Author Topic: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18  (Read 56144 times)

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: 10755
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3082
  • Likes Given: 1246
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: 898
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: 898
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: 22572
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 354
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: 898
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.

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17842
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 505
  • Likes Given: 5202
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.

Tags: