.6 billion.

I'm too cynical to be surprised.  If the goal was simply to get the lowest risk solution to supplementing Soyuz for the few remaining years of ISS life, then it makes sense.  But then we should have just awarded a cost-plus contract years ago, as that's a poor basis for trying to spur an innovative commercial spaceflight revolution.
Exactly what I keep saying, I feel like it was a "bait and switch"... So what's the ROI in SNC?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: spectre9 on 09/19/2014 12:47 am
So does this have anything to do with the decision to axe DC?

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/19/snc-abandons-hybrid-motors-dream-chaser/

Seems like quite a late change. Calling a new play after the snap really.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/19/2014 01:03 am

I suspect the same since SNC's vehicle was clearly a better vehicle and seemed to have been farther along.


Both untrue and baseless.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Patchouli on 09/19/2014 01:09 am
I'm really surprised Boeing got 4.2 billion dollars while Spacex only got 2.6 billion.

I'm too cynical to be surprised.  If the goal was simply to get the lowest risk solution to supplementing Soyuz for the few remaining years of ISS life, then it makes sense.  But then we should have just awarded a cost-plus contract years ago, as that's a poor basis for trying to spur an innovative commercial spaceflight revolution.


I do feel like it was a bait and switch as it was supposed to have been a fly off where the vehicle with the lowest reoccurring cost wins out.
It still seems too early to be narrowing things down as none of them have flown a pad abort yet.

So does this have anything to do with the decision to axe DC?

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/19/snc-abandons-hybrid-motors-dream-chaser/

Seems like quite a late change. Calling a new play after the snap really.

A change to a liquid engines may have allowed it to perform reboost if the RCS used the same propellants.

Just over size the forward RCS engines a little and make them able to handle a higher duty cycle.

You wouldn't be performing reboost ops with the main engines anyway.

Burt a change this late also may have cost them the contract as DC seems to be less risky then Dragon V2.

But Dragon V2 does have a huge advantage in that it comes with a LV that does not depend on Russian engines.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/19/2014 01:10 am
Quote

But I'm rather surprised and disappointed SNC lost out to Boeing when Dream Chaser is clearly a more capable and innovative then the CST-100.


It wasn't more capable.


Quote

I suspect the same since SNC's vehicle was clearly a better vehicle and seemed to have been farther along.


Better based on what? 
Seemed?  no information to support that either
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 09/19/2014 01:20 am
Scott Hubbard opinion piece re. CCtCAP decision on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/16/opinion/hubbard-nasa-space-move/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Oberon_Command on 09/19/2014 01:20 am
Jim, in what ways was DreamChaser inferior to CST-100?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Req on 09/19/2014 01:35 am
Jim, in what ways was DreamChaser inferior to CST-100?

You've provided at least one really good answer yourself already.  Bolded text added by me.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/19/2014 01:39 am
Jim, in what ways was DreamChaser inferior to CST-100?

Risk is the only one I know of because I don't have the insight on all the capabilities of both vehicles and that is my point, the posters here don't either.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AJW on 09/19/2014 02:45 am
We know that NASA is very risk averse especially regarding the life of crews.  I never saw much about the DC LAS except that it would use the hybrid engine, so swapping out the engine puts the entire LAS system at risk.  Spacecraft that depend on flight control surfaces surviving an abort scenario may have also been downgraded, and ocean landings with a lifting body would likely be far more dangerous than with a capsule.  You may be able to land at a number of airports, but there are plenty of places on this planet where runways are few and far between.  Add to that the inability to perform a go-around and you get another down-check.  We have also seen that any failure in the landing gear, while survivable, could be very dangerous for the crew, whether during a normal landing or in an abort.

When the selection committee report comes out, I suspect that these issues will be prominent.  Capsules may be boring, but KISS may win out.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/19/2014 03:51 am
KISS makes sense for ending ISS Soyuz dependence.  I guess I had hoped commercial crew would lead to some new and innovative things, but of course that's not really what it was about.  We're lucky to be getting a vehicle as potentially groundbreaking as Dragon out of the deal, so at least it's not a total bust. 

What I really wish is that NASA had an ambitious RLV development program, but I guess that kind of thing tends to be done by DARPA these days.  It's always about weapons, or there's just no incentive to advance it seems...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 09/19/2014 04:00 am
I'm really surprised Boeing got 4.2 billion dollars while Spacex only got 2.6 billion.

I'm too cynical to be surprised.  If the goal was simply to get the lowest risk solution to supplementing Soyuz for the few remaining years of ISS life, then it makes sense.  But then we should have just awarded a cost-plus contract years ago, as that's a poor basis for trying to spur an innovative commercial spaceflight revolution.
Exactly what I keep saying, I feel like it was a "bait and switch"... So what's the ROI in SNC?

It was a rather slow and obvious switch.  Congress made it pretty clear that they were not interested.  CCiCAP and CCtCAP followed up and made it clear the chief requirement was quick and safe access to ISS, anything more was bonus but not the intent. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/19/2014 04:04 am
quick, safe, cheap - choose two.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/19/2014 04:07 am
quick, safe, cheap - choose two.


Dragon V2 will be in orbit quicker and it will cost less. Invariably, this means that Dragon V2 has a higher LOC rate than CST-100?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: QuantumG on 09/19/2014 04:14 am
quick, safe, cheap - choose two.


Dragon V2 will be in orbit quicker and it will cost less. Invariably, this means that Dragon V2 has a higher LOC rate than CST-100?

It's not an infinite resolution quip. All these vehicles will not have been developed "quick" by any sensible definition.. but they will meet all NASA's exacting standards of safety and they will do it on starvation budgets, as they have for years now. If they desperately wanted to fly astronauts to the station on a US vehicle, they'd use a cargo Dragon and be done with it - quick, cheap, but not very safe.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: bubbagret on 09/19/2014 04:20 am
Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?

I suppose that's possible.

The USTV designation is designed to dock on N1 Nadir & N2 Nadir (after PMM relocation). Currently (L2 document) they have only 1-month docked stays shown. However, SpaceX, Orbital, and HTV all use those same two docking ports for cargo, and JAXA plans on providing an additional 2 modules in the future (yay). So it makes it very congested.

I do believe however that there are plans for an additional port? I can't remember 100% though.

edit to add: 'ISS' Pete is the authority on here to figure this stuff out.  ;)

What additional JAXA modules are you referring to?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/19/2014 04:24 am
quick, safe, cheap - choose two.


Dragon V2 will be in orbit quicker and it will cost less. Invariably, this means that Dragon V2 has a higher LOC rate than CST-100?

It's not an infinite resolution quip. All these vehicles will not have been developed "quick" by any sensible definition.. but they will meet all NASA's exacting standards of safety and they will do it on starvation budgets, as they have for years now. If they desperately wanted to fly astronauts to the station on a US vehicle, they'd use a cargo Dragon and be done with it - quick, cheap, but not very safe.

A quip with a better resolution might be: quick, safe, cheap, easy - pick 3.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: darkenfast on 09/19/2014 05:17 am
DreamChaser's touted advantages were the ability to land at any airport and the low-g re-entry.  The reality is that there were probably only going to be a few airports that would be configured to having to clear airspace and deal with a spacecraft making a dead-stick landing.  The low-g advantage only makes sense if you are on your back.  The two positions in front (pilot and co-pilot, or whatever you want to call them), would either be sitting up for the re-entry, or would have to change positions during the brief period between re-entry and approach.  This might have implications after a six-month mission.  The other reason some favor DreamChaser seems to be emotional: it looks like an airplane and swoops down to land on a runway.  For the life of me, I can't see what makes that an inherently superior approach for a spacecraft in THIS size and with THIS mission.  Is it stronger?  More survivable in a crash?  Do the aerodynamic surfaces, lifting body-shape and other details to make it fly have a weight advantage over the capsule's heat-shield, parachutes and possibly rockets?  Maybe they do, I don't know.  But answer those questions before assuming that DreamChaser was a superior design. 

On the other hand and in my opinion, the fact that SNC did not release the full video of the landing mishap to the public has no bearing on the selection, as has been claimed above.  I think it's a fair bet that the people who made the decisions saw the whole video.  If there's anything on that video that shows a design defect of the spacecraft (and I don't think there is), NASA knows about it.  I look forward to seeing the eventual release of the selection report, which hopefully will make some of this more clear.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/19/2014 05:34 am
All good questions, and I'm too tired at the moment to contemplate them in depth.  But there's something to be said for an underdog with a story as unique as this, pushing an idea whose time surely has to come someday!  Human spaceflight is partly about the excitement and inspiration of doing new and different things, right?

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/09/the-long-complicated-voyage-of-the-dream-chaser-may-yet-end-in-space/
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nibb31 on 09/19/2014 07:45 am
Sierra's proposal had a lot more risk associated:

- Engine uncertainties: It was uncertain whether the hybrid engine could be properly developed with the specified performance and safety in the given timeframe. Switching to a liquid engine at this point was a fundamental change that would have changed the dynamics of the vehicle and negated any of the milestones that SNC had already met.

- Abort uncertainties: A lifting body needs a certain speed to glide back to a landing. DreamChaser's abort scenarios weren't very convincing, and looked a lot like the tricky aborts of the Shuttle that nobody ever dared to test. It is not certain that the vehicle or crew could survive an ocean ditching or a landing on unprepared terrain.

- MMOD risk: DreamChaser has its TPS exposed during launch and throughout its loiter period on orbit. After the experience with the Shuttle, that is an extra risk.

- Reliability: A vehicle with control surfaces and landing gear simply, including hydraulics and many moving parts, is more complex and has mathematically more failure points than a simpler capsule with parachutes. Even if those designs are well understood, a more complex vehicle requires more maintenance and inspection, especially when you are reusing the vehicle.

- Reusability risk: In addition to the base vehicle certification, DreamChaser required development of refurbishing and recertification procedures. This means not only technical work, but also paperwork, money, and again extra risk.

We don't know the price of their bid, but remember that DreamChaser was supposed to have a fleet of two vehicles built by Lockheed Martin. These vehicles being much more complex than a capsule, I doubt that they would have been much cheaper than a fleet of 6 CST-100s built by Boeing.

So unless they were much cheaper than SpaceX, the cost/risk ratio was simply not at their advantage and the decision to go with the other two competitors was a no brainer.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 09/19/2014 08:05 am


For the life of me, I can't see what makes that an inherently superior approach for a spacecraft in THIS size and with THIS mission.  Is it stronger?  More survivable in a crash?

Of course, SNC have already performed a test on this, and the result seems to be that DC can tumble down the runway and be quite survivable for any occupants.

If DC is in control, its velocity vector is mostly forward, and it gets the chance to scrub off speed in an extended crash.

A failed parachute landing comes in at high speed with an extremely short deceleration zone. (Yes, I know, SuperDracos, etc.)

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/19/2014 08:30 am


For the life of me, I can't see what makes that an inherently superior approach for a spacecraft in THIS size and with THIS mission.  Is it stronger?  More survivable in a crash?

Of course, SNC have already performed a test on this, and the result seems to be that DC can tumble down the runway and be quite survivable for any occupants.

If DC is in control, its velocity vector is mostly forward, and it gets the chance to scrub off speed in an extended crash.

A failed parachute landing comes in at high speed with an extremely short deceleration zone. (Yes, I know, SuperDracos, etc.)

Yeah, a failed parachute landing (or failure of both the parachutes and the SuperDracos in the case of Dragon) leads to high speed and an extremely short deceleration zone.  But Dream Chaser has failure modes that lead to the same thing, such as control surfaces stuck in certain positions.  I don't think it's fair to compare a parachute failure to a Dream Chaser landing gear failure.  That would be more comparable to failure of a leg on Dragon or airbags on CST-100.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/19/2014 08:48 am
Kind of defeats the purpose of "commercial crew" though to eliminate one of the innovators and then give the least innovative proposal a significantly higher amount of funding.  But really, I'd rather see CST-100 replace Orion which is the real waste of money (along with the white elephant SLS), and the two "newspace" innovators allowed to proceed on commercial crew.

Mindlessly rewarding something because it's different is no better than mindlessly rewarding something because it's the same as what was done before.

The benefits of innovation (and I'm a huge fan of innovation, working at a start-up in Silicon Valley) only come when you have the discipline to kill off the innovations that don't actually turn out to do a better job.

Most Silicon Valley start-ups fail.  That's the way it should be.  Most change turns out not to be all that great.  That doesn't mean it wasn't worth trying.  You have to try nine innovations that fail to find the one that succeeds and changes the world.

In Silicon Valley, the discipline comes from the market.  In commercial crew, the discipline has to come from the body making the selection.  They have to rate the proposals based on how well they solve the practical problem, not how innovative they are.  That's what the selection criteria were set up to do for CCtCap, and there's no indication I can see that the selection committee failed to follow the criteria objectively.

Well done, Sierra Nevada, on a noble failure.  Now move on to your next innovative idea.  Don't get bogged down in something you worked hard on that didn't work out.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: llanitedave on 09/19/2014 06:18 pm
quick, safe, cheap - choose two.

You made that up.  It's not a truism.

It could just as easily have been quick, innovative, and cheap.

Or innovative, capable, and safe.

Too many of the opinionated people on this forum have far more confidence than knowledge.

Or wisdom.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: R7 on 09/19/2014 06:54 pm
quick, safe, cheap - choose two.

You made that up.  It's not a truism.

It could just as easily have been quick, innovative, and cheap.

Or innovative, capable, and safe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle

Btw why should "innovative" as such be desirable option. People innovating for just innovativeness sake does not necessary produce faster, cheaper or better results, sometimes the opposite.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/19/2014 07:18 pm
On the innovation question, I think the ultimate goal is what matters. I still believe in the vision of NASP of routine civilian access to space, even if that was never really that program's goal and even if I won't realistically live to see it:

http://youtu.be/hnibg2LxFn4

While SpaceX is keeping the dream alive, albeit with a pragmatic and measured evolutionary approach, this is the type of thing NASA should be about.  Unfortunately, we have become too timid and too risk averse to push the boundaries or invest in ambitious R&D, at least in the civilian world.  What goes on at places like Groom Lake we may never know, but what good does it do for humanity if we only invest in advancing weaponry?

Maybe Dream Chaser seemed like it was keeping some vestige of that dream and spirit alive, even if in reality it was no revolutionary vehicle. I was always a fan of the HL-20. Want to make NASA's human spaceflight program seem relevant to people? Give them a vision of opening up the frontier, and building the capability and infrastructure to change the way we all live, not just a few career overachievers who get to explore the frontier. (Though we'll always want those professional astronauts to be doing the true groundbreaking stuff of course, hopefully well beyond low Earth orbit when us average citizens are buying tickets on the commercial space clipper :) )



Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: kevinof on 09/19/2014 07:21 pm
true but if you don't at least try and innovate then you never advance. It's only by pushing designs in different directions that you figure out what makes sense and what is a dead end. Sitting on your hands doing the same old thing will keep you doing just that - the same old thing.

quick, safe, cheap - choose two.

You made that up.  It's not a truism.

It could just as easily have been quick, innovative, and cheap.

Or innovative, capable, and safe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle

Btw why should "innovative" as such be desirable option. People innovating for just innovativeness sake does not necessary produce faster, cheaper or better results, sometimes the opposite.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: dror on 09/19/2014 08:55 pm
I hear alot about our paying the Russians $71M per seat to fly to the ISS, but I can't find information on what the estimated cost will be per seat on the CST 100 and manned Dragon. Is this information published any where?

It's apparently up to over $80 million now, by the way http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-spacex-to-team-with-nasa-on-space-taxi/.  Although I have to say I am a little dubious about that claim, I had a hard time trying to find it amid lots of reports that it is over $70.

We don't have an estimated price per seat if you are excluding development costs.  I don't know that anyone has done an estimated price per seat including CCiCAP and CCtCAP but it would obviously be far  higher than anything the Russians have charged us.

So, What's the price per seat?
My seconed attempt:

Going from SpaceX's Total contract of $2.6B for RnD plus six flights of 1 Ton cargo and 4 crew we get:

(1)Excluding development (as 60%), including 6 flight of 7 seats:
~$25M per seat to ISS
That's the price for a comercial client after this contract ends.

(2)Excluding development (as 60%),  excluding the price of 1T of cargo each flight at crs1 rate $80M, including 6 flight of 4 seats and 1 Ton of cargo:
~$23M per seat to ISS
That's nasa's net prices per seat by this contract after certification ends.
That's SpaceX's price for follow on contracts.

(3)Including development cost, excluding the price of 1T of cargo each flight at crs1 rate $80M, including 6 flights of 4 seats and cargo:
~$88M per seat
That's full price, relevant for this contract only.

.For Boeing its about 60% up (assuming same ratio for RnD:flights 6:4)
.These numbers don't count for ccdev and ccicap costs.

What do you say?
 :-\
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/19/2014 09:03 pm
(1)Excluding development (as 60%), including 6 flight of 7 seats:
~$25M per seat to ISS
That's the price for a comercial client after this contract ends.

Where does the 60% number come from?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: cartman on 09/19/2014 09:09 pm
How much does that $25M per seat go down if we reuse the dragon? If refurb cost can get to $10M and a standard launch is $60M, then its about $10M per seat.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 09/19/2014 10:11 pm
Even at the full $108 million/seat, since this is money that's being spent in America, it's probably a better deal for American government than spending $80 million in Russia, just by counting the consequent immediate increase in tax revenue (income and sales taxes, as people take their salaries and profits home to spend, giving other people salaries and profits to spend, etc.).

The Dragon V2 contract isn't really even spending more money (as long as they can actually do it).  The effective discount for government to buy domestic is at least that high.  I think it would be hard for congress to object to this spending, unless they want to discontinue the ISS.

But $175 million in aerospace spending probably won't bring in $95+ million in taxes in such a simple way.  There needs to be some upside beyond six CST-100 rides, and some patience for the investment to produce a payoff.  On top of that, it would launch on the Atlas V, which would have to be man-rated, is currently dependent on the Russian RD-180 (the purchase of which is not domestic spending, if it will even be available), and its operator has just made an announcement that suggests it may be discontinued right in the middle of this program.  Congress might not go for it.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 09/19/2014 10:28 pm
On the innovation question, I think the ultimate goal is what matters. I still believe in the vision of NASP of routine civilian access to space, even if that was never really that program's goal and even if I won't realistically live to see it:
Somewhat off topic?
Quote
While SpaceX is keeping the dream alive, albeit with a pragmatic and measured evolutionary approach, this is the type of thing NASA should be about.  Unfortunately, we have become too timid and too risk averse to push the boundaries or invest in ambitious R&D, at least in the civilian world.  What goes on at places like Groom Lake we may never know, but what good does it do for humanity if we only invest in advancing weaponry?
Ever read the NASA charter? "Humanity" has quite a narrow definition.  :(
Quote
Maybe Dream Chaser seemed like it was keeping some vestige of that dream and spirit alive, even if in reality it was no revolutionary vehicle. I was always a fan of the HL-20.
You appear to be profoundly ignorant of how innovative Dream Chaser is.

1)First human carrying orbital lifting body. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

2)Hybrid main propulsion system functioning as both launch escape and on orbit OMS. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

3) A human rated space vehicle whose primary structure is entirely carbon fibre composite. That has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

This was all done on a budget 1/2 that of the (much) more conservative CTS100 and Dragon systems.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: erioladastra on 09/19/2014 11:08 pm
On the innovation question, I think the ultimate goal is what matters. I still believe in the vision of NASP of routine civilian access to space, even if that was never really that program's goal and even if I won't realistically live to see it:
Somewhat off topic?
Quote
While SpaceX is keeping the dream alive, albeit with a pragmatic and measured evolutionary approach, this is the type of thing NASA should be about.  Unfortunately, we have become too timid and too risk averse to push the boundaries or invest in ambitious R&D, at least in the civilian world.  What goes on at places like Groom Lake we may never know, but what good does it do for humanity if we only invest in advancing weaponry?
Ever read the NASA charter? "Humanity" has quite a narrow definition.  :(
Quote
Maybe Dream Chaser seemed like it was keeping some vestige of that dream and spirit alive, even if in reality it was no revolutionary vehicle. I was always a fan of the HL-20.
You appear to be profoundly ignorant of how innovative Dream Chaser is.

1)First human carrying orbital lifting body. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

2)Hybrid main propulsion system functioning as both launch escape and on orbit OMS. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

3) A human rated space vehicle whose primary structure is entirely carbon fibre composite. That has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

This was all done on a budget 1/2 that of the (much) more conservative CTS100 and Dragon systems.

Not meaning to sound like I am raining on your parade - I greatly admire and respect the SNC work - but to be technically correct this was not "done" on 1/2 that.  It was IN WORK.  it was not yet a human rated sapce vehicle, it hadn't really flown (drop test is a great start), it did not have a working hybrid motor...  Just keeping it in perspective. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 09/19/2014 11:39 pm
I'm doing the numbers the other way around. I'm assuming 150M per flight, one unmanned, once certification and six operative missions. That's 1.2B for flights, which leaves 1.4B for development. Which seems about right.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 09/19/2014 11:48 pm
I hear alot about our paying the Russians $71M per seat to fly to the ISS, but I can't find information on what the estimated cost will be per seat on the CST 100 and manned Dragon. Is this information published any where?

It's apparently up to over $80 million now, by the way http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-spacex-to-team-with-nasa-on-space-taxi/.  Although I have to say I am a little dubious about that claim, I had a hard time trying to find it amid lots of reports that it is over $70.

We don't have an estimated price per seat if you are excluding development costs.  I don't know that anyone has done an estimated price per seat including CCiCAP and CCtCAP but it would obviously be far  higher than anything the Russians have charged us.

$80M/seat was originally stated as what NASA was budgeting long ago in Congressional testimony by Gerstenmaier.  Since he didn't say "including DDT&E and certification costs", I have assumed he was referring to annual/operating costs.

In any case, there is absolutely no way Commercial Crew beats Soyuz on a simple and direct $/seat basis vs. overall CC program $/seat costs unless you project CC at 4 seats/yr into at minimum mid- to late-2020's.  (And now, given the size of the CCtCap awards, likely well beyond, but I haven't done the numbers.)

In short, to justify CCtCap, you need to go well beyond annual/operations $seat numbers.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Mader Levap on 09/20/2014 01:38 am
In short, to justify CCtCap, you need to go well beyond annual/operations $seat numbers.
Weaning out of Soyuz is sufficient, I think.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/20/2014 01:50 am
In short, to justify CCtCap, you need to go well beyond annual/operations $seat numbers.

To be precise, that's to justify CCtCap as they chose to award it.  If they had gone with a downselect to just SpaceX it would have been justifiable on a pure cost basis within a much shorter period.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/20/2014 02:09 am

Somewhat off topic?

I would argue relevant in establishing context for my argument that the agency has lost its pioneering spirit.

Quote
You appear to be profoundly ignorant of how innovative Dream Chaser is.

Not at all.  That's why I said that while not revolutionary like an SSTO spaceplane with aircraft-like turnaround, it still kept alive some vestige of that spirit of going into the unknown and advancing the state of technology.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Req on 09/20/2014 02:55 am
On the innovation question, I think the ultimate goal is what matters. I still believe in the vision of NASP of routine civilian access to space, even if that was never really that program's goal and even if I won't realistically live to see it:
Somewhat off topic?
Quote
While SpaceX is keeping the dream alive, albeit with a pragmatic and measured evolutionary approach, this is the type of thing NASA should be about.  Unfortunately, we have become too timid and too risk averse to push the boundaries or invest in ambitious R&D, at least in the civilian world.  What goes on at places like Groom Lake we may never know, but what good does it do for humanity if we only invest in advancing weaponry?
Ever read the NASA charter? "Humanity" has quite a narrow definition.  :(
Quote
Maybe Dream Chaser seemed like it was keeping some vestige of that dream and spirit alive, even if in reality it was no revolutionary vehicle. I was always a fan of the HL-20.
You appear to be profoundly ignorant of how innovative Dream Chaser is.

1)First human carrying orbital lifting body. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

2)Hybrid main propulsion system functioning as both launch escape and on orbit OMS. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

3) A human rated space vehicle whose primary structure is entirely carbon fibre composite. That has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

This was all done on a budget 1/2 that of the (much) more conservative CTS100 and Dragon systems.

Not meaning to sound like I am raining on your parade - I greatly admire and respect the SNC work - but to be technically correct this was not "done" on 1/2 that.  It was IN WORK.  it was not yet a human rated sapce vehicle, it hadn't really flown (drop test is a great start), it did not have a working hybrid motor...  Just keeping it in perspective.

Also, how much money had been spent on HL20 by the various parties, and how much money did SpaceDev spend on it before SNC got their hands on it?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/20/2014 03:52 am
Sirangelo said they spent just as much on DC as NASA did.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: WindyCity on 09/20/2014 04:46 am
I suspect that the determining factor in choosing SpaceX and Boeing over SNC was safety. The DC could fail in more ways than a capsule, which outweighed its advantages in terms of lower G forces and cross range capability. The CST-100 is a boring, tried and true technology, and Boeing has a proven track record of getting the job done. Dragon V2 pushes the envelope with its Super Dracos and propulsive landing, and major components have already been vetted with the Dragon V1; but it still has a parachute in reserve for a water landing if the rockets fizzle. DV2 also has a heat shield that would allow it to go BEO; NASA might view this capability as an ace in the hole if Orion runs into trouble. All in all, while über cool, DC was too risky, and NASA wants a space taxi, not a space Formula 1.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: vt_hokie on 09/20/2014 04:51 am
Agree, I just think commercial crew then was the wrong program to try to spur innovation.  NASA's ISS crew rotation/assured crew return needs don't mesh with pushing the envelope, which means NASA really needs separate programs for doing that imo.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nibb31 on 09/20/2014 04:59 am
There was a time when NASA did X-vehicles for envelope-pushing and innovation.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: dror on 09/20/2014 06:39 am
(1)Excluding development (as 60%), including 6 flight of 7 seats:
~$25M per seat to ISS
That's the price for a comercial client after this contract ends.

Where does the 60% number come from?
Somewhere pn this thread it was quoted that development was the bigger part of this contract so 60% seems to be the lower limit of being the bigger part.
If we take baldusi's $150M per flight, the final cost gets even lower since two of these flights are part of the development (certification) process.
I am more concerned from the crs1 price of $80M per ton ($1.6B / 20T). Is this the real price for cargo?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/20/2014 06:47 am
Keith Cowing seems to be upset that CST-100 is too Apollo ( cause like it has a similar shape to Apollo, therefore it's a redundant as the horse and wagon!). From what I've seen of the interiors, both capsules seem very modern though. They're both landing with parachutes initially anyway, both going to carry the same amount of people, both can be reused 10 times. Overall I wasn't disappointed with the choices, just relieved that there's been a decisive direction for ISS crew transport that has paths for growth outside of the ISS, in the future. We could have ended up with a down select to one, which would have been a disaster.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 09/20/2014 07:04 am
I am more concerned from the crs1 price of $80M per ton ($1.6B / 20T). Is this the real price for cargo?

That does not take into account vacuum cargo and downmass cargo. It refers to pressurized upmass only.


Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: dror on 09/20/2014 08:49 am
I am more concerned from the crs1 price of $80M per ton ($1.6B / 20T). Is this the real price for cargo?

That does not take into account vacuum cargo and downmass cargo. It refers to pressurized upmass only.
I guessed it's the same for cctcap and crs1
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: MP99 on 09/20/2014 10:01 am


Quote
Maybe Dream Chaser seemed like it was keeping some vestige of that dream and spirit alive, even if in reality it was no revolutionary vehicle. I was always a fan of the HL-20.
You appear to be profoundly ignorant of how innovative Dream Chaser is.

1)First human carrying orbital lifting body. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

2)Hybrid main propulsion system functioning as both launch escape and on orbit OMS. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

3) A human rated space vehicle whose primary structure is entirely carbon fibre composite. That has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

This was all done on a budget 1/2 that of the (much) more conservative CTS100 and Dragon systems.

I'll start by saying I love DC, but...

1) In the real world, there are no prizes for innovation for its own sake. A spacecraft made of cheese would be innovative. A lifting-body gives a low-g reentry, but other than that, how much benefit is there really from a runway landing over a capsule landing on land? Anything else? Land landing on abort, I guess.

2) Are you sure that was actually in the vehicle that was submitted for CCtCap?

3) Again, as per (1). Orion abandoned carbon fibre because it was no lighter, and risk of damage. SNC may have a sufficiently different design (less penetrations, etc), that it's truly a weight benefit to them. (I could believe this, given their very different OML.)

However, the risk of hidden damage, and the difficulty of detecting it, does actually remain a very real risk.

It's quite possible this was actually a major factor in NASA rejecting DC.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 09/20/2014 11:06 am
I am more concerned from the crs1 price of $80M per ton ($1.6B / 20T). Is this the real price for cargo?

That does not take into account vacuum cargo and downmass cargo. It refers to pressurized upmass only.
I guessed it's the same for cctcap and crs1

Does that mean in CRS1 a freezer delivered to the ground by Dragon has the same calculated value as the same mass of garbage disposed by Cygnus?

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 09/20/2014 12:56 pm
Agree, I just think commercial crew then was the wrong program to try to spur innovation.  NASA's ISS crew rotation/assured crew return needs don't mesh with pushing the envelope, which means NASA really needs separate programs for doing that imo.

That actually makes a lot of sense. While true that Dragon also pushed the envelope it does it in such a way that is evolutionary of existing methodology to fill a very specific and well defined need. I had hoped to see DreamChaser win thru but in hindsight I have to admit that for the very specific need NASA is attempting to fill that DC was too much. So to all who think that the board decided that DC wasn't good enough I submit that it may have been the other way around - it was too advanced for the very specific need being filled, and thus a higher risk to the program. It's not that NASA didn't like DC because they obviously did. But it didn't fit well within the very narrow risk envelope NASA had defined for this program. VT is correct - DC would be a better fit in a NASA-sponsored X-Plane program. In such a program DC would have fared extremely well.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 09/20/2014 02:12 pm
...
If we take baldusi's $150M per flight, the final cost gets even lower since two of these flights are part of the development (certification) process.
...

There is one crewed flight to the ISS required for certification.  The other (2-6) flights are post-certification missions and all have the same pricing framework.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/20/2014 02:40 pm
...
If we take baldusi's $150M per flight, the final cost gets even lower since two of these flights are part of the development (certification) process.
...

There is one crewed flight to the ISS required for certification.  The other (2-6) flights are post-certification missions and all have the same pricing framework.

Although an uncrewed test flight is not required, it is very likely that both companies suggested one as part of their milestones.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 09/20/2014 02:50 pm
I would argue that ESA's IEV hybrid vehicle is the possible future not winged vehicles.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: AJW on 09/20/2014 04:19 pm
Agree, I just think commercial crew then was the wrong program to try to spur innovation.  NASA's ISS crew rotation/assured crew return needs don't mesh with pushing the envelope, which means NASA really needs separate programs for doing that imo.

That actually makes a lot of sense. While true that Dragon also pushed the envelope it does it in such a way that is evolutionary of existing methodology to fill a very specific and well defined need. I had hoped to see DreamChaser win thru but in hindsight I have to admit that for the very specific need NASA is attempting to fill that DC was too much. So to all who think that the board decided that DC wasn't good enough I submit that it may have been the other way around - it was too advanced for the very specific need being filled, and thus a higher risk to the program. It's not that NASA didn't like DC because they obviously did. But it didn't fit well within the very narrow risk envelope NASA had defined for this program. VT is correct - DC would be a better fit in a NASA-sponsored X-Plane program. In such a program DC would have fared extremely well.

NASA also just came off decades of very direct knowledge of the high risks and costs of a space plane.  Look up STS anomalies and two LOC were only the top of a list of hundreds of failures and many near catastrophes. Regular damage and failure of the TPS.  STS-1 suffered a melted external door latch because of poorly designed tiles as well as hot gas entering a wheel well that buckled the door.  There were other issues like the ASA-1 anomalies on STS-125 which could have resulted in loss of control surfaces.  STS-51-D's flat tire and failed brakes.  While it was not the final system, DC's landing failure was a clear reminder that complex systems are subject to a far larger array of failure opportunities.  In addition, every pound devoted to flight controls, actuators, hydraulics, landing gear or tires is a pound of upmass that is lost. 

The report on the decision making process will be an important read for the DC staff as well as for all current and future spacecraft designers.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 09/20/2014 04:33 pm
In short, to justify CCtCap, you need to go well beyond annual/operations $seat numbers.
To be precise, that's to justify CCtCap as they chose to award it.  If they had gone with a downselect to just SpaceX it would have been justifiable on a pure cost basis within a much shorter period.

Possibly, but I would not bet on it.  Some of the numbers thrown around in these forums recently for commercial crew operational or $/seat costs appear to be extremely optimistic.  From the very recent Extending the Operational Life of the International Space Station Until 2024 (http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY14/IG-14-031.pdf), NASA OIG, 18-Sep-2014:

Quote from:
We found the assumptions underlying NASA’s future life cycle estimates for transportation costs unrealistic. For example, NASA estimates for commercial crew transportation are based on the cost of a Soyuz seat in FY 2016 – $70.7 million per seat for a total cost of $283 million per mission for four seats. However, the Program’s independent government cost estimates project significantly higher crew transportation costs when using commercial crew companies.  ISS Program officials explained they used the price of a Soyuz seat as a planning tool and are tracking the cost of commercial crew missions as a program risk, in essence acknowledging that the price for commercial crew missions is expected to be more than the current Soyuz prices paid by the Program.

Much else of interest beyond commercial cargo and crew in that report.  I started a new thread in the ISS section (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35685.0) for ISS-specific discussion.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 09/20/2014 04:49 pm
I would argue that ESA's IEV hybrid vehicle is the possible future not winged vehicles.
One can imagine such a minimalistic lifting body to provide low-g reentry and cross range capability, combined with DV2-style propulsive landing + parachute backup, which would default to a capsule-style high-g reentry if the control surfaces are damaged (and ejected).

As you scale rockets up to larger diameters, the capsule that fits on top naturally tends toward higher lift:drag ratio shapes.  A flying saucer might not take more than a pair of heat-shielded paddles and software.  It may even be possible to stabilize and steer it in high-lift:drag mode propulsively without requiring an excessive mass of propellant.  I wonder if something like this is already on the drawing board for a BFR-scale (10m diameter) Dragon V3 spaceliner, with passenger capacity comparable to a 737.

Even if fully funded and realized, Dream Chaser could represent a dead end approach if there are ways to achieve its strengths without accepting its weaknesses.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: mr. mark on 09/20/2014 09:00 pm
LAS demands would also be different with this type of vehicle. You could have a capsule style abort without having to fly/ glide back. You could have parachute based landings in case of abort.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/21/2014 12:22 am
Keith Cowing seems to be upset that CST-100 is too Apollo ...
I'm not seeing it.  Maybe I have to look closer?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/21/2014 12:31 am
Keith Cowing seems to be upset that CST-100 is too Apollo ...
I'm not seeing it.  Maybe I have to look closer?

 - Ed Kyle
He should wish it was the Apollo CM/SM...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 09/22/2014 12:31 am
I'm not seeing it.  Maybe I have to look closer?

I'm sure he meant the CM shape and size. As Jim said re. the Orion, no need to do extensive aerodynamic testing when you're using the same design. The Apollo SM had to do LOI of CSM and LM, then TEI of CSM. It was basically a combo SM and 4th stage. Skylab CSMs flew with almost empty tanks. No need for all that tankage, fuel cells, relatively large engine, etc. on CST-100, but yea, how can one disagree that the basic CM (other than modern electronics, etc.) is much different between Apollo and CST-100?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nibb31 on 09/22/2014 06:32 am
It differs in pretty much the same way a Boeing 707 differs from Boeing 787. It's just the right shape for the job.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/22/2014 06:51 am
It differs in pretty much the same way a Boeing 707 differs from Boeing 787. It's just the right shape for the job.

Not really.  CST-100 has exactly the same outer mold lines as Apollo.  Exactly the same size, exactly the same shape.

It's like saying we're going to design our new 787, but we're going to make it have exactly the same outer mold lines as 707 so we can save money on aerodynamic testing -- same length, same width, same wing shape, etc.

Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/22/2014 06:56 am

It differs in pretty much the same way a Boeing 707 differs from Boeing 787. It's just the right shape for the job.

Not really.  CST-100 has exactly the same outer mold lines as Apollo.  Exactly the same size, exactly the same shape.

No, the CST-100 CM is larger than Apollo's CM. 4.56m diameter vs 3.9m diameter.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/22/2014 07:13 am
Keith Cowing seems to be upset that CST-100 is too Apollo ...
I'm not seeing it.  Maybe I have to look closer?

 - Ed Kyle

He was saying it with regards to the vehicle interior, not its external shape. Obviously the external shape is very similar...but who cares! It works. Might as well say circular wheels are old hat and too 4th Millennium BC.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nibb31 on 09/22/2014 07:40 am
It differs in pretty much the same way a Boeing 707 differs from Boeing 787. It's just the right shape for the job.

Not really.  CST-100 has exactly the same outer mold lines as Apollo.  Exactly the same size, exactly the same shape.

It's not the same size or the same shape. It's larger, and the top end is flatter because NDS is wider than the Apollo docking probe. It's made of different materials, it's more streamlined, windows and propulsion are in different places.

It is superficially similar just as a Dreamliner is superficially similar to a 707, because form follows function.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 09/22/2014 09:34 am
There was a lot of optimism within the space enthusiast community that DC might make the final selection but the reality was that it was always the outside choice due to SNC's lack of track record as a prime  contractor (they've built lots of space rated sub systems) and continual 1/2 size funding (thank you Representative Wolfe)

Superficially they look to be in the same place that Liberty/ATK were at however unlike ATK they are not a publicly quoted company so there is no "stock price" to worry about.

That said pursuing DC at any rate will take a lot of company resources.

Interesting questions for DC management will be
1) Should (can) they re-host on a SpaceX F9, and will it be cheaper?

2)If they pursued a "source parts from every state" strategy to get the support of the Legislature would it be more cost effective to focus on fewer suppliers with better track records or even, as one poster has suggested do most (if not all) work in house?

3)Virgin Galactic would love to be able to offer orbital flights and don't seem too fussy about buying in the tech to do it. It could be said that NASA's funding had retired risk in the same way that SS1/WK1's winning of the X prize basically proved out the architecture.  In principal SNC can offer a system that's gives a)winged entry (which VG seem to like) with good cross range  b)Low g (handy given people who can afford the fare are likely to be older) c)An interesting experience even if they don't dock with a station. d)Fairly quickly (if adequately funded). A side bonus is the main engine shares it's tech with the SS2. Reports of a switch to the Orbitec pressurized liquid design seem to be so much FUD.

In hind sight it could be said DC was more flexible than the CCiCAP contract needed but was not that exactly the strategy that SpaceX pursued with the design of Dragon? Putting hooks in for future upgrades (or in the case of DC widening their envelope) is a lot easier than designing essentially 2 different vehicles.

SNC faces some very tough choices and they hinge around both the company finances and the "vision" SNCs management has of what sort of company it wants to be.  :(

I think once the transport contracts start for both Crewed Dragon and CTS100 (I really hope NASA learned something from the payment schedule they gave SpaceX and Orbital for cargo) we'll see if people feel CTS100 is worth the much larger payments NASA will make for each flight.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: R7 on 09/22/2014 10:00 am
Keith Cowing seems to be upset that CST-100 is too Apollo ...
I'm not seeing it.  Maybe I have to look closer?

 - Ed Kyle

He was saying it with regards to the vehicle interior

So what's wrong with CST-100 interior? Are dedicated gauges and switch guards old hat too?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Bennett on 09/22/2014 02:16 pm
So I guess now you divide up the astronaut class, group A for Dragon and group B for CST. Since each capsule layout and interface will be different.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/22/2014 03:27 pm
So I guess now you divide up the astronaut class, group A for Dragon and group B for CST. Since each capsule layout and interface will be different.
The example, I suppose, would be how NASA astronauts trained for launching on both Shuttle and Soyuz.  Won't they also be passengers, not pilots?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/22/2014 03:45 pm
Here is a good summary of the CCtCap awards:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2605/1
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 09/22/2014 03:59 pm

So I guess now you divide up the astronaut class, group A for Dragon and group B for CST. Since each capsule layout and interface will be different.
The example, I suppose, would be how NASA astronauts trained for launching on both Shuttle and Soyuz.  Won't they also be passengers, not pilots?

 - Ed Kyle
But you have to train for contingency situations, evacuation, loss of pressure, aborts, etc. And if I'm guessing it right, training and qualification will be done by the contractors (i.e. Boeing and SpaceX). Probably NASA will want as much commonality as possible. But my guess is that it will be one of the lessons learned from this program. In the end, Boeing and SpaceX will have to coordinate a lot to simplify things for NASA.
But I wonder if the chance of qualifying CST-100 on Falcon 9 won't help a bit here. Or may be the FAA might step in. But I don't expect this until 2018/9 at the earliest.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 09/22/2014 04:51 pm
But you have to train for contingency situations, evacuation, loss of pressure, aborts, etc.
Seems like diminishing returns to me.

Progressively improving and testing the capsule and launch vehicle: increasing crew survivability from 50% (if you take your first whack at it, and stick people in, totally untested) to 90% to 99% to 99.9% to 99.99% (extensive launch history) etc.

Progressively improving and training on emergency procedures: increasing crew survivability from 99% (stick blindfolded human cargo in the capsule, without telling them they're going to space), to 99.1% ("You can use the seat cushions as a floatation device." flight attendant speech), to 99.11% to 99.111% to 99.1111% (he train from child) etc.  And as the vehicle is improved, those benefits are going down from 0.1...% to 0.01...% to 0.001...%

Back in the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo days, human skill was important because they had such limited control systems, and there was even some hardware that was accessible and meaningfully field-repairable/modifiable.  Now, in a modern spacecraft, if something goes wrong, and there isn't a programmed response, and ground control doesn't take care of it, it's terribly unlikely that it will be anything that the so-called "crew" can do anything about.

I think in this generation, the realistically useful vehicle-specific "crew" training is going to amount to:
In the CST-100: knowing for each individual button, why you should never press it.
In the Dragon V2: knowing how to delete any U2 albums that are automatically uploaded.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: R7 on 09/22/2014 05:21 pm
Back in the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo days, human skill was important because they had such limited control systems, and there was even some hardware that was accessible and meaningfully field-repairable/modifiable.  Now, in a modern spacecraft, if something goes wrong, and there isn't a programmed response, and ground control doesn't take care of it, it's terribly unlikely that it will be anything that the so-called "crew" can do anything about.

Why are you assuming crew of modern spacecrafts cannot access hardware and field-repair/mod it? Volvo didn't win CCtCAP contract...
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 09/22/2014 05:45 pm
But you have to train for contingency situations, evacuation, loss of pressure, aborts, etc.
Seems like diminishing returns to me.

Progressively improving and testing the capsule and launch vehicle: increasing crew survivability from 50% (if you take your first whack at it, and stick people in, totally untested) to 90% to 99% to 99.9% to 99.99% (extensive launch history) etc.

Progressively improving and training on emergency procedures: increasing crew survivability from 99% (stick blindfolded human cargo in the capsule, without telling them they're going to space), to 99.1% ("You can use the seat cushions as a floatation device." flight attendant speech), to 99.11% to 99.111% to 99.1111% (he train from child) etc.  And as the vehicle is improved, those benefits are going down from 0.1...% to 0.01...% to 0.001...%

Back in the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo days, human skill was important because they had such limited control systems, and there was even some hardware that was accessible and meaningfully field-repairable/modifiable.  Now, in a modern spacecraft, if something goes wrong, and there isn't a programmed response, and ground control doesn't take care of it, it's terribly unlikely that it will be anything that the so-called "crew" can do anything about.

I think in this generation, the realistically useful vehicle-specific "crew" training is going to amount to:
In the CST-100: knowing for each individual button, why you should never press it.
In the Dragon V2: knowing how to delete any U2 albums that are automatically uploaded.

Water egress. Loss of cabin pressure. Loss of communications. Fire in cabin.

Survivable to trained crew, deadly to untrained individuals.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Rocket Science on 09/22/2014 05:49 pm
But you have to train for contingency situations, evacuation, loss of pressure, aborts, etc.
Seems like diminishing returns to me.

Progressively improving and testing the capsule and launch vehicle: increasing crew survivability from 50% (if you take your first whack at it, and stick people in, totally untested) to 90% to 99% to 99.9% to 99.99% (extensive launch history) etc.

Progressively improving and training on emergency procedures: increasing crew survivability from 99% (stick blindfolded human cargo in the capsule, without telling them they're going to space), to 99.1% ("You can use the seat cushions as a floatation device." flight attendant speech), to 99.11% to 99.111% to 99.1111% (he train from child) etc.  And as the vehicle is improved, those benefits are going down from 0.1...% to 0.01...% to 0.001...%

Back in the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo days, human skill was important because they had such limited control systems, and there was even some hardware that was accessible and meaningfully field-repairable/modifiable.  Now, in a modern spacecraft, if something goes wrong, and there isn't a programmed response, and ground control doesn't take care of it, it's terribly unlikely that it will be anything that the so-called "crew" can do anything about.

I think in this generation, the realistically useful vehicle-specific "crew" training is going to amount to:
In the CST-100: knowing for each individual button, why you should never press it.
In the Dragon V2: knowing how to delete any U2 albums that are automatically uploaded.

Water egress. Loss of cabin pressure. Loss of communications. Fire in cabin.

Survivable to trained crew, deadly to untrained individuals.
What would Sandra Bullock do...? ;D
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: R7 on 09/22/2014 06:09 pm
What would Sandra Bullock do...? ;D

Study Shenzhou buttons too  :)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: arachnitect on 09/22/2014 06:09 pm
What would Sandra Bullock do...? ;D

Study Shenzhou buttons too  :)

Exit via correct hatch.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 09/22/2014 07:17 pm
Why are you assuming crew of modern spacecrafts cannot access hardware and field-repair/mod it? Volvo didn't win CCtCAP contract...
I said meaningfully field-repairable/modifiable, as opposed to it technically being possible, but not being necessary or helpful in any plausible scenario.

1. Water egress.
2. Loss of cabin pressure.
3. Loss of communications.
4. Fire in cabin.
1: If you land in the water, or otherwise in a hostile and remote environment, the safest thing is probably to just stay in the capsule until it gets retrieved.
2 and 4: You're in a suit.  Stay in the suit, stay in your chair.  Let automated systems and ground control detect and put the fire out / pick and execute the fastest reasonably-safe way to get you somewhere you're not dependent on the suit for survival.
3: It's probably a lot safer to make a plan in advance for what to do if communications are lost at any time, and to load that plan into the computer to be automatically executed, than for the human beings in the vehicle to start making those decisions on the fly.

As the vehicle gets more reliable and capable of dealing with contingencies on its own, options for crew action increasingly become failure modes rather than recovery modes.

You have to let your imagination go pretty wild to come up with a scenario where the right answer is, "Train the crew to deal with this." instead of "Design the system to deal with or avoid this, while the passengers stay in their chairs."

What would Sandra Bullock do...? ;D
Probably show off legs a 50-year-old woman has no business having, to attract a space station with a spare lifeboat from an alternate reality into fire-extinguisher range.

This is not a trainable skill.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: R7 on 09/22/2014 07:27 pm
Why are you assuming crew of modern spacecrafts cannot access hardware and field-repair/mod it? Volvo didn't win CCtCAP contract...
I said meaningfully field-repairable/modifiable, as opposed to it technically being possible, but not being necessary or helpful in any plausible scenario.

The question remains; why do you think meaningful field-repairs/mods are no longer possible?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 09/22/2014 07:42 pm
1. Water egress.
2. Loss of cabin pressure.
3. Loss of communications.
4. Fire in cabin.
1: If you land in the water, or otherwise in a hostile and remote environment, the safest thing is probably to just stay in the capsule until it gets retrieved.
2 and 4: You're in a suit.  Stay in the suit, stay in your chair.  Let automated systems and ground control detect and put the fire out / pick and execute the fastest reasonably-safe way to get you somewhere you're not dependent on the suit for survival.

Right, you've landed in the water and the vehicle is slowly filling and sinking.  Rather than getting out and living, you're going to stay in and drown.

Same with a fire on landing.  Or, say there's a fire in the vehicle in orbit.  A trained crewmember could pick up a fire extinguisher and put it out.  Or simply put something on it to smother the fire.  Or notice it's an electrical fire and yank the wires.  None of which an automated system could realistically be expected to do.  But instead you'd have the crew sit and die.

Same goes for loss of cabin pressure.  A trained crew member might be able to find the leak and plug it.  Instead, by your rules, they'll just sit by and do nothing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 09/22/2014 10:33 pm
Not to mention that Soyuz-13 crew died because an oxygen valve was difficult to access and they had no training on how to do it. even the latest F-22 fatality had this problem. If that poster thinks that training is unnecessary, he shouldn't be close to any dangerous activity (that means no driving, btw).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: TomH on 09/22/2014 11:19 pm
Won't they also be passengers, not pilots?

Chimps flew on Mercury before humans, no piloting skills required. Gemini required some skills, particularly by Neil when the docked Gemini/Agena went wild (only one of several times Mr. Cool displayed his flying skills). Lunar Apollo missions required piloting skills, particularly by Neil again, though Jim Lovell did some fancy fly by the seat of the pants to get home on 13. STS had pilots and mission specialists. DC would have been pilotable. In capsules to LEO, most maneuvering is automated, not really designed for great amounts of piloting compared to other craft.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 09/22/2014 11:30 pm
Right, you've landed in the water and the vehicle is slowly filling and sinking.  Rather than getting out and living, you're going to stay in and drown.

Same with a fire on landing.  Or, say there's a fire in the vehicle in orbit.  A trained crewmember could pick up a fire extinguisher and put it out.  Or simply put something on it to smother the fire.  Or notice it's an electrical fire and yank the wires.  None of which an automated system could realistically be expected to do.  But instead you'd have the crew sit and die.

Same goes for loss of cabin pressure.  A trained crew member might be able to find the leak and plug it.  Instead, by your rules, they'll just sit by and do nothing.
If you've landed in water, the crew compartment is taking on water, and the vehicle is sinking, that means you've suffered at least three separate major system failures (the launch or targetted reentry failed, the main pressure vessel has lost integrity, the air bags have failed).  But somehow, the crew is still alive and concious, it's only taking on water slowly, so they still have time to climb out and swim for it.

You're talking about a vanishingly thin slice of probability between this action being unnecessary, and everyone dying with no chance to act.  And if you happen to hit that slice, being trained to deal with it would still not produce a very high probability of survival.

What if the vehicle crash lands in a swamp, cracks open, and there are alligators?  It could happen!  Shouldn't the crew all be trained in alligator wrestling?

As for fire, an automated system could realistically be expected to flood the crew compartment with inert gas, if fire breaks out.  They have suits to survive an inert-gas environment.  And you really think a modern high-reliability electrical system can't be expected to detect and terminate its own shorts?  A crew that would start yanking out wiring in a moment of fear and confusion is a much bigger threat than the actual potential for an electrical fire.

If there is a loss of cabin pressure, the suits should provide life support for long enough to either reach the destination or execute an emergency reentry, if either are still possible after the incident that causes it.  It's pretty outlandish to imagine that if there is a breach, it will be crew-patchable.  We're not talking about a bicycle tire.  How many such crew-patchable breaches have occurred in space capsules in the past?

As I previously described it, it's not that trained crew action can't prevent loss of life in possible scenarios, it's that these scenarios are improbable, and will be made more and more improbable by improving vehicle reliability.

You could require every commercial airline passenger to do a wilderness survival course, and every stewardess to be able to pilot a plane, but it would be more than a little silly, and grossly uneconomical.  If someone has any real purpose for being in space, there are better ways to spend their time, and all the other resources involved, than extensively training them to deal with that minority of vehicle failures which could be made survivable by crew action, where passive passengers would die.

The age of the astronaut as test pilot ended no later than the 1980s.  On these short, routine flights between LEO and an orbital station, on this newest generation of heavily-computerized vehicle, the astronaut will be something closer to a man who rides an elevator, albeit one that gives a rough ride and has an uncommonly high risk of having the cable snap.

Not to mention that Soyuz-13 crew died because an oxygen valve was difficult to access and they had no training on how to do it. even the latest F-22 fatality had this problem. If that poster thinks that training is unnecessary, he shouldn't be close to any dangerous activity (that means no driving, btw).
It was Soyuz-11 (all the way back in 1971), and the crew died because cabin pressure was lost unexpectedly due to mechanical failure during reentry and they had no suits.  It is grossly implausible that any training would have enabled them to detect and repair the defect in time.

The F-22 fatality was because the aircraft was designed to depend on the pilot to engage the emergency oxygen supply, even though it was an automatic system that shut down the primary oxygen supply, under circumstances in which the pilot was likely to be fully occupied with other immediate tasks.  If anything, this incident highlights the inexcusable stupidity of relying on crew unnecessarily.

In both cases, the problem was fixed by correcting these design defects, not by some insane doubling down on crew responsibility.

If you say I should be being prevented from driving, then I say rather you should require a 6-week emergency procedures course on any particular model of elevator you wish to ride in.  Neither the Dragon V2 nor the CST-100 will need a pilot, nor any other crew.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: bad_astra on 09/23/2014 01:49 am
So I guess now you divide up the astronaut class, group A for Dragon and group B for CST. Since each capsule layout and interface will be different.

They're not VFR kids getting their first time in a Piper. They can figure out two capsule systems.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Bennett on 09/23/2014 04:00 am
Oh yeah, no worries there, just thinking difference between the shuttle days and now. With all three shuttles having the same layout (like here: http://scarborough.photoshelter.com/gallery/OV-105/G0000uyj7eRjdZsQ) verse two different capsule layouts and flight softwares. With the shuttle you could train and cross train the entire astronaut corps with the layout and little quirks each bird had. So now, do you cross train them, or split them up and say for your astronaut flying career you will be trained on the Dragon and the others will trained on the CST?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

So I guess now you divide up the astronaut class, group A for Dragon and group B for CST. Since each capsule layout and interface will be different.

They're not VFR kids getting their first time in a Piper. They can figure out two capsule systems.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 09/23/2014 04:27 am
Also remember that according to current plans, one of the four on board the Dragon/CST-100 will always be a Russian.  ::)
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/23/2014 04:36 am
{snip}
If you've landed in water, the crew compartment is taking on water, and the vehicle is sinking, that means you've suffered at least three separate major system failures (the launch or targetted reentry failed, the main pressure vessel has lost integrity, the air bags have failed).  But somehow, the crew is still alive and concious, it's only taking on water slowly, so they still have time to climb out and swim for it.


Space craft are short of oxygen.  After landing they have to open the hatch to let air in.  Water can come in through the same hole.  The crew will have to bail the water out.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: john smith 19 on 09/23/2014 07:33 am
If you say I should be being prevented from driving, then I say rather you should require a 6-week emergency procedures course on any particular model of elevator you wish to ride in.  Neither the Dragon V2 nor the CST-100 will need a pilot, nor any other crew.
A similar argument could be made for airliners.

However I don't think the passengers are quite ready for that.

The rather obvious solution (given this is the "commercial crew" programme) is the pilots are provided by the respective companies. They train in the core astronaut competencies but basically their mission is get the vehicle from pad to station, station to ground and protect the space flight participants from hurting themselves.

That means they are then free for their respective companies to fly other missions for other customers.

While (from what we know of them) both Dragon 2.0 and CTS-100 will be quite different there are limits to how different these vehicles can be. Both are designed to meet NASA standards for ergonomics so stuff like key spacing, lettering etc is likely to be pretty similar. I think their are also higher level standards on standard placement of various controls, but I'm less sure about that.

Likewise they fly roughly the same trajectory.

So while "flying" a capsule is a very different proposition from flying the Shuttle once you've got the outline of one transferring to the other should be (fairly) straight forward, although I personally suspect they will retain "Dragon" pilots and "CTS-100" pilots.

Time will tell which group has the spiffier patches however.  :)

In short 
[EDIT Neither vehicle may need a pilot in normal operation.

But they will have one. ]
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/23/2014 09:31 am
Even at the full $108 million/seat, since this is money that's being spent in America, it's probably a better deal for American government than spending $80 million in Russia, just by counting the consequent immediate increase in tax revenue (income and sales taxes, as people take their salaries and profits home to spend, giving other people salaries and profits to spend, etc.).

Don't forget that NASA is paying for redundant access, so you also need to include the price for CST-100 as well. This means that if NASA only flies six missions at four crew per mission from 2017 to 2019 (using a normal six month rotation), that works out to ($2600+$4200)/(6x4) = $283M per seat, which is 3.5 times the cost of using Soyuz.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: sghill on 09/23/2014 10:47 am
Even at the full $108 million/seat, since this is money that's being spent in America, it's probably a better deal for American government than spending $80 million in Russia, just by counting the consequent immediate increase in tax revenue (income and sales taxes, as people take their salaries and profits home to spend, giving other people salaries and profits to spend, etc.).

Don't forget that NASA is paying for redundant access, so you also need to include the price for CST-100 as well. This means that if NASA only flies six missions at four crew per mission from 2017 to 2019 (using a normal six month rotation), that works out to ($2600+$4200)/(6x4) = $283M per seat, which is 3.5 times the cost of using Soyuz.

You can't include the system development costs in that calculation. We don't know what the per flight costs are going to come in at because we don't know what the development costs are going to be.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 09/23/2014 11:23 am
Don't forget that NASA is paying for redundant access, so you also need to include the price for CST-100 as well. This means that if NASA only flies six missions at four crew per mission from 2017 to 2019 (using a normal six month rotation), that works out to ($2600+$4200)/(6x4) = $283M per seat, which is 3.5 times the cost of using Soyuz.

Steve you can't do it that way because the price per seat does not include the spacecraft development cost. The contract that SpaceX and Boeing both got was to continue development thru to certification; THEN provide crew rotation to the ISS. By the time the first 4-crew flight to the ISS is made the vast majority of that contract money will already have been spent to achieve certification. So to figure the price per seat you will need to divide what's left of the contract monies by the 6 scheduled flights. I'll bet you a pint of XXXX Gold that the per-seat price will end up being significantly less than the Soyuz.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Nindalf on 09/23/2014 12:24 pm
Don't forget that NASA is paying for redundant access, so you also need to include the price for CST-100 as well. This means that if NASA only flies six missions at four crew per mission from 2017 to 2019 (using a normal six month rotation), that works out to ($2600+$4200)/(6x4) = $283M per seat, which is 3.5 times the cost of using Soyuz.

Steve you can't do it that way because the price per seat does not include the spacecraft development cost.
Well, you can, and you should, if either:
a) your main concern is the short term, or
b) you're considering the case that these are the only flights the vehicles will perform.

You're comparing the option of developing new vehicles and then using them, to simply continuing to use a mature system.  The development cost is something you have to spend to use the new vehicles.  It definitely counts against them.  The big question is how many flights you should amortize it over.

However, I will point out that $6.8 billion is the maximum value of the contract, if every option is exercised.  Which means 12 crew launches.

I don't think the development cost is the majority of the contract.  Since this contract is for new vehicles (I actually suspect one of the key issues with Dream Chaser was that they bid based on reuse, whereas CST-100 and Dragon V2 both bid based on new capsules)

Musk has said that they needed about another $400-500 million to finish the Dragon V2, and they've said a passenger launch would be priced at $140 million.  So after finishing development and 8 such launches, I think there must be about $1 billion in special services: the parachute landings will be expensive because of the special landing area needed and the need to replace the parachute, but the surprise big cost item could be the lifeboat service.  That's up to 200 days of space-soak rent on a potentially reusable vehicle, with ground crew on continuous standby so it can come home with maximum safety at any time, and all the mission planning and software for this lifeboat duty, with all the implied contingencies about having to land it in alternate locations because of time pressure combined with weather.  That could end up costing twice as much as a shuttle-style short-visit crew rotation.

I don't believe that CST-100 itself will actually cost much more than Dragon V2 to develop, or to operate on a new-vehicle basis.  As others have pointed out, the difference in budgets can be explained largely by the additional cost of using the Atlas V as the launch vehicle.

There may be under $1 billion of non-mission-specific, non-launch-vehicle development for both vehicles in this $6.8 billion contract.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 09/23/2014 02:05 pm
The other factor that should be considered is the increase in ISS crew size from 6 to 7.  That would not be possible with Soyuz alone.  It is difficult to put a price on that extra crew member, but one could argue that getting more out of your $100 billion space station could be worth a lot.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: simonbp on 09/23/2014 03:39 pm
The other factor that should be considered is the increase in ISS crew size from 6 to 7.  That would not be possible with Soyuz alone.  It is difficult to put a price on that extra crew member, but one could argue that getting more out of your $100 billion space station could be worth a lot.

Plus plus, the option to have 1-3 short-term visitors in place of cargo, allowing investigators to perform their own experiments on station, without having to train the station crew or overengineer the experiment to be push-button. For complex, short term experiments (the kind of thing that Shuttle used to be perfect for), this could really increase the productivity of ISS.

Of course, the carrot of getting to fly to ISS will dramatically increase the proposal pressure on CASIS, which is exactly what they want (they are getting way fewer proposals than they would like).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/23/2014 03:58 pm
Don't forget that NASA is paying for redundant access, so you also need to include the price for CST-100 as well. This means that if NASA only flies six missions at four crew per mission from 2017 to 2019 (using a normal six month rotation), that works out to ($2600+$4200)/(6x4) = $283M per seat, which is 3.5 times the cost of using Soyuz.

Steve you can't do it that way because the price per seat does not include the spacecraft development cost.
Musk has said that they needed about another $400-500 million to finish the Dragon V2, and they've said a passenger launch would be priced at $140 million.

I am almost positive that Musk said the 140 million/flight and 20 million/seat cost was contingent on 6 dragon v2 flights per year. 3 cargo flights and 1 crew rotation flight is only 4. All these soyuz/CRS comparisons are also valuing the cargo that is taking up the space of the extra 3 seats, the unpressurized trunk cargo, and extra downmass as worthless.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: yg1968 on 09/23/2014 07:48 pm
Don't forget that NASA is paying for redundant access, so you also need to include the price for CST-100 as well. This means that if NASA only flies six missions at four crew per mission from 2017 to 2019 (using a normal six month rotation), that works out to ($2600+$4200)/(6x4) = $283M per seat, which is 3.5 times the cost of using Soyuz.

Steve you can't do it that way because the price per seat does not include the spacecraft development cost.
Musk has said that they needed about another $400-500 million to finish the Dragon V2, and they've said a passenger launch would be priced at $140 million.

I am almost positive that Musk said the 140 million/flight and 20 million/seat cost was contingent on 6 dragon v2 flights per year. 3 cargo flights and 1 crew rotation flight is only 4. All these soyuz/CRS comparisons are also valuing the cargo that is taking up the space of the extra 3 seats, the unpressurized trunk cargo, and extra downmass as worthless.

Musk said it would cost $140M for 4 flights per year with 7 seats on each of them.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/23/2014 08:37 pm
Don't forget that NASA is paying for redundant access, so you also need to include the price for CST-100 as well. This means that if NASA only flies six missions at four crew per mission from 2017 to 2019 (using a normal six month rotation), that works out to ($2600+$4200)/(6x4) = $283M per seat, which is 3.5 times the cost of using Soyuz.

Steve you can't do it that way because the price per seat does not include the spacecraft development cost...

Yes, this is one of those interesting pricing situations.

For the SLS, which is not meant for commercial service, the total cost of development and operation needs to be taken into account when determining "value", which could be cost per flight or $/kg.  Ignoring the development cost ignores the alternatives that could have been used instead.

For Commercial Crew, as far as NASA is concerned it's cost would include all money spent in development (i.e. CCDev, CCDev2, CCiCap and CCtCap), plus the operational costs.  And while cost has been cited as one of the factors for Commercial Crew, quite a few flights have to be flown before the overall cost would be driven down close to what Russia charges for the Soyuz, so the real value of Commercial Crew is that NASA is in control of it's own transportation and not dependent on potentially shaky partners (I'm looking at YOU Putin).

However for commercial users, they get to leverage the governments investment and just pay the commercial rate, which would be operational costs + profit.  That's where the $140M/flight figure comes into play for SpaceX, as well as the prices that Bigelow has been quoting for Boeing and SpaceX.

An apt analogy might be where the government paid for the transcontinental railroad to be built, but passenger prices did not have to amortize the construction costs - and that was certainly a factor in opening up the West to development, which is what we're all hoping can be a possible outcome for space too.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 09/23/2014 08:39 pm
Don't forget that NASA is paying for redundant access, so you also need to include the price for CST-100 as well. This means that if NASA only flies six missions at four crew per mission from 2017 to 2019 (using a normal six month rotation), that works out to ($2600+$4200)/(6x4) = $283M per seat, which is 3.5 times the cost of using Soyuz.

Steve you can't do it that way because the price per seat does not include the spacecraft development cost.
Well, you can, and you should, if either:
a) your main concern is the short term, or
b) you're considering the case that these are the only flights the vehicles will perform.

For the sake of argument suppose that SpaceX uses $1.75 of its $2.6 billion award to get the vehicle to certification before the 1st ISS crew flight. That leaves $.85 billion remaining to perform the crew flights. Let's assume SpaceX gets 6 paid flights. That's 24 seats. $.85b/24=$35.4 million per seat - half the Soyuz cost, not 3.5 times.

You'll have to plug in the real numbers, which we won't know for some time, but that's how you figure the per-seat cost for the performance portion of the contract.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 09/23/2014 11:56 pm

You'll have to plug in the real numbers, which we won't know for some time, but that's how you figure the per-seat cost for the performance portion of the contract.
We won't ever know that part of the contract. Neither SpaceX or Boeing will make their pricing that transparent. Those payments will be obfuscated with other hard to measure metrics.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Giovanni DS on 09/24/2014 07:59 am
We won't ever know that part of the contract. Neither SpaceX or Boeing will make their pricing that transparent. Those payments will be obfuscated with other hard to measure metrics.

That tactic is only convenient if you have higher costs and try to mud waters. Those with lower costs what would have to gain from it?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 09/24/2014 11:24 am
For the sake of argument suppose that SpaceX uses $1.75 of its $2.6 billion award to get the vehicle to certification before the 1st ISS crew flight. That leaves $.85 billion remaining to perform the crew flights. Let's assume SpaceX gets 6 paid flights. That's 24 seats. $.85b/24=$35.4 million per seat - half the Soyuz cost, not 3.5 times.

Adding the corresponding numbers for Boeing at the same ratios I used for SpaceX.

Boeing award = $4.2 billion
$2.8 billion expended to reach certification, leaving $1.4 billion to perform the crew flights.
Assuming Boeing gets 6 flights of 4 seats = 24 seats.
$1.4 billion / 24 seats = $58.3 million per seat - still less than Soyuz.

=============

The contract is in 2 parts; (1) develop to certification and (2) ISS flight performance.
They are separate activities. Combining the costs of both (1) and (2) and then dividing them by (2) only - provides a completely inaccurate figure for the cost of (2).

In any case, once the CCtCap contract has run to its completion I expect we will see different pricing than these because these depended on an award amount designed to certify the vehicle. The after-contract price per seat should be based on recurring costs instead and will likely be less. SpaceX's price will be a FFP while Boeing's cost will likely fluctuate year to year because ULA will have to include a portion of the $1 billion launch facility subsidy it gets from the Air Force for its price for the Atlas. That piece of the cost will vary annually depending on the number of Atlas and Delta launches that occur each year. But certification will have been fully amortized and would no longer be figured into the cost per seat.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Garrett on 09/24/2014 12:01 pm
Suggestion to mods: this thread is 143 pages long and has had 247480 views. Maybe time to lock it and start a dedicated CCtCap thread?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: tesla on 09/24/2014 12:32 pm
Suggestion to mods: this thread is 143 pages long and has had 247480 views. Maybe time to lock it and start a dedicated CCtCap thread?

would make sense  ;D
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/24/2014 12:44 pm
Any program can be made look cheap if you count the recurring per unit costs separate from the development costs. Everything from the F35 Fighter Jet to the SLS is spun that way. With the total award Boeing recieved, they could have paid for the seats of every NASA+ESA expedition member all the way up to 2028, the probable longest date they will stretch the station out to before its deorbited. They could have paid for that and still paid SpaceX's award for DragonV2. Of course, these things are not really driven by economics, even if you call it 'commercial'. It's local politics and national politics, and in the case of Russia, geopolitics.

I hope the spin off technologies of these two craft pay off enough to recoup and exceed the ~7 Billion for the taxpayers..prayers are an awful strategy though!
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/24/2014 03:06 pm
Suggestion to mods: this thread is 143 pages long and has had 247480 views. Maybe time to lock it and start a dedicated CCtCap thread?

Yeah, I'll get on that later today.

PS A suggestion to mods is something you tell the mods, not post it and hope someone eventually sees it! ;D Thankfully someone did just that on your behalf.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 09/24/2014 03:30 pm
Any program can be made look cheap if you count the recurring per unit costs separate from the development costs. Everything from the F35 Fighter Jet to the SLS is spun that way. With the total award Boeing recieved, they could have paid for the seats of every NASA+ESA expedition member all the way up to 2028, the probable longest date they will stretch the station out to before its deorbited. They could have paid for that and still paid SpaceX's award for DragonV2. Of course, these things are not really driven by economics, even if you call it 'commercial'. It's local politics and national politics, and in the case of Russia, geopolitics.

I hope the spin off technologies of these two craft pay off enough to recoup and exceed the ~7 Billion for the taxpayers..prayers are an awful strategy though!
Look at the ISS Risk Matrix. The Nr. 1 Risk is lack of crew access redundancy. That's on a 110B investment of taxpayers money. And that was before the Russian issues. Wouldn't you pay a 5% insurance to protect your most expensive asset?
That's also the explanation of Boeing's award. SpaceX might do it faster and cheaper... or might fail. If there's one company in the US that you can depend on for crew access, it is Boeing. If they say they'll IOC by 2017, they will IOC by 2017 with a 99.5% probability (conditional to getting the requested funding, of course).
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/24/2014 03:51 pm
That's also the explanation of Boeing's award. SpaceX might do it faster and cheaper... or might fail. If there's one company in the US that you can depend on for crew access, it is Boeing. If they say they'll IOC by 2017, they will IOC by 2017 with a 99.5% probability (conditional to getting the requested funding, of course).

Yeah, Boeing is *never* late, are they.  ::) You might want to update your view on Boeing.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/24/2014 05:51 pm
I hope the spin off technologies of these two craft pay off enough to recoup and exceed the ~7 Billion for the taxpayers..prayers are an awful strategy though!

Space programs are as much about national prestige as economic pay off. In this respect, being the object of Russian trampoline jokes is counter-productive. This program won't add 7 billion to the long term debt because part of the 7 billion comes back as tax reciepts(not so when Russia is fulfilling the contract) and the government pays unemployment benefits for aerospace workers(in which case you can pay them to work or pay them to sit on the couch).

As far as Boeing never being late. Boeing was late on the 787 and is late on the next-gen reconnaissance satellites. I'm sure if we dig a little deeper, we could find a host of other examples. SpaceX already has a dragon v1 in operation and a dragon v2 prototype ready for testing. They are the safe bet for IOC of 2017. Of course, paraphrasing a movie I once saw: why buy 1 when you can get 2 for 3 times as much?
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Jim on 09/24/2014 06:56 pm
SpaceX already has a dragon v1 in operation

It was also late and CRS is behind
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: rayleighscatter on 09/24/2014 09:04 pm
We won't ever know that part of the contract. Neither SpaceX or Boeing will make their pricing that transparent. Those payments will be obfuscated with other hard to measure metrics.

That tactic is only convenient if you have higher costs and try to mud waters. Those with lower costs what would have to gain from it?
SpaceX might have the lowest costs but they still don't tell the public what each launch costs.

Its a common tactic in major negotiations. You don't want new clients coming in already knowing your cheapest rates, and then negotiating for cheaper. 
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 09/24/2014 10:27 pm
That's also the explanation of Boeing's award. SpaceX might do it faster and cheaper... or might fail. If there's one company in the US that you can depend on for crew access, it is Boeing. If they say they'll IOC by 2017, they will IOC by 2017 with a 99.5% probability (conditional to getting the requested funding, of course).

Yeah, Boeing is *never* late, are they.  ::) You might want to update your view on Boeing.
Look at the requirements. Boeing has been working on the CST since the Crew Exploration Vehicle, at least. They have taken the most conservative decisions. They have been studying this for a decade. They are the engineers of both the Shuttle and the ISS. Sure, when the do business, they may take risks. When they are developing new technology, they'll most probably have delay (who hasn't, btw). But when they are told that the top priority is a safe service by 2017, I'm pretty sure they are the safest bet there is.
Personally, I would have gone with Dragon v2 and DreamChaser and bet that at least one of them can do it. But if I'm a NASA administrator and have the Russian crisis in my mind, I might do exactly what NASA did.
Title: Re: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/24/2014 10:32 pm
That's a good post to end this thread on.

Thread 2 - (well a thread for CCtCAP onwards) - here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.0