Author Topic: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18  (Read 56127 times)

Offline Space Pete

MEDIA ADVISORY : M11-073
 
NASA To Announce Awards For Commercial Crew Development

 
WASHINGTON -- NASA will host a media teleconference at 4:30 p.m. EDT on Monday, April 18, to announce awards for the second round of the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev2) effort.

These awards are a continuation of NASA's CCDev initiatives begun in 2009 to stimulate efforts within U.S. industry to develop and demonstrate human spaceflight capabilities. The selected proposals will advance commercial crew space transportation system concepts and mature the design and development of elements, including launch vehicles and spacecraft.

Teleconference participants are:
-- Philip McAlister, acting director, Commercial Spaceflight Development, NASA Headquarters, Washington
-- Edward Mango, program manager, Commercial Crew Program, Kennedy Space Center, Fla.
-- Andrew Hunter, deputy chief financial officer, NASA Headquarters

To participate in the teleconference, reporters need to e-mail their name, media affiliation and telephone number to Michael Braukus at [email protected] by 3 p.m. EDT, Monday, April 18.

Audio of the teleconference will be streamed live on NASA's website at:
http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio

For more information about NASA's Commercial Crew Program, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration


http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/apr/HQ_M11-073_CCDev.html
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 07:47 pm by Chris Bergin »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Space Pete

Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #1 on: 04/18/2011 02:41 pm »
Well, I'll open up the floor here by posting who I'd like to win. Please don't flame me for mentioning Liberty! :D

Who I want to win:
• SpaceX (Dragon Capsule).
• Sierra Nevada (Dream Chaser spaceplane).
• Paragon (advanced ECLSS hardware).
• ATK/Astrium (Liberty rocket).
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 02:41 pm by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22571
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 352
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #2 on: 04/18/2011 02:44 pm »
List of proposals submitted:

ATK/Astrium: Liberty rocket

Blue Origin: advance technologies in support of the New Shepard vehicle

Boeing : Continue work on CST-100

Excalibur Almaz Inc.: reuse Almaz capsules for commercial use.

Orbital Sciences: Prometheus lifting-body spacecraft utilizing Atlas V

Paragon Space Development Corporation:continue work on Commercial Crew Transport-Air Revitalization System (CCT-ARS)

Sierra Nevada Corporation: Continue work on Dreamcatcher

SpaceX : LAS for Dragon

t/Space: eight-person crew or cargo transfer vehicle, Launch on Atlas V/Falcon 9/Taurus II

ULA:  continue CCDEv-1 work on human-rating the Atlas V rocket.

USA: Commercial Space Transportation Service, or CSTS, meaning flying Atlantis and Endeavour from 2013-2017.

Offline NYC777

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Syosset, NY
    • All Things 787
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #3 on: 04/18/2011 02:46 pm »
I can't see SpaceX not getting the nod.  Thye're pretty far a long on the Dragopn and designed it with HSF rating in mind. Plus the committment they're making with Falcon Heavy and making it human rated as well sems to that NASA would give them a contract for CCDev2.  After that who know but Musk has poured a lot of time, money and energy into making SpaceX the first private HSF operator.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #4 on: 04/18/2011 02:52 pm »
Never underestimate the power of ATK. That's all I'll say.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22571
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 352
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #5 on: 04/18/2011 02:55 pm »
I am going to go out on a limb here and state that at least one award will go to ULA ;)

And another prediction will be Boeing/Sierra Nevada since they received funds for CCDev-1


All I know is that whoever is awarded, there will be criticism and argument....
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 02:57 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline TexasRED

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Houston
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #6 on: 04/18/2011 02:59 pm »
I am rooting for Prometheus. Yee haw.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #7 on: 04/18/2011 03:03 pm »
Was it ever clear to anyone what the appropriated amount was?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10749
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3043
  • Likes Given: 1228
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #8 on: 04/18/2011 03:03 pm »
Well, I'll open up the floor here by posting who I'd like to win. Please don't flame me for mentioning Liberty! :D

Who I want to win:
• SpaceX (Dragon Capsule).
• Sierra Nevada (Dream Chaser spaceplane).
• Paragon (advanced ECLSS hardware).
• ATK/Astrium (Liberty rocket).

Totally agree with your 1st 3, but not the 4th.
Please don't consider that statement to be a flame - it's not. You're entitled to have and express your opinions.

As for me, in spite of being one of the co-founders of DIRECT, I would prefer to see the age of the huge segmented SRB come to an end. By way of explanation, The SRB-powered Jupiter was created to comply with the law, which required the solid. My personal preference would be to replace them with LRB's, as in AJAX. I don't think the huge SRB's are a good deal economically and they severely limit growth options by their shear mass.

But I don't think you are alone in having a favorable opinion of Liberty. I would be interested in your reasoning.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17842
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 505
  • Likes Given: 5193
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #9 on: 04/18/2011 03:04 pm »
MEDIA ADVISORY : M11-073
 
NASA To Announce Awards For Commercial Crew Development

 
WASHINGTON -- NASA will host a media teleconference at 4:30 p.m. EDT on Monday, April 18, to announce awards for the second round of the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev2) effort.

finally!!!
(though we all know the reason for the delay, it's still a welcome moment)

Never underestimate the power of ATK. That's all I'll say.

ditto on that.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17842
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 505
  • Likes Given: 5193
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #10 on: 04/18/2011 03:05 pm »
Was it ever clear to anyone what the appropriated amount was?

A LOT less than probably required ??  ;)

:)
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline TexasRED

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Houston
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #11 on: 04/18/2011 03:06 pm »
Was it ever clear to anyone what the appropriated amount was?

spacenews saying ~300 million. Thats all I've seen but haven't been following that amount too closely.

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110418-ccdev-awards-expected-today.html

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #12 on: 04/18/2011 03:09 pm »
Was it ever clear to anyone what the appropriated amount was?

spacenews saying ~300 million. Thats all I've seen but haven't been following that amount too closely.

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110418-ccdev-awards-expected-today.html

Thanks.  So of the 11 bidders, that allows ~27 million per company.  Obviously at least one will not get any money and some will not require that much.  So there should be some big things done here with and time put the money where the CSF's mouth is. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Rifleman

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #13 on: 04/18/2011 03:12 pm »
My completely non-scientific opinion, but I am rooting for :

Space X
Sierra Nevada
Boeing
USA (commercial shuttle is not going to happen, but I can always dream, right?

Offline Space Pete

Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #14 on: 04/18/2011 03:15 pm »
But I don't think you are alone in having a favorable opinion of Liberty. I would be interested in your reasoning.

In a nutshell, the reason that I prefer Liberty over Atlas V is because:

A) Liberty is a "simple" rocket, which does exactly what it says on the tin (launch to LEO, nothing else). One of my favourite sayings: "The simpler a plan is, the less things can go wrong". ;)

B) A lot less work is required to man-rate Liberty than to man-rate Atlas V, since both Liberty's SRB and 2nd stage were designed with crew in mind.

C) The support for Liberty is mostly already in place. For example, a new gantry would need to be constructed for Atlas V in order to allow for crew access, whereas Liberty would use the Ares I ML.

All of the above would likely make Liberty ready to fly crew before Atlas V.

However, having said all that, by my own admittance I'm not a religious follower of new/commercial space, so I'm sure there are some things that I have overlooked.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 03:17 pm by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #15 on: 04/18/2011 03:16 pm »
My predictions is that there will be many CCDev-2 awards (as was the case with CCDev-1). So I am predicting that all of the CCDev-1 recipients will also receive awards for CCDev-2 and I am adding SpaceX and ATK to that list. Here are my predictions in order of probability:

1- Dream Chaser (SNC)
2- SpaceX
3- Boeing
4- ULA
5- Paragon
6- Blue Origin
7- ATK
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 04:15 pm by yg1968 »

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7773
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 2008
  • Likes Given: 467
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #16 on: 04/18/2011 03:19 pm »
All of the above would likely make Liberty ready to fly crew before Atlas V.

I would beg to differ on all your 3 points.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #17 on: 04/18/2011 03:19 pm »
1.  Boeing
2.  SpaceX
3.  Orbital
4.  SNC
5.  ATK

These will be the main winners.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
  • USA
  • Liked: 1490
  • Likes Given: 649
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #18 on: 04/18/2011 03:21 pm »
I sincerely hope they select at most 3 so as to actually offer enough money to the winners to accomplish substantial development goals. We need to move on this.

Are we not far enough along in the development cycles of the competing systems for NASA to make an educated decision as to which of the executions is most likely to succeed, with the greatest speed to market, most economical to develop and maintain, factoring in capabilities?

I'd be interested in a non-partisan opinion / fact based analysis as to which of the systems truly qualifies to get funded at levels commiserate with their current development accomplishments and future lifecycle costs..
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10749
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3043
  • Likes Given: 1228
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #19 on: 04/18/2011 03:22 pm »
B) A lot less work is required to man-rate Liberty than to man-rate Atlas V, since both Liberty's SRB and 2nd stage were designed with crew in mind.

Hmm. And what is going to be different with this SRB than the Ares-I wrt the thrust oscillation issue? All that TO was shown to be pretty much a crew-killer. I have no difficulty using it for cargo only, but not for crew. It would be dead-man-walking according to all the analysis documentation that has been collected.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #20 on: 04/18/2011 03:25 pm »
B) A lot less work is required to man-rate Liberty than to man-rate Atlas V, since both Liberty's SRB and 2nd stage were designed with crew in mind.

Hmm. And what is going to be different with this SRB than the Ares-I wrt the thrust oscillation issue? All that TO was shown to be pretty much a crew-killer. I have no difficulty using it for cargo only, but not for crew. It would be dead-man-walking according to all the analysis documentation that has been collected.

That's not true and you know it. Chris has written a number of articles indicating that this would not be the case.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 03:26 pm by yg1968 »

Online Chris Bergin

Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #21 on: 04/18/2011 03:27 pm »
B) A lot less work is required to man-rate Liberty than to man-rate Atlas V, since both Liberty's SRB and 2nd stage were designed with crew in mind.

Hmm. And what is going to be different with this SRB than the Ares-I wrt the thrust oscillation issue? All that TO was shown to be pretty much a crew-killer. I have no difficulty using it for cargo only, but not for crew. It would be dead-man-walking according to all the analysis documentation that has been collected.

Sorry, but all of that is completely wrong Chuck. Even the old worse case documentation never showed it to be a crew killer, and it's pretty much been proven on the 5-seg static fires that it's even less than what was recalculated to be small vibrations for a few seconds late in first stage.

Add in the mitigation and TO is not even an issue at all.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #22 on: 04/18/2011 03:27 pm »
I sincerely hope they select at most 3 so as to actually offer enough money to the winners to accomplish substantial development goals. We need to move on this.

Are we not far enough along in the development cycles of the competing systems for NASA to make an educated decision as to which of the executions is most likely to succeed, with the greatest speed to market, most economical to develop and maintain, factoring in capabilities?

I'd be interested in a non-partisan opinion / fact based analysis as to which of the systems truly qualifies to get funded at levels commiserate with their current development accomplishments and future lifecycle costs..

CCDev is more than, or at least it should be, technical analysis.  It's business.  For example, the ability to provide capital investment and the very important, but often overlooked, business case. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22571
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 352
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #23 on: 04/18/2011 03:28 pm »
Guys lets not turn this into a Liberty debate thread, there are other proposals that merit discussion as well.

AS to how many are awarded, I am pretty sure that we could see many contracts awarded if they are cheap enough.  For example, if after funding EDS detection on proposal x and the essential crew spacecraft are funded on y, and x+y < the sum total, the difference can be applied to smaller proposals like the suborbital New Sheppard or Paragon, and maybe even the SpaceX LAS if it is cheap enough (Dragon is so far along right now dont think it will be a primary winner)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10749
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3043
  • Likes Given: 1228
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #24 on: 04/18/2011 03:28 pm »
Are we not far enough along in the development cycles of the competing systems for NASA to make an educated decision as to which of the executions is most likely to succeed, with the greatest speed to market, most economical to develop and maintain, factoring in capabilities?

I'd actually like to see SpaceX get enough to guarantee that they can finish up on their own after this so that in any future awards they can be cut out, keeping other less well funded but excellent companies alive.

Remember, these are commercial companies and at some point they need to be weaned if they are going to retain the title "commercial". Sure the USGov can purchase their product or service, but at some point they need to stand on their own 2 feet and fund their day to day operations out of their profit margin, not from the US Treasury. I hope to see that happen to *all* the winners.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7251
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 6478
  • Likes Given: 781
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #25 on: 04/18/2011 03:28 pm »
The only prediction I'll make is this:

People will find a way to complain and gripe no matter what companies get funded instead of being happy that funding was actually provided for Commercial Crew contract proposals.

Offline Rifleman

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #26 on: 04/18/2011 03:31 pm »
The only prediction I'll make is this:

People will find a way to complain and gripe no matter what companies get funded instead of being happy that funding was actually provided for Commercial Crew contract proposals.

I think you just hit the nail on the head with that one.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #27 on: 04/18/2011 03:32 pm »
The only prediction I'll make is this:

People will find a way to complain and gripe no matter what companies get funded instead of being happy that funding was actually provided for Commercial Crew contract proposals.

I think you just hit the nail on the head with that one.

I disagree.  ;)
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #28 on: 04/18/2011 03:32 pm »
I sincerely hope they select at most 3 so as to actually offer enough money to the winners to accomplish substantial development goals. We need to move on this.

Are we not far enough along in the development cycles of the competing systems for NASA to make an educated decision as to which of the executions is most likely to succeed, with the greatest speed to market, most economical to develop and maintain, factoring in capabilities?

I'd be interested in a non-partisan opinion / fact based analysis as to which of the systems truly qualifies to get funded at levels commiserate with their current development accomplishments and future lifecycle costs..

CCDev is more than, or at least it should be, technical analysis.  It's business.  For example, the ability to provide capital investment and the very important, but often overlooked, business case. 

For CCDev-1, It was interesting to see that Boeing ended spending as much of its own money as it received from NASA. One of the main reason that they had to use their own money was that they were forced to fund the CST-100 since CCDev-1 expired (in December 31, 2010 for most companies). They decided not to lay off the employees that they hired for CCDev-1 because they expected to win an award for CCDev-2. This is probably the situation of other CCDev-1 companies.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 03:36 pm by yg1968 »

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
  • USA
  • Liked: 1490
  • Likes Given: 649
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #29 on: 04/18/2011 03:39 pm »
Are we not far enough along in the development cycles of the competing systems for NASA to make an educated decision as to which of the executions is most likely to succeed, with the greatest speed to market, most economical to develop and maintain, factoring in capabilities?

I'd actually like to see SpaceX get enough to guarantee that they can finish up on their own after this so that in any future awards they can be cut out, keeping other less well funded but excellent companies alive.

Remember, these are commercial companies and at some point they need to be weaned if they are going to retain the title "commercial". Sure the USGov can purchase their product or service, but at some point they need to stand on their own 2 feet and fund their day to day operations out of their profit margin, not from the US Treasury. I hope to see that happen to *all* the winners.
I understand and agree to a point. And yes there are some exciting possibilities with less funded entities, however, I'm just not of the mind that we should belabor this point. The ultimate goal is to get a working commercial space man-rated transportation system in place as quickly and as economically as possible. The more we dilute what little funds we have, to companies so far from achieving an operational system, the longer we will have no domestic HSF, LEO capability.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Space Pete

Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #30 on: 04/18/2011 03:40 pm »
I think there are a few things NASA need to look at when picking the winners:

1) Does the proposal have a viable business model outside of NASA? As has been said previously, one day these commercial folks need to be able to stand on their own two feet, outside of government money. How much money does the company itself possess to spend on the proposal?

2) What is the likelihood of success/chances of failure? Is the proposal mostly based on unproven hardware, or existing hardware? How much supporting infrastructure already exists? Are their schedule estimates accurate? What about the safety of the systems themselves?
^That's why I think SpaceX/Dragon will win one - they're a safe bet.

3) What capabilities do the proposals actually bring to the table? Are there two proposals that bring largely the same capabilities? If so, which one is best? What capabilities are actually needed right now? What capabilities might be needed in the future?

But, here's what we don't want to happen: The losers to get all upset and go call their congressman/congresswoman, who introduces new legislation to ensure that they win (like what's happening with the Shuttle retirement homes). Whoever NASA announces, we just need to get behind them and get on with it.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 03:41 pm by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10749
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3043
  • Likes Given: 1228
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #31 on: 04/18/2011 03:41 pm »
… and it's pretty much been proven on the 5-seg static fires that it's even less than what was recalculated to be small vibrations for a few seconds late in first stage.

Add in the mitigation and TO is not even an issue at all.

Chris I don't want to go off topic here but please allow me this response and then I'll get off it. I believe one of the data points returned by the Ares-IX flight was that in free-flight configuration the TO's were different than the ground-based static fire of the same configuration. It was believed the difference is caused by the constraints of being fastened to a test stand but that was never definitively determined, leaving the issue unresolved from a safety pov. If that issue has been satisfactorily resolved then I am unaware of it and will gladly retract my previous statement.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7087
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #32 on: 04/18/2011 03:46 pm »
But I don't think you are alone in having a favorable opinion of Liberty. I would be interested in your reasoning.

In a nutshell, the reason that I prefer Liberty over Atlas V is because:

A) Liberty is a "simple" rocket, which does exactly what it says on the tin (launch to LEO, nothing else). One of my favourite sayings: "The simpler a plan is, the less things can go wrong". ;)

B) A lot less work is required to man-rate Liberty than to man-rate Atlas V, since both Liberty's SRB and 2nd stage were designed with crew in mind.

C) The support for Liberty is mostly already in place. For example, a new gantry would need to be constructed for Atlas V in order to allow for crew access, whereas Liberty would use the Ares I ML.

All of the above would likely make Liberty ready to fly crew before Atlas V.

However, having said all that, by my own admittance I'm not a religious follower of new/commercial space, so I'm sure there are some things that I have overlooked.
None of these three are correct. 

a) Liberty is more complex than Atlas.

b) Atlas is already man-rated, Liberty is not, with an upper stage which doesn't exist yet. (the existing Ariane cannot work as an upper stage, which means design work needs to occur)

c) Not true here either.  There is no crew access currently on the Ares I MLP.  It would have to be added to either launcher.  But Ares I MLP is missing all of the rest of the plumbing as well, while Atlas V has everything *but* the crew access already there, and a plan to add crew access on an as-needed basis.

Now, with all of this said, I hope ATK does get the contract, and LC36 to use to launch the Liberty from.  Doing so eliminates the requirement for SRB's from the SLS.  And keep that thing as far away from LC-39 as possible.  Stack it in place, with a rollaway service building, and it would be great.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 03:47 pm by Downix »
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22571
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 352
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #33 on: 04/18/2011 03:46 pm »
But, here's what we don't want to happen: The losers to get all upset and go call their congressman/congresswoman, who introduces new legislation to ensure that they win (like what's happening with the Shuttle retirement homes). Whoever NASA announces, we just need to get behind them and get on with it.

I would not worry about that too much, I dont think the commercial proposals have the huge political bullwhip that we are seeing with the shuttles, and I believe that CCDEv-2 will only be an intermediate step towards the final Commercial crew program.  Not to say there wont be opposition, but less likely hood.

But there should be plenty of awards, remember CCDEV-1 was only $50 Million, while CCDEV-2 is six times as large at $300 million, and look how much was done with CCDev-1.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 03:50 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10749
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3043
  • Likes Given: 1228
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #34 on: 04/18/2011 03:47 pm »
The more we dilute what little funds we have, to companies so far from achieving an operational system, the longer we will have no domestic HSF, LEO capability.

Which is exactly the point I was making wrt SpaceX. I really like that company and all they have so far accomplished. But it is reasonably well funded and as long as we don't wean them too soon, they will make it on their own, freeing up that funding to go to other promising companies who would otherwise fall just over the cutoff line.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #35 on: 04/18/2011 03:54 pm »
The more we dilute what little funds we have, to companies so far from achieving an operational system, the longer we will have no domestic HSF, LEO capability.

Which is exactly the point I was making wrt SpaceX. I really like that company and all they have so far accomplished. But it is reasonably well funded and as long as we don't wean them too soon, they will make it on their own, freeing up that funding to go to other promising companies who would otherwise fall just over the cutoff line.

That would be a reason to give them less money but not to give them no money at all. In any event, SpaceX said that they would not fund the LAS with their own funds. As far as being profitable, SpaceX hasn't made much profits so far. SpaceX is still very much dependant on NASA at this point. 
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 03:55 pm by yg1968 »

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
  • USA
  • Liked: 1490
  • Likes Given: 649
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #36 on: 04/18/2011 03:55 pm »
The more we dilute what little funds we have, to companies so far from achieving an operational system, the longer we will have no domestic HSF, LEO capability.

Which is exactly the point I was making wrt SpaceX. I really like that company and all they have so far accomplished. But it is reasonably well funded and as long as we don't wean them too soon, they will make it on their own, freeing up that funding to go to other promising companies who would otherwise fall just over the cutoff line.
Agreed.
Ok, so just curious. SpaceX gets enough to begin in earnest their LAS, which results in another benefit of also allowing them to have propulsive landing capability down the road. Of the remaining participants, which 2 would you say should receive the remaining funds...?
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 03:58 pm by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #37 on: 04/18/2011 03:56 pm »
Are we not far enough along in the development cycles of the competing systems for NASA to make an educated decision as to which of the executions is most likely to succeed, with the greatest speed to market, most economical to develop and maintain, factoring in capabilities?

I'd actually like to see SpaceX get enough to guarantee that they can finish up on their own after this so that in any future awards they can be cut out, keeping other less well funded but excellent companies alive.

Remember, these are commercial companies and at some point they need to be weaned if they are going to retain the title "commercial". Sure the USGov can purchase their product or service, but at some point they need to stand on their own 2 feet and fund their day to day operations out of their profit margin, not from the US Treasury. I hope to see that happen to *all* the winners.
I understand and agree to a point. And yes there are some exciting possibilities with less funded entities, however, I'm just not of the mind that we should belabor this point. The ultimate goal is to get a working commercial space man-rated transportation system in place as quickly and as economically as possible. The more we dilute what little funds we have, to companies so far from achieving an operational system, the longer we will have no domestic HSF, LEO capability.

I'm sorry but the irony of this statement still bewilders me.  We need a "commercial" space system and therefore need as much government funding (which come with government requirements and the more funding the more oversight) as possible. 

CCDev-2 is not and was not ever intended for full-up DDT&E of the vehicles.  Even only if a hand-full of bidders get the majority of the pie, we're still talking close to each recipiant getting nearly what was given out for all of CCDev-1. 

If the business case is like what the CSF preaches, then CCDev-2 should show some flexibility, intent and will for capital investment.  Government can't and shouldn't do it alone.  Isn't that the main thrust of pro-commercial space extremists?  Or is that just talk to get as much money from the government as possible?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #38 on: 04/18/2011 03:59 pm »
Isn't that the main thrust of pro-commercial space extremists?  Or is that just talk to get as much money from the government as possible?

Pro-commercial space extremists? Who are they? Do they hide in caves? ;)
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 04:02 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #39 on: 04/18/2011 04:01 pm »
Pro-commercial space extremists? Who are they? Do they hide in caves?

Yeah, we are on the same site right?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #40 on: 04/18/2011 04:07 pm »
My money's on Spacex (Dragon), Boeing (CST-100), ATK (Liberty) (Like Chris said you just can't count them out) and Sierra Nevada (Dreamchaser).

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
  • USA
  • Liked: 1490
  • Likes Given: 649
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #41 on: 04/18/2011 04:09 pm »
Are we not far enough along in the development cycles of the competing systems for NASA to make an educated decision as to which of the executions is most likely to succeed, with the greatest speed to market, most economical to develop and maintain, factoring in capabilities?

I'd actually like to see SpaceX get enough to guarantee that they can finish up on their own after this so that in any future awards they can be cut out, keeping other less well funded but excellent companies alive.

Remember, these are commercial companies and at some point they need to be weaned if they are going to retain the title "commercial". Sure the USGov can purchase their product or service, but at some point they need to stand on their own 2 feet and fund their day to day operations out of their profit margin, not from the US Treasury. I hope to see that happen to *all* the winners.
I understand and agree to a point. And yes there are some exciting possibilities with less funded entities, however, I'm just not of the mind that we should belabor this point. The ultimate goal is to get a working commercial space man-rated transportation system in place as quickly and as economically as possible. The more we dilute what little funds we have, to companies so far from achieving an operational system, the longer we will have no domestic HSF, LEO capability.

I'm sorry but the irony of this statement still bewilders me.  We need a "commercial" space system and therefore need as much government funding (which come with government requirements and the more funding the more oversight) as possible. 

CCDev-2 is not and was not ever intended for full-up DDT&E of the vehicles.  Even only if a hand-full of bidders get the majority of the pie, we're still talking close to each recipiant getting nearly what was given out for all of CCDev-1. 

If the business case is like what the CSF preaches, then CCDev-2 should show some flexibility, intent and will for capital investment.  Government can't and shouldn't do it alone.  Isn't that the main thrust of pro-commercial space extremists?  Or is that just talk to get as much money from the government as possible?
This is all well and good but frankly, I am interested in one thing. Having the domestic ability to get off planet as early, as often and as economically as possible. Whoever can do it, gets the money. 
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #42 on: 04/18/2011 04:14 pm »
Are we not far enough along in the development cycles of the competing systems for NASA to make an educated decision as to which of the executions is most likely to succeed, with the greatest speed to market, most economical to develop and maintain, factoring in capabilities?

I'd actually like to see SpaceX get enough to guarantee that they can finish up on their own after this so that in any future awards they can be cut out, keeping other less well funded but excellent companies alive.

Remember, these are commercial companies and at some point they need to be weaned if they are going to retain the title "commercial". Sure the USGov can purchase their product or service, but at some point they need to stand on their own 2 feet and fund their day to day operations out of their profit margin, not from the US Treasury. I hope to see that happen to *all* the winners.
I understand and agree to a point. And yes there are some exciting possibilities with less funded entities, however, I'm just not of the mind that we should belabor this point. The ultimate goal is to get a working commercial space man-rated transportation system in place as quickly and as economically as possible. The more we dilute what little funds we have, to companies so far from achieving an operational system, the longer we will have no domestic HSF, LEO capability.

I'm sorry but the irony of this statement still bewilders me.  We need a "commercial" space system and therefore need as much government funding (which come with government requirements and the more funding the more oversight) as possible. 

CCDev-2 is not and was not ever intended for full-up DDT&E of the vehicles.  Even only if a hand-full of bidders get the majority of the pie, we're still talking close to each recipiant getting nearly what was given out for all of CCDev-1. 

If the business case is like what the CSF preaches, then CCDev-2 should show some flexibility, intent and will for capital investment.  Government can't and shouldn't do it alone.  Isn't that the main thrust of pro-commercial space extremists?  Or is that just talk to get as much money from the government as possible?
This is all well and good but frankly, I am interested in one thing. Having the domestic ability to get off planet as early, as often and as economically as possible. Whoever can do it, gets the money. 

No doubt that is an important consideration.  Done in a "rush" fashion without any thought to anything else, while possibly leading to a capability slightly earlier (because this is nothing "new" afterall), could possibly lead to the compromise of everything else intended, giving nothing but commercial-in-name-only.  Why is that better than what we have now?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10749
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3043
  • Likes Given: 1228
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #43 on: 04/18/2011 04:16 pm »
The more we dilute what little funds we have, to companies so far from achieving an operational system, the longer we will have no domestic HSF, LEO capability.

Which is exactly the point I was making wrt SpaceX. I really like that company and all they have so far accomplished. But it is reasonably well funded and as long as we don't wean them too soon, they will make it on their own, freeing up that funding to go to other promising companies who would otherwise fall just over the cutoff line.
Agreed.
Ok, so just curious. SpaceX gets enough to begin in earnest their LAS, which results in another benefit of also allowing them to have propulsive landing capability down the road. Of the remaining participants, which 2 would you say should receive the remaining funds...?

I'd actually prefer to see 4 total with the remaining 3 being:

Sierra Nevada: DreamChaser
Boeing: CST-100
USA: to fly Commercial Shuttle until 2017

Rockets we have: Falcon and Atlas.
What we need are spacecraft, not rockets.
Flying Shuttle commercially willl allow us to spend our money on American workers in lieu of Russian workers. I want to spend our money at home.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 04:23 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #44 on: 04/18/2011 04:18 pm »
1.  Boeing
2.  SpaceX
3.  Orbital
4.  SNC
5.  ATK

These will be the main winners.

My money's on Spacex (Dragon), Boeing (CST-100), ATK (Liberty) (Like Chris said you just can't count them out) and Sierra Nevada (Dreamchaser).

Me too, albeit I think ULA should be in the list too, since both CST and Dreamchaser need a human rated Atlas-V. (unless you want launch them all on F9, which gives you little redundancy.)

The emergency detection system shouldn't be to expensive when compared to the other entries.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 04:20 pm by Joris »
JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #45 on: 04/18/2011 04:21 pm »
Me too, albeit I think ULA should be in the list too, since both CST and Dreamchaser need a human rated Atlas-V. (unless you want launch them all on F9, which gives you little redundancy.)

The emergency detection system shouldn't be to expensive when compared to the other entries.

Can Falcon 9 lift the Dream Chaser?
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 04:23 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #46 on: 04/18/2011 04:22 pm »
I'm surprised very few are saying anything about Orbital.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #47 on: 04/18/2011 04:23 pm »
I'm surprised very few are saying anything about Orbital.

The price tag of the Orbital Prometheus space plane scares me. 
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 04:24 pm by yg1968 »

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 694
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #48 on: 04/18/2011 04:24 pm »
Who I want to win (assuming $300m in this round of funding):

  • SpaceX (Dragon Capsule). $100m
  • Boeing (CST-100). $100m
These two give dual competing capsules of similar capabilities.

  • ULA (human-rating the Atlas V rocket). $50m
Together with F9, this gives dual competing launchers

  • Sierra Nevada (Dream Chaser spaceplane). $40m
An alternative if one of the capsules fails technically or financially.

  • Paragon (advanced ECLSS hardware). $10m
Only if one of the three spacecraft are going to use it.


Loosing out:

• ATK/Astrium (Liberty rocket) - technical, financial and schedule risk too high, doesn't really give any capability not already covered by F9 or Atlas V.

• Blue Origin (New Shepard) - don't know enough about it to comment!

• Excalibur Almaz Inc. (Almaz)  - don't know enough about it to comment.

• Orbital Sciences (Prometheus) - worse schedule and technical risk than Dream Chaser?

• t/Space (space vehicle) - can't raise the finance to put enough skin into the game.

• USA (Commercial STS) - does not seem to meet the criteria of 10x better safety than STS, also seem to be basically asking for money to develop a business plan.

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
  • USA
  • Liked: 1490
  • Likes Given: 649
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #49 on: 04/18/2011 04:26 pm »
The more we dilute what little funds we have, to companies so far from achieving an operational system, the longer we will have no domestic HSF, LEO capability.

Which is exactly the point I was making wrt SpaceX. I really like that company and all they have so far accomplished. But it is reasonably well funded and as long as we don't wean them too soon, they will make it on their own, freeing up that funding to go to other promising companies who would otherwise fall just over the cutoff line.
Agreed.
Ok, so just curious. SpaceX gets enough to begin in earnest their LAS, which results in another benefit of also allowing them to have propulsive landing capability down the road. Of the remaining participants, which 2 would you say should receive the remaining funds...?

I'd actually prefer to see 4 total with the remaining 3 being:

Sierra Nevada: DreamChaser
Boeing: CST-100
USA: to fly Commercial Shuttle until 2017
I would love to see the DreamChaser get a large infusion of capital to speed up development. I don't think we should lose that form factor expertise.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline TexasRED

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Houston
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #50 on: 04/18/2011 04:26 pm »
I'm surprised very few are saying anything about Orbital.

The price tag of the Orbital space plane scares me. 

I was curious, it seems to me that the longer someone has been around, the larger the price tag is.  Is there enough data to plot this or anything? Or to find exemptions to this? Its just something that has stuck out to me from time to time, but I haven't really looked to see if its all that consistent.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22571
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 352
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #51 on: 04/18/2011 04:26 pm »
I'm surprised very few are saying anything about Orbital.

I will say that I want them to win, but with SNC's Dreamcatcher so alike and already the recipient of CCDev funds ultimately think it would fall behind.  Of course depending on how the money is allocated, still a good chance of them getting it, especially if it is awarded in $20-$50 million chunks.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 04:26 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #52 on: 04/18/2011 04:26 pm »
I'm surprised very few are saying anything about Orbital.

The price tag of the Orbital space plane scares me. 

Likely somewhat a realistic and conservative estimate.  How much does it cost Boeing to make a new airliner (also something that is well known)?  They basically mortgage the company to pay for DDT&E with a good business case and plan to make it back up in sales. 
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 04:28 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #53 on: 04/18/2011 04:28 pm »
• USA (Commercial STS) - does not seem to meet the criteria of 10x better safety than STS, also seem to be basically asking for money to develop a business plan.

Well, no.  Not exactly. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 694
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #54 on: 04/18/2011 04:28 pm »
Can Falcon 9 lift the Dream Chaser?

Yes, Dream Chaser is reputedly about 9 tonnes, F9 block II should be able to lift 16 tonnes to LEO.

Offline Space Pete

Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #55 on: 04/18/2011 04:30 pm »
  • Paragon (advanced ECLSS hardware). $10m
Only if one of the three spacecraft are going to use it.

There is also a proposal to place Paragon's ECLSS hardware on the ISS, as an R&D exercise for future BEO spacecraft. The rationale is that Paragon's "simple" hardware will be far more stable than the failure-prone complicated ECLSS systems that NASA designed.

So, even if they aren't utilised in CCDev spacecraft, it is still worth investing in them.
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #56 on: 04/18/2011 04:33 pm »
I'm surprised very few are saying anything about Orbital.

The price tag of the Orbital space plane scares me. 

I was curious, it seems to me that the longer someone has been around, the larger the price tag is.  Is there enough data to plot this or anything? Or to find exemptions to this? Its just something that has stuck out to me from time to time, but I haven't really looked to see if its all that consistent.

SNC has been around for 45 years. But I suppose that your point is that SpaceDev was only recently acquired by SNC and SpaceDev wasn't exactly an established company prior to being acquired by SNC.

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #57 on: 04/18/2011 04:34 pm »
Give ATK money to let them prove their claims. Not too much, as they told, that they want to develop Liberty also without funding. Best way to get ATK silent.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 694
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #58 on: 04/18/2011 04:34 pm »
  • Paragon (advanced ECLSS hardware). $10m
Only if one of the three spacecraft are going to use it.

There is also a proposal to place Paragon's ECLSS hardware on the ISS, as an R&D exercise for future BEO spacecraft. The rationale is that Paragon's "simple" hardware will be far more stable than the failure-prone complicated ECLSS systems that NASA designed.

So, even if they aren't utilised in CCDev spacecraft, it is still worth investing in them.

Well sure, as a technology development program is looks good. But CCDev-2 has limited funds, it needs to spend them on what will advance its aims.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17842
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 505
  • Likes Given: 5193
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #59 on: 04/18/2011 04:44 pm »
… and it's pretty much been proven on the 5-seg static fires that it's even less than what was recalculated to be small vibrations for a few seconds late in first stage.

Add in the mitigation and TO is not even an issue at all.

Chris I don't want to go off topic here but please allow me this response and then I'll get off it. I believe one of the data points returned by the Ares-IX flight was that in free-flight configuration the TO's were different than the ground-based static fire of the same configuration. It was believed the difference is caused by the constraints of being fastened to a test stand but that was never definitively determined, leaving the issue unresolved from a safety pov. If that issue has been satisfactorily resolved then I am unaware of it and will gladly retract my previous statement.


And I'll quickly back chuck's arguement and direct people to this thread on the issue at hand:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24209.0
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline Jason Davies

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #60 on: 04/18/2011 04:46 pm »
I'm surprised very few are saying anything about Orbital.

Lack of exposure? Maybe Chris can say how good they are to deal with?

And I agree with Chris. ATK are the monster in the room. Can't count them out.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7773
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 2008
  • Likes Given: 467
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #61 on: 04/18/2011 04:50 pm »
I'll be suprised if ATK gets any significant sum of money. U.S. HSF program arguably needs many things, but another rocket is not one of them, IMHO.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
  • Liked: 540
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #62 on: 04/18/2011 04:56 pm »
But I don't think you are alone in having a favorable opinion of Liberty. I would be interested in your reasoning.

In a nutshell, the reason that I prefer Liberty over Atlas V is because:

A) Liberty is a "simple" rocket, which does exactly what it says on the tin (launch to LEO, nothing else). One of my favourite sayings: "The simpler a plan is, the less things can go wrong". ;)

B) A lot less work is required to man-rate Liberty than to man-rate Atlas V, since both Liberty's SRB and 2nd stage were designed with crew in mind.

C) The support for Liberty is mostly already in place. For example, a new gantry would need to be constructed for Atlas V in order to allow for crew access, whereas Liberty would use the Ares I ML.

You forgot a small detail of actual LV not being built yet. :D

Quote
All of the above would likely make Liberty ready to fly crew before Atlas V.

Paper rockets always look better than real ones.
Hmm.
Scratch that, even in paper form Ares I looks awful.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #63 on: 04/18/2011 05:13 pm »
My two cents; (and probably not worth that)

ATK/Astrium: Liberty rocket - Ought to be dead on arrival due to the lack of an upperstage, serious issues with LAS development, and what ugordon said above.

Blue Origin: advance technologies in support of the New Shepard vehicle – Not enough information

Boeing : Continue work on CST-100 – highly probable

Excalibur Almaz Inc.: reuse Almaz capsules for commercial use. – unlikely due to low capabilities, old technology.

Orbital Sciences: Prometheus lifting-body spacecraft utilizing Atlas V – in the recent past all winged craft were dead on arrival (VSE proposals). With the new administration and the performance of the X-37 it may have a chance.

Paragon Space Development Corporation:continue work on Commercial Crew Transport-Air Revitalization System (CCT-ARS) – Not sure, might win a small award

Sierra Nevada Corporation: Continue work on Dreamcatcher - same argument as Orbital

SpaceX : LAS for Dragon – high probability

t/Space: eight-person crew or cargo transfer vehicle, Launch on Atlas V/Falcon 9/Taurus II – redundant in comparison with the Dragon and CST-100 and at a lesser stage of development

ULA:  continue CCDEv-1 work on human-rating the Atlas V rocket. - Probable

USA: Commercial Space Transportation Service, or CSTS, meaning flying Atlantis and Endeavour from 2013-2017. – Dead on arrival

So what I'd like to see funded is two capsule solutions, Space X and Boeing; two winged solutions Orbital and Sierra Nevada Corporation; and small awards for Paragon and ULA.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #64 on: 04/18/2011 05:14 pm »

And I'll quickly back chuck's argument and direct people to this thread on the issue at hand:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24209.0

With respect, I'll quickly advise you that you're backing up a claim that TO can kill a crew via a 15 page presentation which does not, in any way at all, back or even intimate such a threat.

This is Chuck's claim:

Quote
Hmm. And what is going to be different with this SRB than the Ares-I wrt the thrust oscillation issue? All that TO was shown to be pretty much a crew-killer. I have no difficulty using it for cargo only, but not for crew. It would be dead-man-walking according to all the analysis documentation that has been collected.

That claim is wrong - something I can say with confidence as I know the LEAD engineer on TO for the purpose of this article: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/12/ares-i-thrust-oscillation-meetings-encouraging-allowance-for-changes/ - and who's since been a member of this site and actually cited encouraging data post I-X.

Thus a response of "but I was talking about the Ares I-X data" won't work either, because the 15 page presentation you've linked DOES NOT make any claims TO will kill the crew... mainly because doesn't even make any claims anyway, because that's a sanitized NTRS presentation ;D The full information is ITAR'ed - thus not available for L2 acquisition, but as mentioned, it's not ITAR'ed for the lead engineer to say it was encouraging, which he did.

Want to find hidden assumptions of killing a crew in that presentation, let's continue to post on that link so as not to distract this thread any further :)

Online Chris Bergin

Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #65 on: 04/18/2011 05:17 pm »

And I'll quickly back chuck's argument and direct people to this thread on the issue at hand:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24209.0

With respect, I'll quickly advise you that you're backing up a claim that TO can kill a crew via a 15 page presentation which does not, in any way at all, back or even intimate such a threat.

This is Chuck's claim:

Quote
Hmm. And what is going to be different with this SRB than the Ares-I wrt the thrust oscillation issue? All that TO was shown to be pretty much a crew-killer. I have no difficulty using it for cargo only, but not for crew. It would be dead-man-walking according to all the analysis documentation that has been collected.

That claim is wrong - something I can say with confidence as I know the LEAD engineer on TO for the purpose of this article: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/12/ares-i-thrust-oscillation-meetings-encouraging-allowance-for-changes/ - and who's since been a member of this site and actually cited encouraging data post I-X.

Thus a response of "but I was talking about the Ares I-X data" won't work either, because the 15 page presentation you've linked DOES NOT make any claims TO will kill the crew... mainly because doesn't even make any claims anyway, because that's a sanitized NTRS presentation ;D The full information is ITAR'ed - thus not available for L2 acquisition, but as mentioned, it's not ITAR'ed for the lead engineer to say it was encouraging, which he did.

Want to find hidden assumptions of killing a crew in that presentation, let's continue to post on that link so as not to distract this thread any further :)

I'm surprised very few are saying anything about Orbital.

Lack of exposure? Maybe Chris can say how good they are to deal with?

And I agree with Chris. ATK are the monster in the room. Can't count them out.

I'm not even sure Orbital have a PAO. Very good company, and maybe they don't need the media, but that could be a reason there's more love for SpaceX than Orbital, simply because of the way they expose themselves in the media. Not sure.

Online RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #66 on: 04/18/2011 05:20 pm »
In a nutshell, the reason that I prefer Liberty over Atlas V is because:

A) Liberty is a "simple" rocket, which does exactly what it says on the tin (launch to LEO, nothing else). One of my favourite sayings: "The simpler a plan is, the less things can go wrong". ;)

B) A lot less work is required to man-rate Liberty than to man-rate Atlas V, since both Liberty's SRB and 2nd stage were designed with crew in mind.

C) The support for Liberty is mostly already in place. For example, a new gantry would need to be constructed for Atlas V in order to allow for crew access, whereas Liberty would use the Ares I ML.

All of the above would likely make Liberty ready to fly crew before Atlas V.

However, having said all that, by my own admittance I'm not a religious follower of new/commercial space, so I'm sure there are some things that I have overlooked.

I will disagree

A)  Liberty is not simple.  There hasn't been any integration between the first stage (not "man rated") and the second stage (not "man rated") and the capsule (vaporware).

B)  Since Liberty is nothing more than pretty slides a lot more work will need to be done to make Ares I Liberty ready to fly.  Meanwhile, and rather quietly mind you, LockMart in conjunction with ULA has already started testing and collecting data to "man rate" Atlas V.

C)  A new gantry for Atlas V would be peanuts compared to the abortion of the Ares I Liberty ML.  Boy did we, the taxpayers, get it stuck to us on that deal.

All of the above would likely make Atlas V ready to fly crew before Liberty.  -  Fixed that for you.

VR
TEA
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28850
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9025
  • Likes Given: 5793
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #67 on: 04/18/2011 05:20 pm »
I can't really see ATK getting much from this. It'd hardly be fair, considering that ULA has waaayyy more experience with rocket development, and they actually have TWO rockets already flying regularly that could be used. I can see ATK getting something, but not the lion's share. The USA proposal makes more sense, IMHO. I think "commercial Shuttle" should be studied (which I believe is what the proposal is for, a study), but based on the circumstances right now, "if I were emperor of NASA," I wouldn't fund commercial Shuttle, but I would fund the study.

If ATK wants to develop a launch vehicle on their own dime (or mostly), more power to them! I'd be really surprised if they got more than a dozen million of CCDev money.

I'm betting SpaceX would probably get some money (and would be happy if they do). I'd be surprised if CST-100 doesn't get anything.

IMO, I really hope the lion's share goes to what ever spacecraft can be developed soonest (for a reasonable amount of money) for commercial crew. From where I stand, that looks like either Dragon or CST-100, though there can certainly be surprises. Since CCDev2 is small, I hope we put the largest chunk of funding to the project that can get the biggest bang for the buck towards bringing us to commercial crew, maximizing the return on NASA's investment. The projects which require the greatest total investment should only get token funding (if any), and the projects requiring the least total investment before real capability can be fielded should get the greatest funding.

I think, though, that we may have to wait for CCDev3 for that.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Online RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #68 on: 04/18/2011 05:22 pm »
My Top 3 in order:

1) SpaceX

2) Boeing -CST & Atlas V

3) Dream Chaser

We get FOUR for the price of three!  Three orbital vehicles and two rockets. 

VR
TEA
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #69 on: 04/18/2011 05:28 pm »
My Top 3 in order:

1) SpaceX

2) Boeing -CST & Atlas V

3) Dream Chaser

We get FOUR for the price of three!  Three orbital vehicles and two rockets. 

VR
TEA
RE327

I realize you talk a lot about economics and belittle many but perhaps I just don't understand the "economics" of how the Boeing's CST and ULA's Atlas are considered one entity. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline mr_magoo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #70 on: 04/18/2011 05:29 pm »
Is this the "plan for the plan" mentioned by Bolden for the week or is there more to come this week?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #71 on: 04/18/2011 05:30 pm »
I wouldn't fund commercial Shuttle, but I would fund the study.


Well that just makes no sense.  In other words, "I would never consider a commercial shuttle but I would waste money on a study for something I will never support." 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #72 on: 04/18/2011 05:30 pm »
I can't really see ATK getting much from this. It'd hardly be fair, considering that ULA has waaayyy more experience with rocket development, and they actually have TWO rockets already flying regularly that could be used. I can see ATK getting something, but not the lion's share. The USA proposal makes more sense, IMHO. I think "commercial Shuttle" should be studied (which I believe is what the proposal is for, a study), but based on the circumstances right now, "if I were emperor of NASA," I wouldn't fund commercial Shuttle, but I would fund the study.

If ATK wants to develop a launch vehicle on their own dime (or mostly), more power to them! I'd be really surprised if they got more than a dozen million of CCDev money.

I'm betting SpaceX would probably get some money (and would be happy if they do). I'd be surprised if CST-100 doesn't get anything.

IMO, I really hope the lion's share goes to what ever spacecraft can be developed soonest (for a reasonable amount of money) for commercial crew. From where I stand, that looks like either Dragon or CST-100, though there can certainly be surprises. Since CCDev2 is small, I hope we put the largest chunk of funding to the project that can get the biggest bang for the buck towards bringing us to commercial crew, maximizing the return on NASA's investment. The projects which require the greatest total investment should only get token funding (if any), and the projects requiring the least total investment before real capability can be fielded should get the greatest funding.

I think, though, that we may have to wait for CCDev3 for that.

If you don't intend to commercialize the Shuttle, why would you spend funds studying it?

Dream Chaser is just as far along as the CST-100. SNC expects to be able to test fly it in 2014. I will be shocked if Dream Chaser is not selected for CCDev-2.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 05:32 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #73 on: 04/18/2011 05:32 pm »
Is this the "plan for the plan" mentioned by Bolden for the week or is there more to come this week?

No, this has nothing to do with the plan for the plan. The plan for the plan that Bolden was speaking of is for the SLS and MPCV.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 05:33 pm by yg1968 »

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #74 on: 04/18/2011 05:36 pm »
IMO, I really hope the lion's share goes to what ever spacecraft can be developed soonest (for a reasonable amount of money) for commercial crew.

Then you need to fund Boeing. With the experience and workforce they have they should be finished before all other...

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28850
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9025
  • Likes Given: 5793
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #75 on: 04/18/2011 05:40 pm »
I can't really see ATK getting much from this. It'd hardly be fair, considering that ULA has waaayyy more experience with rocket development, and they actually have TWO rockets already flying regularly that could be used. I can see ATK getting something, but not the lion's share. The USA proposal makes more sense, IMHO. I think "commercial Shuttle" should be studied (which I believe is what the proposal is for, a study), but based on the circumstances right now, "if I were emperor of NASA," I wouldn't fund commercial Shuttle, but I would fund the study.

If ATK wants to develop a launch vehicle on their own dime (or mostly), more power to them! I'd be really surprised if they got more than a dozen million of CCDev money.

I'm betting SpaceX would probably get some money (and would be happy if they do). I'd be surprised if CST-100 doesn't get anything.

IMO, I really hope the lion's share goes to what ever spacecraft can be developed soonest (for a reasonable amount of money) for commercial crew. From where I stand, that looks like either Dragon or CST-100, though there can certainly be surprises. Since CCDev2 is small, I hope we put the largest chunk of funding to the project that can get the biggest bang for the buck towards bringing us to commercial crew, maximizing the return on NASA's investment. The projects which require the greatest total investment should only get token funding (if any), and the projects requiring the least total investment before real capability can be fielded should get the greatest funding.

I think, though, that we may have to wait for CCDev3 for that.

If you don't intend to commercialize the Shuttle, why would you spend funds studying it?
...
Because I am willing to admit that I could be wrong. Unlike some people, when the facts change (or my awareness of the facts change), I change my opinion. By funding the study, I would find out if I'm wrong or not. It's also a backup plan. Worst case, we go to commercial Shuttle (though it may be too late by then).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #76 on: 04/18/2011 05:44 pm »
Because I am willing to admit that I could be wrong. Unlike some people, when the facts change (or my awareness of the facts change), I change my opinion. By funding the study, I would find out if I'm wrong or not. It's also a backup plan. Worst case, we go to commercial Shuttle (though it may be too late by then).

If you look at your post however, that is not what you implied but I accept your clarification.  If you fund the study you really need to commit on funding commercial shuttle or at the very least be prepared to do so.

This option is the only bridge that takes us from where we collectively are now to where we collectively want to be and solves a lot of other issues in the process making everything else that much more stable. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #77 on: 04/18/2011 06:07 pm »
I can't really see ATK getting much from this. It'd hardly be fair, considering that ULA has waaayyy more experience with rocket development, and they actually have TWO rockets already flying regularly that could be used. I can see ATK getting something, but not the lion's share. The USA proposal makes more sense, IMHO. I think "commercial Shuttle" should be studied (which I believe is what the proposal is for, a study), but based on the circumstances right now, "if I were emperor of NASA," I wouldn't fund commercial Shuttle, but I would fund the study.

If ATK wants to develop a launch vehicle on their own dime (or mostly), more power to them! I'd be really surprised if they got more than a dozen million of CCDev money.

I'm betting SpaceX would probably get some money (and would be happy if they do). I'd be surprised if CST-100 doesn't get anything.

IMO, I really hope the lion's share goes to what ever spacecraft can be developed soonest (for a reasonable amount of money) for commercial crew. From where I stand, that looks like either Dragon or CST-100, though there can certainly be surprises. Since CCDev2 is small, I hope we put the largest chunk of funding to the project that can get the biggest bang for the buck towards bringing us to commercial crew, maximizing the return on NASA's investment. The projects which require the greatest total investment should only get token funding (if any), and the projects requiring the least total investment before real capability can be fielded should get the greatest funding.

I think, though, that we may have to wait for CCDev3 for that.

If you don't intend to commercialize the Shuttle, why would you spend funds studying it?
...
Because I am willing to admit that I could be wrong. Unlike some people, when the facts change (or my awareness of the facts change), I change my opinion. By funding the study, I would find out if I'm wrong or not. It's also a backup plan. Worst case, we go to commercial Shuttle (though it may be too late by then).

I should have been clearer myself: I used "you" in my reply but I actually meant NASA (not you specifically). In other words, I meant that: if NASA doesn't intend on commercializing the Shuttle, why would NASA spend funds studying it? I don't think that NASA intends on commercializing the Shuttle, so that is why I said that.

The announcement of the retirement homes suggest that NASA does not intend to commercialize the Shuttle or even fund a study on it. But we will find out for sure soon enough.

Offline Bernie Roehl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #78 on: 04/18/2011 06:13 pm »
Then you need to fund Boeing. With the experience and workforce they have they should be finished before all other...

Really?

As far as I know, the CST-100 is just a Powerpoint presentation at this point.  SNC is actually bending metal, and doing vibration and drop tests on the Dreamchaser test article.  It also has subcontractors in place (including Boeing, incidentally).

And SpaceX has actually *flown* a Dragon, so I'd say they're pretty much in the lead.

How do you see Boeing being finished before SNC and SpaceX?

(Don't get me wrong -- I'm an admirer of the work that Boeing has done over the years, but they're engineers -- not magicians!)




Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7498
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #79 on: 04/18/2011 06:15 pm »
(Don't get me wrong -- I'm an admirer of the work that Boeing has done over the years, but they're engineers -- not magicians!)

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic...
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #80 on: 04/18/2011 06:20 pm »
Then you need to fund Boeing. With the experience and workforce they have they should be finished before all other...

Really?

As far as I know, the CST-100 is just a Powerpoint presentation at this point.  SNC is actually bending metal, and doing vibration and drop tests on the Dreamchaser test article.  It also has subcontractors in place (including Boeing, incidentally).

And SpaceX has actually *flown* a Dragon, so I'd say they're pretty much in the lead.

How do you see Boeing being finished before SNC and SpaceX?

(Don't get me wrong -- I'm an admirer of the work that Boeing has done over the years, but they're engineers -- not magicians!)

If you click through the CCDev1 reports you will see a lot of hardware from Boeing about CST-100. Including ground test articles, human interface tests, etc.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #81 on: 04/18/2011 06:20 pm »
(Don't get me wrong -- I'm an admirer of the work that Boeing has done over the years, but they're engineers -- not magicians!)

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic...

Therefore any sufficiently advanced engineers are magicians! (Elon the Great)
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Gregori

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #82 on: 04/18/2011 06:20 pm »
I wouldn't rule out Excalibur Almaz so quickly. Unlike most of the other companies, it's hardware actually exists and has been tested in space. Just because its old does not mean its bad. Most of the technologies used in getting things to and from space are old, but they work fine.

The costs of the other papercraft are much harder to nail down compared to things that really exist and I think NASA is going to be quite conservative, being a government agency.

I can see Dragon being picked for similar reasons, its hardware exists and has been tested in space.


Overall, I think these award schemes can be quite sad as companies with perfectly viable solutions are going to get 45% of the way to a finished product and then have to shut down shop when CCDEV 3 comes a long and knocks them out.



Offline Bernie Roehl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #83 on: 04/18/2011 06:23 pm »
If it were my money, here's how I would spend it:

1) Paragon to develop their ECLSS
2) SNC to develop Dreamchaser
3) SpaceX for their Dragon LAS
4) ULA for human-rating the Atlas V

That would give us two human-rated launch vehicles from different suppliers, two spacecraft (one capsule, one spaceplane), and a life support system that could be used in either.

I think Blue Origin, Excalibur Almaz, Prometheus and the t/Space capsule are just too far away from actual development and/or are proposed by companies who can't afford to put in any significant amount of money on their own.

Of course, where the money actually goes will tell us a lot about how much politics has influenced the process.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28850
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9025
  • Likes Given: 5793
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #84 on: 04/18/2011 06:26 pm »
There's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline billh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 403
  • Houston
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 210
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #85 on: 04/18/2011 06:31 pm »
I hope CST-100 and Dragon get the biggest share of the money, because they are well along in development and have a high probability of success. Then you need to give some money to ULA for Atlas V, so you have at least two launch vehicles, also. If there's any left I'd give it to SNC, because it would be nice to keep some wings around. :)

I wouldn't fund USA or ATK because commercializing shuttle and building an Ares I clone just seem like they are going to cost a lot more than the alternatives. Cost efficiency needs to be driving the commercial space efforts, because we are hoping these folks can make a buck off someone else other than NASA when they're done.

ATK, by the way, stands to get tons of money from SLS so they're going to be in good shape even if they don't get any money from CCDev.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #86 on: 04/18/2011 06:33 pm »
Then you need to fund Boeing. With the experience and workforce they have they should be finished before all other...

Really?

As far as I know, the CST-100 is just a Powerpoint presentation at this point.  SNC is actually bending metal, and doing vibration and drop tests on the Dreamchaser test article.  It also has subcontractors in place (including Boeing, incidentally).

And SpaceX has actually *flown* a Dragon, so I'd say they're pretty much in the lead.

How do you see Boeing being finished before SNC and SpaceX?

(Don't get me wrong -- I'm an admirer of the work that Boeing has done over the years, but they're engineers -- not magicians!)

If you click through the CCDev1 reports you will see a lot of hardware from Boeing about CST-100. Including ground test articles, human interface tests, etc.

Yes, they have advanced to much more than Powerpoint slides. For example, see page 25 of this presentation:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/524774main_COOKE.pdf

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #87 on: 04/18/2011 06:34 pm »
There's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?  How can anyone then be justified in calling it "commercial"?  How will spending someone else's money, assuming you will just keep getting it, lead to the "most economical solution"?  How is it justified that someone can be able to pay for everything, but you own it and can do as you will with it, keeping all future profits, etc for years to come?

What about your house?  Do you think you will be successful in getting someone else to pay for it, but you retain absolute authority over it and then someday you sell it for a lot more money and then get to keep the amount you made, even though you didn't pay for it to begin with?

Not a perfect analogy obviously but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline tigerade

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Low Earth Orbit
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #88 on: 04/18/2011 06:35 pm »
I also think SpaceX and Boeing will be the big winners today.

Anyone know if there will be a live broadcast of the announcement?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #89 on: 04/18/2011 06:38 pm »
I also think SpaceX and Boeing will be the big winners today.

Anyone know if there will be a live broadcast of the announcement?

Live audio, see the beginning of this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24849.msg725498#msg725498

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1616
  • Liked: 1706
  • Likes Given: 443
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #90 on: 04/18/2011 06:38 pm »
There's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.

In my view, this is true.  t/Space showed this by analysis during the CE&R contract extension in 2005, but the then NASA management ignored the analysis.  Once part of the NASA COTS/CCDEV culture, it was impossible to dislodge the "skin" notion from their minds.  It will come back to bite them.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #91 on: 04/18/2011 06:39 pm »
I wouldn't fund USA or ATK because commercializing shuttle and building an Ares I clone just seem like they are going to cost a lot more than the alternatives. Cost efficiency needs to be driving the commercial space efforts, because we are hoping these folks can make a buck off someone else other than NASA when they're done.


I realize everyone has and is entitled to an opinion.  However, "just seems" makes it hard to take seriously.  Cost efficiency was exactly what the CSTS was about.  Providing a bridge where none currently exists and the freedom to get additional customers, who are there, along the way reducing the cost to NASA. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #92 on: 04/18/2011 06:40 pm »
There's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.

In my view, this is true.  t/Space showed this by analysis during the CE&R contract extension in 2005, but the then NASA management ignored the analysis.  Once part of the NASA COTS/CCDEV culture, it was impossible to dislodge the "skin" notion from their minds.  It will come back to bite them.

Was there any skin in the game requirement for CCDev-1 and CCDev-2?
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 06:41 pm by yg1968 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10749
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3043
  • Likes Given: 1228
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #93 on: 04/18/2011 06:42 pm »
Then you need to fund Boeing. With the experience and workforce they have they should be finished before all other...

I agree that Boeing should be funded but your statement is simply incorrect. Not only does CST-100 not *physically* exist yet, but SpaceX has already flown Dragon twice. Once was a boilerplate model that did little more but provide the correct OML to the top of F9, but the second flight was a functional spacecraft that orbited the earth and then successfully performed a re-entry and was recovered, according to SpaceX officials,  in a condition that it could be refurbished and flown again. CST-100 will certainly not be "finished before all other".
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #94 on: 04/18/2011 06:44 pm »
There's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.

In my view, this is true.  t/Space showed this by analysis during the CE&R contract extension in 2005, but the then NASA management ignored the analysis.  Once part of the NASA COTS/CCDEV culture, it was impossible to dislodge the "skin" notion from their minds.  It will come back to bite them.

But in the absense of that, all you are talking about is a purely government funded program where the "stick" is much bigger to beat one with with respect to government and/or additional requirements, etc.  This in turn means more money, longer schedule and "commercial-in-name-only".  Or am I missing your point?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #95 on: 04/18/2011 06:45 pm »
The winners and losers are being informed right now.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #96 on: 04/18/2011 06:48 pm »
There's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.

In my view, this is true.  t/Space showed this by analysis during the CE&R contract extension in 2005, but the then NASA management ignored the analysis.  Once part of the NASA COTS/CCDEV culture, it was impossible to dislodge the "skin" notion from their minds.  It will come back to bite them.

But in the absense of that, all you are talking about is a purely government funded program where the "stick" is much bigger to beat one with with respect to government and/or additional requirements, etc.  This in turn means more money, longer schedule and "commercial-in-name-only".  Or am I missing your point?

No, his point made in another thread is that if a company is able to develop, for example, a capsule for $500M, it shouldn't have put any additionnal money just to meet an artificial skin in the game requirement. If another company requires more than $500M for the development of a similar capsule, perhaps it should be required to put skin in the game since it is more expensive. The $500M is an example. He didn't use a specific number.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 07:01 pm by yg1968 »

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
  • USA
  • Liked: 1490
  • Likes Given: 649
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #97 on: 04/18/2011 06:52 pm »
The winners and losers are being informed right now.
Hmmm. Why not just announce live at 4:30. Why the heads up?
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #98 on: 04/18/2011 06:53 pm »
The winners and losers are being informed right now

Thanks Chris for keeping us posted.  Hope Spacex and Boeing get  thumbs up phone calls!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #99 on: 04/18/2011 06:53 pm »
The winners and losers are being informed right now.
Hmmm. Why not just announce live at 4:30. Why the heads up?

That's the way it's always done. The participants find out a couple of hours before the public announcement.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 06:54 pm by yg1968 »

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1616
  • Liked: 1706
  • Likes Given: 443
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #100 on: 04/18/2011 06:56 pm »
There's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.

In my view, this is true.  t/Space showed this by analysis during the CE&R contract extension in 2005, but the then NASA management ignored the analysis.  Once part of the NASA COTS/CCDEV culture, it was impossible to dislodge the "skin" notion from their minds.  It will come back to bite them.

Was there any skin in the game requirement for CCDev-1 and CCDev-2?

Explicit for 1 but ambiguous for 2.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1616
  • Liked: 1706
  • Likes Given: 443
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #101 on: 04/18/2011 07:04 pm »
There's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?  How can anyone then be justified in calling it "commercial"?  How will spending someone else's money, assuming you will just keep getting it, lead to the "most economical solution"?  How is it justified that someone can be able to pay for everything, but you own it and can do as you will with it, keeping all future profits, etc for years to come?

What about your house?  Do you think you will be successful in getting someone else to pay for it, but you retain absolute authority over it and then someday you sell it for a lot more money and then get to keep the amount you made, even though you didn't pay for it to begin with?

Not a perfect analogy obviously but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that. 

In my opinion, the "commercial" part of the idea is the way the contract is written and managed (Space Act/"other transactions") and not the investment from private sources (for reasons I discuss in the attachment).  DARPA doesn't require investment for its other transactions contracts for smaller firms and this was the message I gave NASA during the CE&R contract in 2004-5.  As I also noted above, we showed that requiring investment from a company will dramatically increase the cost to the government once firms get to the stage of commercial operations.

There are also ways to mitigate your concern about firms profiting, without requiring up front investment that closes out the options for start-up companies.  For example, NASA could take a preferred stock position with its cash.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #102 on: 04/18/2011 07:07 pm »
It'sATrap!_mod.pdf <--- That is brilliant ;D

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1616
  • Liked: 1706
  • Likes Given: 443
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #103 on: 04/18/2011 07:08 pm »
It'sATrap!_mod.pdf <--- That is brilliant ;D

High praise from you, Chris.  Thanks.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #104 on: 04/18/2011 07:13 pm »
Give ATK money to let them prove their claims. Not too much, as they told, that they want to develop Liberty also without funding. Best way to get ATK silent.

I sort-of concur. If ATK's chosen, it'll be interesting to see if the company can reorient in a more commercial direction. I personally think it's unlikely, but it could potentially be useful in getting ATK's politicians to angle more in a commercial direction as well. Also, if ATK attempts to meet its proposed milestones and fails, it'll only have itself to blame.

Of course, there's also the potential problems inherent to a single-SRB launcher, but that's a discussion for another thread.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7439
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 4525
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #105 on: 04/18/2011 07:23 pm »
It'sATrap!_mod.pdf <--- That is brilliant ;D

High praise from you, Chris.  Thanks.
Your criticism of the "skin in the game" was that:
a) It was biased towards the big contracts and thus against disruptive techs.
b) It was biased towards the big contracts and thus crowded out the smaller players.
c) The rate of loan for a private company is higher and, given that it would have to later get a bigger return, it would turn some project nonviable.
d) It was biased towards big relative investment (as a percentage) irrespective of the general return to the government.
e) Other
f) Some combination of the above?

Offline billh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 403
  • Houston
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 210
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #106 on: 04/18/2011 07:24 pm »
I wouldn't fund USA or ATK because commercializing shuttle and building an Ares I clone just seem like they are going to cost a lot more than the alternatives. Cost efficiency needs to be driving the commercial space efforts, because we are hoping these folks can make a buck off someone else other than NASA when they're done.


I realize everyone has and is entitled to an opinion.  However, "just seems" makes it hard to take seriously.  Cost efficiency was exactly what the CSTS was about.  Providing a bridge where none currently exists and the freedom to get additional customers, who are there, along the way reducing the cost to NASA. 

I'm sure you're more up on the details than I am, but I believe I recall hearing a number like $1.5 billion a year for the commercial shuttle proposal. While that is significantly less than what it costs now, it is still a lot more than what I hope NASA will have to pay for commercial crew service to ISS.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1616
  • Liked: 1706
  • Likes Given: 443
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #107 on: 04/18/2011 07:26 pm »
It'sATrap!_mod.pdf <--- That is brilliant ;D

High praise from you, Chris.  Thanks.
Your criticism of the "skin in the game" was that:
a) It was biased towards the big contracts and thus against disruptive techs.
b) It was biased towards the big contracts and thus crowded out the smaller players.
c) The rate of loan for a private company is higher and, given that it would have to later get a bigger return, it would turn some project nonviable.
d) It was biased towards big relative investment (as a percentage) irrespective of the general return to the government.
e) Other
f) Some combination of the above?

a, b, c, d plus other points I made in the brief.  Such as it increases program execution risk and adds a third negotiator to the table.

Offline mr_magoo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #108 on: 04/18/2011 07:29 pm »
An ATK win might be entertaining in that we'd get to see Orrin Hatch pull an epic 180.

Offline aquarius

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 425
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #109 on: 04/18/2011 07:30 pm »
Can today's losers have any chance of being selected in the future rounds?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #110 on: 04/18/2011 07:32 pm »
There's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?  How can anyone then be justified in calling it "commercial"?  How will spending someone else's money, assuming you will just keep getting it, lead to the "most economical solution"?  How is it justified that someone can be able to pay for everything, but you own it and can do as you will with it, keeping all future profits, etc for years to come?

What about your house?  Do you think you will be successful in getting someone else to pay for it, but you retain absolute authority over it and then someday you sell it for a lot more money and then get to keep the amount you made, even though you didn't pay for it to begin with?

Not a perfect analogy obviously but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that. 

In my opinion, the "commercial" part of the idea is the way the contract is written and managed (Space Act/"other transactions") and not the investment from private sources (for reasons I discuss in the attachment).  DARPA doesn't require investment for its other transactions contracts for smaller firms and this was the message I gave NASA during the CE&R contract in 2004-5.  As I also noted above, we showed that requiring investment from a company will dramatically increase the cost to the government once firms get to the stage of commercial operations.

There are also ways to mitigate your concern about firms profiting, without requiring up front investment that closes out the options for start-up companies.  For example, NASA could take a preferred stock position with its cash.

I certainly respect the work you have done in the past, and your opinions, but what you are saying is "commercial-in-name-only". 

Without any skin-in-the-game, actively discouraging investors (or maybe more appropriately not wanting them to avoid complications), etc and making this purely a government-funded activity I just don't see how that, in reality, is going to change anything.  It still gives all the power to NASA (granted they are needed but, in my opinion, the best way to make them cooperate is to show them they are not the gate-keepers to everything).  It also seems this flies in the face of "opening up an entirely new sector of the economy", "creating 1000's of jobs, etc" because you are always tied to the wishes, and funding, of NASA.

Also, DARPA is an agency for the DOD that funds pathfinder, high risk, etc projects that may find a use in the DOD someday, somewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge these have never been for full-up, operational capabilities that DOD will then use in the field routinely or that these providers can then sell to other customers.  So, to me, that seems a bit different. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22571
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 352
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #111 on: 04/18/2011 07:35 pm »
Quote
It'sATrap!_mod.pdf

So pretty much your criticism is that NASA didnt just chuck all of its current progress and start over again for commercial?  It that is what is required for commercial spaceflight, then perhaps we should just stick with government furnished.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28850
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9025
  • Likes Given: 5793
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #112 on: 04/18/2011 07:37 pm »
Can today's losers have any chance of being selected in the future rounds?
Sure, why not?

For instance, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if SpaceX loses out in this round, too. Disappointed, yes, but not very surprised. But they will still have a demonstrated capsule and launch vehicle. They will still have slowly made a little progress on their own dime. They've started expanding their Texas test facility, perhaps to support abort motor testing (as Jim suggested). CCDev sort of (ambiguously) has a "skin in the game" "requirement" (I don't think it's a firm requirement), so SpaceX could end up just doing their own testing, though at a slower schedule. They will probably be better positioned for CCDev3 than most of the other competitors even if SpaceX is completely overlooked for CCDev2. All IMHO, of course. The same thing could hold true for other competitors.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1616
  • Liked: 1706
  • Likes Given: 443
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #113 on: 04/18/2011 07:42 pm »
There's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?  How can anyone then be justified in calling it "commercial"?  How will spending someone else's money, assuming you will just keep getting it, lead to the "most economical solution"?  How is it justified that someone can be able to pay for everything, but you own it and can do as you will with it, keeping all future profits, etc for years to come?

What about your house?  Do you think you will be successful in getting someone else to pay for it, but you retain absolute authority over it and then someday you sell it for a lot more money and then get to keep the amount you made, even though you didn't pay for it to begin with?

Not a perfect analogy obviously but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that. 

In my opinion, the "commercial" part of the idea is the way the contract is written and managed (Space Act/"other transactions") and not the investment from private sources (for reasons I discuss in the attachment).  DARPA doesn't require investment for its other transactions contracts for smaller firms and this was the message I gave NASA during the CE&R contract in 2004-5.  As I also noted above, we showed that requiring investment from a company will dramatically increase the cost to the government once firms get to the stage of commercial operations.

There are also ways to mitigate your concern about firms profiting, without requiring up front investment that closes out the options for start-up companies.  For example, NASA could take a preferred stock position with its cash.

I certainly respect the work you have done in the past, and your opinions, but what you are saying is "commercial-in-name-only". 

Without any skin-in-the-game, actively discouraging investors (or maybe more appropriately not wanting them to avoid complications), etc and making this purely a government-funded activity I just don't see how that, in reality, is going to change anything.  It still gives all the power to NASA (granted they are needed but, in my opinion, the best way to make them cooperate is to show them they are not the gate-keepers to everything).  It also seems this flies in the face of "opening up an entirely new sector of the economy", "creating 1000's of jobs, etc" because you are always tied to the wishes, and funding, of NASA.

Also, DARPA is an agency for the DOD that funds pathfinder, high risk, etc projects that may find a use in the DOD someday, somewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge these have never been for full-up, operational capabilities that DOD will then use in the field routinely or that these providers can then sell to other customers.  So, to me, that seems a bit different. 

DARPA grants rights to the contractor to the IP created in other transactions, so that may be a partial answer to your point.  NIH and related entities let firms patent drugs that are paid for by gov't grant funds.

But the core opinion I am promulgating has not been tested by NASA since the extension of the CE&R contract, when t/Space performed a number of hardware demos.  One idea I tried to sell to NASA CCDEV was to structure the awards so that contractors requesting less than a couple hundred million for their full program could bid w/o "skin" while if you requested above some threshold you'd have to match 50-50, and above a further threshold you'd be 100% responsible for funding.  Obviously, since we didn't win anything, I was not successful.

A further point (from my brief) is that I sought NASA funding to "dig us out of the hole" created by NASA's dominance of all things space during the past 50 years.  I styled this as "affirmative action" for the small firms, since it was only meant to be a way to level the uneven playing field.  I don't see NASA as the be-all and end-all of the marketplace.  If it is, then "commercial space" is a failure.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #114 on: 04/18/2011 07:44 pm »
My fault, but I'm actually thinking it might be a good idea to change this into a pre-announcement thread and open a new one just before the telecon.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1616
  • Liked: 1706
  • Likes Given: 443
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #115 on: 04/18/2011 07:48 pm »
My fault, but I'm actually thinking it might be a good idea to change this into a pre-announcement thread and open a new one just before the telecon.

Yes, sorry, we should take it elsewhere.

I can contribute one bit of official news to make the thread relevant again: t/Space lost.  There, I've released that information in advance of the NASA press conference!

Online Chris Bergin

Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #116 on: 04/18/2011 07:50 pm »
No, wasn't you, HMX, it was my fault for not realizing we'd have such a big thread already.

So this is now pre-announcement, and will continue through to the telecon.

Then we move to the live announcement thread here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24855.0

Orbital also lost, I think it's safe to note too.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #117 on: 04/18/2011 07:51 pm »
Who is chosen also says a lot about who was doing the evaluations (grunts and Center-level management) and selections (HQ-level management).  The competitors have several levels of history with NASA: decades-long, years-long and next to none.  It will be interesting to see if both the good and the bad were considered and how much faith the evaluators and selectors put into mere assurances.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #118 on: 04/18/2011 07:54 pm »
Can today's losers have any chance of being selected in the future rounds?

Yes but it becomes less and less likely as you would be starting with a disadvantage. 
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 07:58 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #119 on: 04/18/2011 07:56 pm »
Who is chosen also says a lot about who was doing the evaluations (grunts and Center-level management) and selections (HQ-level management).  The competitors have several levels of history with NASA: decades-long, years-long and next to none.  It will be interesting to see if both the good and the bad were considered and how much faith the evaluators and selectors put into mere assurances.

In my opinion, companies that are part of CCDev-1 have an advantage over other companies. SpaceX probably also has an advantage as it's proposals builds on its existing spacecraft.

Offline bobthemonkey

Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #120 on: 04/18/2011 08:00 pm »
Hoping beyond hope for a nod for CSTS; but that's more out of naive enthusiasm than realistic expectation!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #121 on: 04/18/2011 08:00 pm »
My fault, but I'm actually thinking it might be a good idea to change this into a pre-announcement thread and open a new one just before the telecon.

Yes, sorry, we should take it elsewhere.

I can contribute one bit of official news to make the thread relevant again: t/Space lost.  There, I've released that information in advance of the NASA press conference!

Sorry for the bad news.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 08:03 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28850
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9025
  • Likes Given: 5793
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #122 on: 04/18/2011 08:02 pm »
My fault, but I'm actually thinking it might be a good idea to change this into a pre-announcement thread and open a new one just before the telecon.

Yes, sorry, we should take it elsewhere.

I can contribute one bit of official news to make the thread relevant again: t/Space lost.  There, I've released that information in advance of the NASA press conference!
Sorry to hear that. I'm a big fan. Spending study money on actual hardware (and actually doing the test) is awesome.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 08:03 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17842
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 505
  • Likes Given: 5193
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #123 on: 04/18/2011 08:05 pm »
My fault, but I'm actually thinking it might be a good idea to change this into a pre-announcement thread and open a new one just before the telecon.

Yes, sorry, we should take it elsewhere.

I can contribute one bit of official news to make the thread relevant again: t/Space lost.  There, I've released that information in advance of the NASA press conference!

Sorry for the bad news.

Same here.

(but I loved the "It's a trap" document, thanks)
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #124 on: 04/18/2011 08:06 pm »
There's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?  How can anyone then be justified in calling it "commercial"?  How will spending someone else's money, assuming you will just keep getting it, lead to the "most economical solution"?  How is it justified that someone can be able to pay for everything, but you own it and can do as you will with it, keeping all future profits, etc for years to come?

What about your house?  Do you think you will be successful in getting someone else to pay for it, but you retain absolute authority over it and then someday you sell it for a lot more money and then get to keep the amount you made, even though you didn't pay for it to begin with?

Not a perfect analogy obviously but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that. 

In my opinion, the "commercial" part of the idea is the way the contract is written and managed (Space Act/"other transactions") and not the investment from private sources (for reasons I discuss in the attachment).  DARPA doesn't require investment for its other transactions contracts for smaller firms and this was the message I gave NASA during the CE&R contract in 2004-5.  As I also noted above, we showed that requiring investment from a company will dramatically increase the cost to the government once firms get to the stage of commercial operations.

There are also ways to mitigate your concern about firms profiting, without requiring up front investment that closes out the options for start-up companies.  For example, NASA could take a preferred stock position with its cash.

I certainly respect the work you have done in the past, and your opinions, but what you are saying is "commercial-in-name-only". 

Without any skin-in-the-game, actively discouraging investors (or maybe more appropriately not wanting them to avoid complications), etc and making this purely a government-funded activity I just don't see how that, in reality, is going to change anything.  It still gives all the power to NASA (granted they are needed but, in my opinion, the best way to make them cooperate is to show them they are not the gate-keepers to everything).  It also seems this flies in the face of "opening up an entirely new sector of the economy", "creating 1000's of jobs, etc" because you are always tied to the wishes, and funding, of NASA.

Also, DARPA is an agency for the DOD that funds pathfinder, high risk, etc projects that may find a use in the DOD someday, somewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge these have never been for full-up, operational capabilities that DOD will then use in the field routinely or that these providers can then sell to other customers.  So, to me, that seems a bit different. 

DARPA grants rights to the contractor to the IP created in other transactions, so that may be a partial answer to your point.  NIH and related entities let firms patent drugs that are paid for by gov't grant funds.

But the core opinion I am promulgating has not been tested by NASA since the extension of the CE&R contract, when t/Space performed a number of hardware demos.  One idea I tried to sell to NASA CCDEV was to structure the awards so that contractors requesting less than a couple hundred million for their full program could bid w/o "skin" while if you requested above some threshold you'd have to match 50-50, and above a further threshold you'd be 100% responsible for funding.  Obviously, since we didn't win anything, I was not successful.

A further point (from my brief) is that I sought NASA funding to "dig us out of the hole" created by NASA's dominance of all things space during the past 50 years.  I styled this as "affirmative action" for the small firms, since it was only meant to be a way to level the uneven playing field.  I don't see NASA as the be-all and end-all of the marketplace.  If it is, then "commercial space" is a failure.

I agree with you that NASA is not (or should not be) the be-all and end-all of space.  Your right if that is the case then, "commerical space" is a dismal failure.  Because of that is why I keep struggling on the "skin" arguement.  Because of that, the CSF's grand statements, etc, private investment has to be a part of it as I see it. 

I actually do agree with you that for relatively modest dollar amounts there shouldn't have to be "matching funds".  Like with CCDev-1, there is still a lot of trepidation out there.  This does also level the playing field as you said and offers all ideas, etc a chance to compete. 

Yet at some point, one must "fish or cut bait".  I tend to believe that if you are going to be "seeding the market" then the market/providers should show they can offer at least a good mix of private capital for what it will take to bring a vehicle to operation and for them to profit from in this "market".  I certainly realize this makes it harder for some.  Yet I still believe that this Nation allows for people to succeed when an idea is good.  I am by no means rich or anywhere near an "investor" but your company does have good ideas.  I would tend to believe there are investors out there willing to listen. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22571
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 352
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #125 on: 04/18/2011 08:07 pm »
Some interesting music on the telecon......

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #126 on: 04/18/2011 08:09 pm »
My fault, but I'm actually thinking it might be a good idea to change this into a pre-announcement thread and open a new one just before the telecon.

Yes, sorry, we should take it elsewhere.

I can contribute one bit of official news to make the thread relevant again: t/Space lost.  There, I've released that information in advance of the NASA press conference!

Well I'm sorry to hear that.  I know it is always disappointing.  And it seems Orbital lost as well.  That sucks.  I'm sure USA will too. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7439
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 4525
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #127 on: 04/18/2011 08:10 pm »
I can contribute one bit of official news to make the thread relevant again: t/Space lost.
I'm sorry! When will you be able to disclose your proposal (if ever)?

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3037
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #128 on: 04/18/2011 08:10 pm »
I'm disappointed that Orbital lost, but not surprised if it was an either/or case with DreamChaser.  I hope SNC wins an award at least...

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9820
  • Liked: 1500
  • Likes Given: 897
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #129 on: 04/18/2011 08:10 pm »
Some interesting music on the telecon......

Anybody recording this?

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22571
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 352
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #130 on: 04/18/2011 08:12 pm »
Some interesting music on the telecon......

Anybody recording this?

I probably will once it starts, no need to record elevator music

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28850
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9025
  • Likes Given: 5793
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #131 on: 04/18/2011 08:14 pm »
I can contribute one bit of official news to make the thread relevant again: t/Space lost.
I'm sorry! When will you be able to disclose your proposal (if ever)?
Yes, will you disclose it?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28850
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9025
  • Likes Given: 5793
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #132 on: 04/18/2011 08:21 pm »
Chris Bergin, you don't need to tell us if they've won anything or not, but have any of the other providers told you yea or nay, yet?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline jacqmans

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18245
  • Houten, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3879
  • Likes Given: 212
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #133 on: 04/18/2011 08:21 pm »
RELEASE: 11-102

NASA AWARDS NEXT SET OF COMMERCIAL CREW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS

WASHINGTON -- NASA has awarded four Space Act Agreements in the second
round of the agency's Commercial Crew Development (CCDev2) effort.
Each company will receive between $22 million and $92.3 million to
advance commercial crew space transportation system concepts and
mature the design and development of elements of their systems, such
as launch vehicles and spacecraft.

The selectees for CCDev2 awards are:
-- Blue Origin, Kent, Wash., $22 million
-- Sierra Nevada Corporation, Louisville, Colo., $80 million
-- Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), Hawthorne, Calif., $75
million
-- The Boeing Company, Houston, $92.3 million

"We're committed to safely transporting U.S. astronauts on
American-made spacecraft and ending the outsourcing of this work to
foreign governments," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "These
agreements are significant milestones in NASA's plans to take
advantage of American ingenuity to get to low-Earth orbit, so we can
concentrate our resources on deep space exploration."

The goal of CCDev2 is to accelerate the availability of U.S.
commercial crew transportation capabilities and reduce the gap in
American human spaceflight capability. Through this activity, NASA
also may be able to spur economic growth as potential new space
markets are created.

Once developed, crew transportation capabilities could become
available to commercial and government customers.

"The next American-flagged vehicle to carry our astronauts into space
is going to be a U.S. commercial provider," said Ed Mango, NASA's
Commercial Crew Program manager. "The partnerships NASA is forming
with industry will support the development of multiple American
systems capable of providing future access to low-Earth orbit."

These awards are a continuation of NASA's CCDev initiatives, which
began in 2009 to stimulate efforts within U.S. industry to develop
and demonstrate human spaceflight capabilities. For more information
about NASA's Commercial Crew Program, visit:



http://www.nasa.gov/exploration   


Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22571
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 352
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #134 on: 04/18/2011 08:22 pm »
RELEASE: 11-102

NASA AWARDS NEXT SET OF COMMERCIAL CREW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS

WASHINGTON -- NASA has awarded four Space Act Agreements in the second
round of the agency's Commercial Crew Development (CCDev2) effort.
Each company will receive between $22 million and $92.3 million to
advance commercial crew space transportation system concepts and
mature the design and development of elements of their systems, such
as launch vehicles and spacecraft.

The selectees for CCDev2 awards are:
-- Blue Origin, Kent, Wash., $22 million
-- Sierra Nevada Corporation, Louisville, Colo., $80 million
-- Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), Hawthorne, Calif., $75
million
-- The Boeing Company, Houston, $92.3 million

"We're committed to safely transporting U.S. astronauts on
American-made spacecraft and ending the outsourcing of this work to
foreign governments," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "These
agreements are significant milestones in NASA's plans to take
advantage of American ingenuity to get to low-Earth orbit, so we can
concentrate our resources on deep space exploration."

The goal of CCDev2 is to accelerate the availability of U.S.
commercial crew transportation capabilities and reduce the gap in
American human spaceflight capability. Through this activity, NASA
also may be able to spur economic growth as potential new space
markets are created.

Once developed, crew transportation capabilities could become
available to commercial and government customers.

"The next American-flagged vehicle to carry our astronauts into space
is going to be a U.S. commercial provider," said Ed Mango, NASA's
Commercial Crew Program manager. "The partnerships NASA is forming
with industry will support the development of multiple American
systems capable of providing future access to low-Earth orbit."

These awards are a continuation of NASA's CCDev initiatives, which
began in 2009 to stimulate efforts within U.S. industry to develop
and demonstrate human spaceflight capabilities. For more information
about NASA's Commercial Crew Program, visit:



http://www.nasa.gov/exploration   




In for the steal!

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17842
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 505
  • Likes Given: 5193
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #135 on: 04/18/2011 08:23 pm »
RELEASE: 11-102

NASA AWARDS NEXT SET OF COMMERCIAL CREW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS

WASHINGTON -- NASA has awarded four Space Act Agreements in the second
round of the agency's Commercial Crew Development (CCDev2) effort.
Each company will receive between $22 million and $92.3 million to
advance commercial crew space transportation system concepts and
mature the design and development of elements of their systems, such
as launch vehicles and spacecraft.

The selectees for CCDev2 awards are:
-- Blue Origin, Kent, Wash., $22 million
-- Sierra Nevada Corporation, Louisville, Colo., $80 million
-- Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), Hawthorne, Calif., $75
million
-- The Boeing Company, Houston, $92.3 million


I guess I don't need to listen in on a contract award!  ;)

Thanks Jacques!

No USA  :(

(EDIT: NO USA, not ULA, although even that was disappointing)
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 08:26 pm by robertross »
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22571
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 352
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #136 on: 04/18/2011 08:24 pm »
Hmm, very surprising that ULA doesnt get any funds

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #137 on: 04/18/2011 08:25 pm »
Spacecraft is the tall pole at this point.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7773
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 2008
  • Likes Given: 467
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #138 on: 04/18/2011 08:26 pm »
My guess is ULA's work on EDS is not as time critical as spacecraft are so that could be deferred to CCDev-3.

Edit: drat, beaten to the punchline by Antares.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 08:26 pm by ugordan »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7439
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 4525
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #139 on: 04/18/2011 08:26 pm »
Strange. Maybe ULA is very advanced and they expect to test the Boeing and/or DC on an Atlas V in CCDev 3 anyways.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3037
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #140 on: 04/18/2011 08:27 pm »
I didn't realize the dollar amounts for this award were so low.  What does $80 million get you nowadays?  Preliminary design work?

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22571
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 352
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #141 on: 04/18/2011 08:27 pm »
Well this might be the death of Liberty (the rocket), lets see how ATK responds. Too pad to see Paragon snubbed as well, but still not sure what blue origin is up to.


Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2121
  • USA
  • Liked: 1490
  • Likes Given: 649
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #143 on: 04/18/2011 08:28 pm »
Looks like they got it about right. Nice..
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7439
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 4525
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #144 on: 04/18/2011 08:28 pm »
Or may be they are putting some pressure on ULA to move their lobbyist for some AJAX or such architecture.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #145 on: 04/18/2011 08:29 pm »
What does $80 million get you nowadays?

About 200 people for a year.  Yes, American aerospace rates are way too high.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 08:30 pm by Antares »
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #146 on: 04/18/2011 08:31 pm »
No USA  :(


Wasn't expected.  Too much politics and misconception out there mixed with a desire to rid the world of the "evil" space shuttle. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28850
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9025
  • Likes Given: 5793
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #147 on: 04/18/2011 08:31 pm »
Nice. 3 roughly equal chunks to the three folks furthest along (that we can tell), plus another small chunk to Blue Origin (I hope we'll find out more about them as a result of this award). I'm a little surprised it wasn't spread out more, but otherwise looks good!
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline hektor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1418
  • Liked: 86
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #148 on: 04/18/2011 08:38 pm »
So the launcher activities are wrapped into the crew vehicles activities ?

Online RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #149 on: 04/18/2011 09:52 pm »
My Top 3 in order:

1) SpaceX

2) Boeing -CST & Atlas V

3) Dream Chaser

We get FOUR for the price of three!  Three orbital vehicles and two rockets. 

VR
TEA
RE327

I realize you talk a lot about economics and belittle many but perhaps I just don't understand the "economics" of how the Boeing's CST and ULA's Atlas are considered one entity. 

I pretty much nailed CCDev-2 dead on.

The train left the station.  Hope you are on bored.

Your comment pretty much lets everyone know who "belittles" who.

TEA
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Online RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #150 on: 04/18/2011 09:55 pm »
I'm surprised very few are saying anything about Orbital.

There is no substantial documentation public or otherwise to suggest that Taurus II could be rated for humans.

Why waste the money?

Dream Chaser is further along too.  Bean counters in charge here.

VR
TEA
RE327
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 09:57 pm by RocketScientist327 »
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #151 on: 04/18/2011 09:57 pm »
My Top 3 in order:

1) SpaceX

2) Boeing -CST & Atlas V

3) Dream Chaser

We get FOUR for the price of three!  Three orbital vehicles and two rockets. 

VR
TEA
RE327

I realize you talk a lot about economics and belittle many but perhaps I just don't understand the "economics" of how the Boeing's CST and ULA's Atlas are considered one entity. 

I pretty much nailed CCDev-2 dead on.

The train left the station.  Hope you are on bored.

Your comment pretty much lets everyone know who "belittles" who.

TEA
RE327

Well, yeah, look at the post of yours above that one to see the example of "belittling" as well as previous posts.  More to the point, my question about how Boeing and ULA are one entity is entirely accurate. 

Also I named those same "three" (if you don't count the fact that you tried to marry Boeing and ULA) as did a lot of people so I'm not sure if you are just looking out for some unfounded ego stroking or what. 
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 10:45 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #152 on: 04/18/2011 09:58 pm »
I didn't realize the dollar amounts for this award were so low.  What does $80 million get you nowadays?  Preliminary design work?

80 million is only peanuts if you work for the government.  In an organization like SpaceX that is a TON of money.  Hell, that is like 15% of what SpaceX has spent to date.

That is a lot of money.

Again, changing the paradigm.  I don't need CxP money to get to space.  Just get the heck out of the way.

VR
TEA
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3037
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 93
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #153 on: 04/18/2011 09:58 pm »
I'm surprised very few are saying anything about Orbital.

There is no substantial documentation public or otherwise to suggest that Taurus II could be rated for humans.

Why waste the money?

Dream Chaser is further along too.  Bean counters in charge here.

I was actually on the Orbital website the other day looking for a Prometheus page, and found that there wasn't one. 

I sort of figured that DreamChaser was more likely to take the funding, given its head start.

Online RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #154 on: 04/18/2011 09:59 pm »
No USA  :(


Wasn't expected.  Too much politics and misconception out there mixed with a desire to rid the world of the "evil" space shuttle. 

Not that you believe me, but I wanted USA in CCDev-2.

I really did.

Respectfully,
Andrew
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #155 on: 04/18/2011 09:59 pm »
I'm surprised very few are saying anything about Orbital.

There is no substantial documentation public or otherwise to suggest that Taurus II could be rated for humans.

Why waste the money?

Dream Chaser is further along too.  Bean counters in charge here.

VR
TEA
RE327

TII was not related to Prometheus.  DC and Prometheus are different vehicles.  By your logic you are suggesting that there is some sort of "agenda" at work here where lifting bodies are being unfairly biased against but capsules, then we can't ever have enough?  Strange....but guess that is what you get when only "bean counters" are in charge. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28850
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9025
  • Likes Given: 5793
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #156 on: 04/18/2011 10:02 pm »
I'm surprised very few are saying anything about Orbital.

There is no substantial documentation public or otherwise to suggest that Taurus II could be rated for humans.

Why waste the money?

Dream Chaser is further along too.  Bean counters in charge here.

VR
TEA
RE327
Taurus II wasn't the proposed vehicle for Prometheus. Orbital proposed using Atlas V (some version with some number of solids strapped to it). Part of the reason Orbital wasn't selected was because they only had 4 crew (versus something like 7 for Dreamchaser) and the version of Atlas V required was bigger than that required for Dreamchaser, so there was less room for mass growth.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Online RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards Announcement - April 18
« Reply #157 on: 04/18/2011 10:08 pm »
I'm surprised very few are saying anything about Orbital.

There is no substantial documentation public or otherwise to suggest that Taurus II could be rated for humans.

Why waste the money?

Dream Chaser is further along too.  Bean counters in charge here.

VR
TEA
RE327

TII was not related to Prometheus.  DC and Prometheus are different vehicles.  By your logic you are suggesting that there is some sort of "agenda" at work here where lifting bodies are being unfairly biased against but capsules, then we can't ever have enough?  Strange....but guess that is what you get when only "bean counters" are in charge. 

There is no agenda.  Who is further along and who is more reliable in the eyes of those making the decisions?

I'm surprised very few are saying anything about Orbital.

There is no substantial documentation public or otherwise to suggest that Taurus II could be rated for humans.

Why waste the money?

Dream Chaser is further along too.  Bean counters in charge here.

VR
TEA
RE327
Taurus II wasn't the proposed vehicle for Prometheus. Orbital proposed using Atlas V (some version with some number of solids strapped to it). Part of the reason Orbital wasn't selected was because they only had 4 crew (versus something like 7 for Dreamchaser) and the version of Atlas V required was bigger than that required for Dreamchaser, so there was less room for mass growth.

I believe you.  I also believe DC is much further along than Prometheus.

VR
TEA
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #158 on: 04/18/2011 10:12 pm »
Well clearly Orbital and SNC were very close in the evaluations.  If there is no "agenda" and the evaluations prove my point, then why is "who is further along" relevent and not a consideration for capsule-based designs?
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 10:12 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #159 on: 04/18/2011 10:32 pm »
Why is "who is further along" relevant and not a consideration for capsule-based designs?

What makes you think it wasn't?

Spacex is obviously further along than the rest, and Boeing seems to be ahead of the other competitors too.
JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1931
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #160 on: 04/18/2011 10:36 pm »
Well clearly Orbital and SNC were very close in the evaluations.  If there is no "agenda" and the evaluations prove my point, then why is "who is further along" relevent and not a consideration for capsule-based designs?

The point is to get commercal crew in 2016. Thoose who have done some work will be ahead of thoose who have just plans.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #161 on: 04/18/2011 10:37 pm »
Why is "who is further along" relevant and not a consideration for capsule-based designs?

What makes you think it wasn't?

Spacex is obviously further along than the rest, and Boeing seems to be ahead of the other competitors too.

Well because there are *two* capsules (3 if you count Blue Origins secretive bi-conic capsule) who won........
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #162 on: 04/18/2011 10:40 pm »
Well clearly Orbital and SNC were very close in the evaluations.  If there is no "agenda" and the evaluations prove my point, then why is "who is further along" relevent and not a consideration for capsule-based designs?

The point is to get commercal crew in 2016. Thoose who have done some work will be ahead of thoose who have just plans.

Wrong.  The point is to create a commercial space industry that open up an entirely new segment of the economy, that creates 1000's of jobs, fosters competition and innovation and provides a service NASA can take advantage of along with an industry in parallel to and independent of NASA.  These are supposed to be the goals, getting them as soon as possible is an important consideration. 
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 10:43 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28850
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9025
  • Likes Given: 5793
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #163 on: 04/18/2011 10:41 pm »
Can this thread be locked?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #164 on: 04/18/2011 10:47 pm »
Why is "who is further along" relevant and not a consideration for capsule-based designs?

What makes you think it wasn't?

Spacex is obviously further along than the rest, and Boeing seems to be ahead of the other competitors too.

Well because there are *two* capsules (3 if you count Blue Origins secretive bi-conic capsule) who won........

The three entries that were the furthest ahead. That those were two capsules and a lifting body doesn't mean that capsules are biased.

But I agree with Robotbeat.
This thread is a PRE-Announcement Discussion.
JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Tags: