Commercial Sector Involvement Breakdown

[Roo]

Considering this massive change, I have started this thread to try and shed some light on this matter.

Therefore, to start things off, could someone please outline in full how the commercial sector is being involved - it isn't all that clear though I'm sure I have a good idea?

1) I am assuming that the various launch vehicle and crew vehicle concepts are being designed, tested, built and fully paid for by commercial industry? I take it that these companies will pay for this with their own money (thus owning them outright) but that they will be created to serve NASA's goals and therefore will have to be designed to satisfy NASA's regulations? And how many vehicles are actually being designed here?

2) Is there going to be a 'winner' or could they all be used once rated?

3) Will these vehicles be solely for NASA's use - or can anyone use them once complete?

4) Exactly what in financial terms is NASA giving the commercial sector to help in the design of these new vehicles?

5) I assume that the recent $50m Space Act Agreement is all about creating new technologies to assist these new vehicles?

6) If only one vehicle is chosen, then what happens to the others?

7) I assume that launching of these will be at KSC, VAB etc - does this mean new facilities being built to handle each design - or are the designs expected to follow a set specification so that they can be handled by existing facilities?

Thanks for all advice here.

Roo.

[Ben the Space Brit]

1) I am assuming that the various launch vehicle and crew vehicle concepts are being designed, tested, built and fully paid for by commercial industry? I take it that these companies will pay for this with their own money (thus owning them outright) but that they will be created to serve NASA's goals and therefore will have to be designed to satisfy NASA's regulations? And how many vehicles are actually being designed here?

Whilst there is a lot of private investment, there is also going to be some subsidy from the Federal Government.  NASA provides some funding under the COTS and CCDev programs and the President has just committed $5.9 billion over five years to further subsidise the work.

Naturally, these vehicles will need to satisfy NASA's requirements but I imagine that these requirements will not be as stringent as those that ruled the EELVs out of the CLV mission back in 2003.

AFAIK, there are six companies currently building some element of a commercial spacecraft.  Note, this doesn't mean six different spacecraft.  Some are building a capsule to put on an EELV (or even a space plane).  Others are requesting specific funding for a part of a complete LV/spaceship system.

2) Is there going to be a 'winner' or could they all be used once rated?

This is yet to be determined, AFAIK.  However, I would imagine that it will be much like NASA's CRS award - the best options get a fixed contract for x launches over a fixed period.

3) Will these vehicles be solely for NASA's use - or can anyone use them once complete?

Anyone who dares and has the money could buy a ride, but they wouldn't be able to use NASA facilities (like the ISS) without prior agreement.  Given the amount of flak NASA raised about Dennis Tito's flight, I would imagine such an agreement would be hard to reach.

6) If only one vehicle is chosen, then what happens to the others?

That depends on the market.  Given that the ISS vanishes around 2020 according to current plans, you could well wonder what would happen to the winner after that date.

7) I assume that launching of these will be at KSC, VAB etc - does this mean new facilities being built to handle each design - or are the designs expected to follow a set specification so that they can be handled by existing facilities?

Depends on the LV.  The Delta-IV is launched from LC-37B at KSC, the Atlas-V at LC-41 and the Falcon-9 at LC-40.  The Taurus-II will be launched from LC-0A at Wallops Flight Center.  These all have their own integration facilities, transport/erectors and other operating facilities.  The experience of SpaceX at KSC suggests that any new LV will need its own pad and unique facilities that will largely have to be paid for by the operator.

I understand from Jim that LC-39 isn't well liked by some at KSC, so if a new NASA HLV doesn't emerge, the VAB and LC-39 will both likely be retired and demolished.

[edit]
Oops! Got the commercial program acronyms wrong!

[Jim]

1) I am assuming that the various launch vehicle and crew vehicle concepts are being designed, tested, built and fully paid for by commercial industry? I take it that these companies will pay for this with their own money (thus owning them outright) but that they will be created to serve NASA's goals and therefore will have to be designed to satisfy NASA's regulations? And how many vehicles are actually being designed here?

2) Is there going to be a 'winner' or could they all be used once rated?

3) Will these vehicles be solely for NASA's use - or can anyone use them once complete?

4) Exactly what in financial terms is NASA giving the commercial sector to help in the design of these new vehicles?

5) I assume that the recent $50m Space Act Agreement is all about creating new technologies to assist these new vehicles?

6) If only one vehicle is chosen, then what happens to the others?

7) I assume that launching of these will be at KSC, VAB etc - does this mean new facilities being built to handle each design - or are the designs expected to follow a set specification so that they can be handled by existing facilities?

Thanks for all advice here.

Roo.

1. Will be designed vs are being designed.  The regulations are TBD at this time.  It will be part of the solicitation.  number of vehicles is unknown.

2. don't know, the procurement strategy will be developed

3.  Anybody.  NASA holds no rights

4.  none yet, aside for some Space Act Agreements. The funding will come after it is competed and contracts are awarded.  What companies do before this is on their on dime.

5.  yes

6.  Up to the companies

7.  It is up to the companies to determine.  KSC and LC-39 are highly unlikely.  ULA and SpaceX would use their own pads or facilities need them

[Bill White]

How long shall it take for these details to be worked out?

Also, who will perform the function Admiral Steidle would have performed had the original spiral development approach been followed in 2004/2005? As I recall, Admiral Steidle had previously run spiral development programs and "fly offs" at DoD. 

Is there anyone at NASA, today, with experience in running a program based on this approach to procurement?

[Jim]

Maybe a year.   This isn't spiral development.  This will be like COTS/CRS

[Antares]

7) I assume that launching of these will be at KSC, VAB etc - does this mean new facilities being built to handle each design - or are the designs expected to follow a set specification so that they can be handled by existing facilities?

7.  It is up to the companies to determine.  KSC and LC-39 are highly unlikely.  ULA and SpaceX would use their own pads or facilities need them

I've heard that the best (cheapest to mod) launch site for some Delta IV solutions is Complex 39.

[Downix]

7) I assume that launching of these will be at KSC, VAB etc - does this mean new facilities being built to handle each design - or are the designs expected to follow a set specification so that they can be handled by existing facilities?

7.  It is up to the companies to determine.  KSC and LC-39 are highly unlikely.  ULA and SpaceX would use their own pads or facilities need them

I've heard that the best (cheapest to mod) launch site for some Delta IV solutions is Complex 39.

Easy to imagine, due to the size.  LC39's size-inefficiency could also be a benefit when dealing with Delta IV evolution, especially if the facilities are refurbished.

[Jim]

7) I assume that launching of these will be at KSC, VAB etc - does this mean new facilities being built to handle each design - or are the designs expected to follow a set specification so that they can be handled by existing facilities?

7.  It is up to the companies to determine.  KSC and LC-39 are highly unlikely.  ULA and SpaceX would use their own pads or facilities need them

I've heard that the best (cheapest to mod) launch site for some Delta IV solutions is Complex 39.

What isn't that back when NASA was going to pay for operations and O&M.  That isn't applicable now.

[Danderman]

3) Will these vehicles be solely for NASA's use - or can anyone use them once complete?

If these vehicles are truly commercial, then NASA would merely be the anchor tenant. Its pretty sure that NASA's contract will require that the vehicles be available for a schedule of flights, or even upon demand, ie extra missions. However, if there is surplus capacity, even for individual flights, then the commercial provider would be able to sell seats or flights.

Its conceivable that NASA may get through some future budget problems by ride sharing.

[telomerase99]

I wonder if Blue Origin is going to try to make their own launcher and not just the pusher LAS that was announced.

[docmordrid]

2009 photos & art on their site seem to indicate one in the hangar.  Looks a bit large for an LAS, and note what looks like a nose cone in the background.  Also note that the 'capsule' at the top of the artwork looks a whole lot like the New Shepard that they tested a couple of years ago. If the artworks capsule is similar in size to what they've previously tested & posted videos of that 'booster' is rather large.

[grakenverb]

Is Spacex going to recieve money to develop a launch escape system? 

[Antares]

They were not chosen to do that as part of CCDev.

[mr. mark]

 ???Actually, that's not quite right. Spacex could still get funding for it's LAS system. The initial round of funding was for R&D only. Not construction and testing. Spacex already has funding available for it's Dragon spacecraft and it's already been fully developed so there was no need to fund R&D since R&D was already completed. Funds are needed for construction and testing though for their LAS system. There are still later rounds of funding available.

[Antares]

Show me the authorization or appropriation for that.