CCDev-2 Finalists

[yg1968]

So, CCDev 2 awards are supposed to be announced in March. We are now about half-way through March. When will they be announced?

Gerst said next month at the Shuttle STS-133 post-landing conference. But the winners of CCDev-2 will likely not be announced until the appropriation process is settled since this will determine how much money can be allocated to CCDev-2.

See post above.

[nooneofconsequence]

WRT Aerojet 260" solids

1. Nobody believed they could be built. Aerojet did so by casting in place because that was the least expensive to prove. The half length worked. They could have done a full sized, same way.

2. Next, nobody believed you could move them because they were so massive. Aerojet offered approaches that were badmouthed and never tried but could have been, like the prior demo.

3. Aerojet pointed out the flaws in the segmented approach for HSF. Those flaws were proved correct with experience. Those flaws were accepted as the lesser to the former, which outraged Aerojet, who felt they had a better approach.

No one will ever know, because we didn't go that way at that scale.

My own opinion is that big solids are a bad idea period for HSF. For different reasons than the trade space explored between Aerojet and the then Thiokol. You can't stop'em. And the total costs get hidden.

But Aerojet had the better product IMHO.

[Andy USA]

This thread is about the CCDev-2 Finalists. There is already a well used thread for the potential of Shuttle being involved. NO more posts about Shuttle on this thread, especially nonsense posts which Jorge and Jim have already pointed out.

All further posts about shuttle on this thread will be deleted. No exceptions.

Use this thread below, and remember to read it before jumping in.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24010.870

[baldusi]

Thanks!!!

[yg1968]

Part 3 of this series discusses commercial crew:

[Comga]

"God's own corn-dog"
LOL is overused, but in this case accurate

"I am fairly sure it is not possible to be too cynical"

[robertross]

"God's own corn-dog"
LOL is overused, but in this case accurate

"I am fairly sure it is not possible to be too cynical"

Or the last bit:

"No matter how cynical you get, you just can't keep up"

We'll there goes some people's position...LOL

Reasonably accurate. The first was the best.

[baldusi]

I think that the expression for current situation is Catch-22. The current law mandates the development and construction of a HLV that will eat the budget for developing the payloads, and it won't approve budget increases, nor allow to use new contractors. The current NASA administration is trying to delay any commitment until the law is impracticable, and commercial can advance enough to be an alternative. But Congress won't approve the necessary appropriations for CCDev-2 until they have their SLS. If it were my country I'd be very worried (regrettably my country gives me much worse worries) but this situation is very interesting. Seeing how NASA bureaucracy fights Congress vested interests will have some important lessons about not only NASA, but for public-private partnerships in general.

[yg1968]

CCDev-2 should be awarded April 6th assuming that Congress passes a full year CR this week. Awards are expected to be for a total $270 million with at least 4 participants.  See this article:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110404-ccdev2-awards-expected.html

[Jason1701]

Glad to hear there's a funding increase over the projected amount.

[beancounter]

CCDev-2 should be awarded April 6th assuming that Congress passes a full year CR this week. Awards are expected to be for a total $270 million with at least 4 participants.  See this article:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110404-ccdev2-awards-expected.html

IMO 4's too many.  You're not going to get commercial crew up and running if you drip-feed.  It needs concerted funding effort of a max of 3, preferably 2 if that's your minimum number.
Also is the idea behind CCDev to actually get to a couple of commercial providers?  So far it doesn't look like it to me.

JM2CW.

[Jason1701]

CCDev-2 should be awarded April 6th assuming that Congress passes a full year CR this week. Awards are expected to be for a total $270 million with at least 4 participants.  See this article:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110404-ccdev2-awards-expected.html

IMO 4's too many.  You're not going to get commercial crew up and running if you drip-feed.  It needs concerted funding effort of a max of 3, preferably 2 if that's your minimum number.
Also is the idea behind CCDev to actually get to a couple of commercial providers?  So far it doesn't look like it to me.

JM2CW.

Not all of those "at least four" firms will put their awards towards spacecraft. Remember ULA and Paragon? They were given money last year for non-spacecraft things, though just as important. I think ULA is certain to get an award to finish man-rating the Atlas V.

[robertross]

CCDev-2 should be awarded April 6th assuming that Congress passes a full year CR this week. Awards are expected to be for a total $270 million with at least 4 participants.  See this article:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110404-ccdev2-awards-expected.html

IMO 4's too many.  You're not going to get commercial crew up and running if you drip-feed.  It needs concerted funding effort of a max of 3, preferably 2 if that's your minimum number.
Also is the idea behind CCDev to actually get to a couple of commercial providers?  So far it doesn't look like it to me.

JM2CW.

Agree, though I would say 2 at most, not even 3.

I don't know how they expect this to work, it's insanely under-funded if they truly expect them to be ready on time.

You don't even want to know who I pick to win this round, but I'd bet ATK is in there.

[yg1968]

CCDev-2 should be awarded April 6th assuming that Congress passes a full year CR this week. Awards are expected to be for a total $270 million with at least 4 participants.  See this article:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110404-ccdev2-awards-expected.html

IMO 4's too many.  You're not going to get commercial crew up and running if you drip-feed.  It needs concerted funding effort of a max of 3, preferably 2 if that's your minimum number.
Also is the idea behind CCDev to actually get to a couple of commercial providers?  So far it doesn't look like it to me.

JM2CW.

Most people are expecting a down selection to only occur when CCDev-3 is awarded. The objectives of CCDev-2 are similar to CCDev-1 (i.e. to develop multiple commercial crew projects).

[Ronsmytheiii]

CCDev-2 should be awarded April 6th assuming that Congress passes a full year CR this week. Awards are expected to be for a total $270 million with at least 4 participants.  See this article:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110404-ccdev2-awards-expected.html

IMO 4's too many.  You're not going to get commercial crew up and running if you drip-feed.  It needs concerted funding effort of a max of 3, preferably 2 if that's your minimum number.
Also is the idea behind CCDev to actually get to a couple of commercial providers?  So far it doesn't look like it to me.

Right now I believe that the awards are going to mature certain technologies (Commercial crew development)  Pretty much going to look at how the vehicles/companies mature during the initial phases, and then down select for Commercial Crew Services to a few providers once they have an established heritage. So it would be kind of like COTS if SpaceX, Kistler, and OSC were awarded contracts while mid way only two awarded CRS contracts, the idea being NASA would not have any delays in redundancy as was seen with Kistler (and to mature the other designs to the point that the contract could be rebid ala OSC) 

Such conservative ism might seem unwarranted when compare to COTS/CRS model, but dont forget that CRS has multiple backups with HTV/ATV/Progress and the cargo is not nearly as precious (though really needed)

[beancounter]

It might be an incremental approach to reduce risk but it's a loser if you need to close the gap reasonably quickly.  At the rate they're going, they may have a crew system in place in 5 years when they could do it in 3.

In any case, there are launch vehicles available for man-rating now.  You only need to fund them. 
There are 2 creditable capsules ready for crew development, one of which has actually flown to leo and returned and that one will provide heritage for its entire system due to the CRS contract.  Again, why the wait, just fund them.  It's overkill and the timeline just keeps getting longer.

Alternatively keep going with CCDev for another couple of providers and fund COTS-D option with SpaceX as well.

Congress is doing enough procrastinating for the entire world at the moment without NASA contributing.

[kkattula]

It might be an incremental approach to reduce risk but it's a loser if you need to close the gap reasonably quickly.  At the rate they're going, they may have a crew system in place in 5 years when they could do it in 3.

To do it in 3, NASA would have to throw gigabucks at the projects, effectively assuming all the risk, and embedding a high-cost structure.  That defeats the purpose of CCDEV.

CCDEV 1 & 2 are saving money in the longer term by using smaller amounts of money now to instead retire risk.

In any case, there are launch vehicles available for man-rating now.  You only need to fund them. 

They are.  That's what the ULA EDS funding in CCDEV-1 was about.  I expect that will be completed or at least well-progressed in CCDEV-2.  CCDEV-3 will likely address launch site changes.

There are 2 creditable capsules ready for crew development, one of which has actually flown to leo and returned and that one will provide heritage for its entire system due to the CRS contract.  Again, why the wait, just fund them.  It's overkill and the timeline just keeps getting longer.
...

IMO, the CCDEV approach is a good one. It just should have been started 3+ years ago. 

Unfortunately, I think there's a limit to how much it can be accelerated without losing many of the benefits.

[Joris]

To do it in 3, NASA would have to throw gigabucks at the projects, effectively assuming all the risk, and embedding a high-cost structure.  That defeats the purpose of CCDEV.

Musk stated the can do it for one gigabuck (1B$).

But really, what is the difference between paying something over 3 years instead of 5, if it is the same amount of money?

[kkattula]

To do it in 3, NASA would have to throw gigabucks at the projects, effectively assuming all the risk, and embedding a high-cost structure.  That defeats the purpose of CCDEV.

Musk stated the can do it for one gigabuck (1B$).

But really, what is the difference between paying something over 3 years instead of 5, if it is the same amount of money?

But it wouldn't be the same amount. Not having done the technology development yet, both sides would have to make large allowances for risk. SpaceX, etc, in schedule and profit margin, NASA in massive oversight. Sound familiar?

By just paying for eliminating the 'unknowns' now, NASA and the CCDEV awardees are defining the solution space. When the time comes to negotiate final contracts (whether for vehicles or services) all parties will be comfortable with lower costs and narrower specs.

Plus, if one company hits a technical roadblock, NASA does not have to choose between cancellation & start-over, or pumping more gigabucks in because 'Failure is not an option'. Instead there are other options already in progress.

[yg1968]

To do it in 3, NASA would have to throw gigabucks at the projects, effectively assuming all the risk, and embedding a high-cost structure.  That defeats the purpose of CCDEV.

Musk stated the can do it for one gigabuck (1B$).

But really, what is the difference between paying something over 3 years instead of 5, if it is the same amount of money?

But it wouldn't be the same amount. Not having done the technology development yet, both sides would have to make large allowances for risk. SpaceX, etc, in schedule and profit margin, NASA in massive oversight. Sound familiar?

By just paying for eliminating the 'unknowns' now, NASA and the CCDEV awardees are defining the solution space. When the time comes to negotiate final contracts (whether for vehicles or services) all parties will be comfortable with lower costs and narrower specs.

Plus, if one company hits a technical roadblock, NASA does not have to choose between cancellation & start-over, or pumping more gigabucks in because 'Failure is not an option'. Instead there are other options already in progress.

CCDev-2 is a response to the NASA Authorization bill. Congress asked that NASA not start a long term CCDev Program until the human requirements have been established, studies on the viability of the market for commercial crew be made, etc. In my opinion, CCDev-2 should also allow for a better down selection to be made under CCDev-3.

In my opinion, anybody asking for more than $1B of CCDev-3 funding should not be chosen. Sierra Nevada and SpaceX are asking for $1B or less to complete their project. However, whether they can live with that budget depends on the human rating requirements which have yet to be finalized.