CCDev-2 Finalists

[telomerase99]

I agree that they can not afford to do multiple small contracts, but I am afraid that multiple small contracts are more likely then doing the correct action, which I believe is as you have described.

[beancounter]

I agree that they can not afford to do multiple small contracts, but I am afraid that multiple small contracts are more likely then doing the correct action, which I believe is as you have described.

Yes it would be a bit of a shame if they decided to go the multiple small contract pathway. 
OTOH COTS employed only 2 winners (only one originally so I understand) so although CCDev Rd1 involved multiples, perhaps the time factor will now be seen as more critical (critical!) and that will change the approach.  I hope so anyway.  Competition is nice but practicality is better.  Guess it all depends on what NASA sees as the preferred outcome.  Not usually very clear to outsiders.

[Comga]

A recent article and interview with SpaceX indicated that F1e was being delayed indefinitely and Dragon Cargo and F9 are the priority.  {snip}

So you have a link to that interview? That would be the first to attribute this to a source at SpaceX AFAIK.

[yg1968]

I agree that they can not afford to do multiple small contracts, but I am afraid that multiple small contracts are more likely then doing the correct action, which I believe is as you have described.

Yes it would be a bit of a shame if they decided to go the multiple small contract pathway. 
OTOH COTS employed only 2 winners (only one originally so I understand) so although CCDev Rd1 involved multiples, perhaps the time factor will now be seen as more critical (critical!) and that will change the approach.  I hope so anyway.  Competition is nice but practicality is better.  Guess it all depends on what NASA sees as the preferred outcome.  Not usually very clear to outsiders.

CCDev-2 is a similar program to CCDev-1 as it covers about a year of funding. A down selection is expected to occur for CCDev-3 but not before. CCDev-3 is different from CCDev-1 and 2 as its space act agreements are expected to last until the companies complete their program (around 2015).

[beancounter]

A recent article and interview with SpaceX indicated that F1e was being delayed indefinitely and Dragon Cargo and F9 are the priority.  {snip}

So you have a link to that interview? That would be the first to attribute this to a source at SpaceX AFAIK.

Link is here:  http://www.space-travel.com/reports/SpaceX_to_focus_on_astronaut_capsule_999.html

On rereading the article, it mentions Dragon Crew and F9H. 

Sorry my interpretation was that they need to complete Dragon Cargo and F9 in order to undertake their CRS contract therefore they are a given.  Dragon Crew naturally follows Dragon Cargo while F9H fasttrack is definitely new info'.

[Comga]

OTOH COTS employed only 2 winners (only one originally so I understand) ... 
 

No There were two originally, SpaceX & Kistler.  After Kistler failed, Orbital was brought in.
 

Competition is nice but practicality is better. 

That's the way it seems to go.  The free market is good unless it isn't  convenient.  It is SO tiresome to here again that there is insufficient time  to "do it right". I was just told that at work last week.

[sdsds]

It looks like credit for the story indicating SpaceX is delaying F1e should go to Patrick Peterson, writing for Florida Today:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110218/BUSINESS/102180316/SpaceX-changes-focus-rockets

[beancounter]

OTOH COTS employed only 2 winners (only one originally so I understand) ... 
 

No There were two originally, SpaceX & Kistler.  After Kistler failed, Orbital was brought in.
 

Competition is nice but practicality is better. 

That's the way it seems to go.  The free market is good unless it isn't  convenient.  It is SO tiresome to here again that there is insufficient time  to "do it right". I was just told that at work last week.

Yes I thought it was always two but I read somewhere recently, that Griffin only wanted to go with Kistler and was finally convinced to choose SpaceX when they threatened legal action.  Might be rumour only but interesting if it is based in fact.

[A_M_Swallow]

I am one of those people who think there is no market without NASA, i.e., NASA is the market.  NASA needs certain definable services for the life of ISS, probably around 10-15 years, relatively easy to quantify and put contract requirements around.  Other than that, to my eyes, it's all just fantasy.  Hotels in space / tourism?  I just don't see it happening.  What are all these companies going to do when they don't get the final contracts years from now?  They're going to shut down their operations and call it a day.  This is just a waste of time, and time is something we shouldn't be wasting right now.

Orion and Ares I are the vehicles that were meant to be the other way of doing it.

No, that is wrong.

Yes it is true.

This is a CCDev-2 thread so the starting point is CCDev which is derived from COTS.

COTS has several companies developing launch vehicles and spacecraft; the alternative is a single LV and single spacecraft.

COTS has the companies putting a lot of their own money into the development; the alternative is NASA pays for the lot.

COTS tries to have none NASA customers; the alternative is NASA/the US Government is the only customer.

CCDev paid for parts of manned spacecraft and launcher e.g. the ECLSS; the alternative is to do the whole of the LV and the whole of the spacecraft in a single contract.

CCDev2 appears to be more of CCDev.

Since Orion needed an Earth Departure System (EDS) to go beyond LEO it was stuck in LEO for several years whilst Ares V was developed. 

Going down the list shows that the development of Ares I and Orion was managed using the "alternative way".

[Namechange User]

Speaking in absolutes like you have about COTS/CCDev (which is quite questionable on its accuracy) and suggesting Ares/Orion is the only other possible way just proves my point. 

[wannamoonbase]

Established players will be selected.  After Kistler I doubt there is much appetite for risk.

Lockheed, Boeing, Northrup, Orbital, SpaceX in that order.  Deep pockets and established record of working with very large serious government contracts.

This isn't satellite or cargo launches.  This is people, very low risk threshold.

[baldusi]

I am one of those people who think there is no market without NASA, i.e., NASA is the market.  NASA needs certain definable services for the life of ISS, probably around 10-15 years, relatively easy to quantify and put contract requirements around.  Other than that, to my eyes, it's all just fantasy.  Hotels in space / tourism?  I just don't see it happening.  What are all these companies going to do when they don't get the final contracts years from now?  They're going to shut down their operations and call it a day.  This is just a waste of time, and time is something we shouldn't be wasting right now.

Orion and Ares I are the vehicles that were meant to be the other way of doing it.

Ares I was done by NASA. In the EELV and COTS and CCDEV v1 the vendors are payed for reaching a goal or giving a service. But NASA (or Air Force) can do little more than set the initial requirements and review the process and put an objection if they feel the process is flawed or too risky.
In the CxP case it was a program lead and managed by NASA. They had the contractors (like PWC and Boeing) do stuff, but under their supervision, their requirements and their management. Plus the process seems a bit more sensible to political decisions.

[yg1968]

Opinion by Alan Stern and Owen Garriott:
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110307-commercial-human-spaceflight-safer.html

[Namechange User]

Opinion by Alan Stern and Owen Garriott:
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110307-commercial-human-spaceflight-safer.html

It reads like they are trying to convince themselves. 

[Robotbeat]

Opinion by Alan Stern and Owen Garriott:
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110307-commercial-human-spaceflight-safer.html

As a side-note, it looks like spacenews.com is launching a forum... Trying to replicate the success that Chris Bergin (& Co.) have seen here on NSF... And now back to your regularly scheduled CCDev-2 thread.

[TexasRED]

Opinion by Alan Stern and Owen Garriott:
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110307-commercial-human-spaceflight-safer.html

As a side-note, it looks like spacenews.com is launching a forum... Trying to replicate the success that Chris Bergin (& Co.) have seen here on NSF... And now back to your regularly scheduled CCDev-2 thread.

Do you have to pay like $400 a year to post there?

[Gregori]

I don't like how they are trying to imply that it will be safer and cheaper because its "commercial". I think that's kinda extremely disingenuous.

The solutions that "commercial" providers are designing are cheaper and safer because they're NOT the Shuttle!!!!! They have an escape system and are not side-mounted so that makes them a lot safer.

They only have to carry a small capsule into orbit and back....not an advanced 100 ton orbiter and 20 tones of payload....so they looker cheaper but its comparing apples to oranges.

Not being like the Shuttle really helps. Good engineering is good engineering no matter who creates it.

[Namechange User]

I don't like how they are trying to imply that it will be safer and cheaper because its "commercial". I think that's kinda extremely disingenuous.

The solutions that "commercial" providers are designing are cheaper and safer because they're NOT the Shuttle!!!!! They have an escape system and are not side-mounted so that makes them a lot safer.

They only have to carry a small capsule into orbit and back....not an advanced 100 ton orbiter and 20 tones of payload....so they looker cheaper but its comparing apples to oranges.

Not being like the Shuttle really helps. Good engineering is good engineering no matter who creates it.

The thing they ignore is that there is more to flying in space than just the launch.  The escape system (while great they will have it), side-mount comment, etc amounts to a PR-style comment and has little engineering analysis behind it. 

They suggest it will be cheaper but they don't say how much.  They ignore the requirements that have to be met are still in question and therefore so is cost and schedule. 

They ignore what happens if NASA has to fund this entire thing because no market materializes or capital investment is slow or non-existant due to a deteriorating ISS or other factors. 

They ignore what the recurring costs NASA will have to pay, over X number of "commercial providers", if no market materializes and if this will add up to more than shuttle.

They ignore that we will have much less capability and much less flexibility. 

I support commercial and the money behind it.  I don't support the "fluff" that is this op-ed.  They basically say, "it's going to be great, trust us and give the people we want money". 

There are better ways to help assure commercial space gets the proper footing it will need but the-powers-that-be are simply wanting to stick their heads in the sand and say "don't ask the hard questions, I know it will be fine". 

[ugordan]

The thing they ignore is that there is more to flying in space than just the launch. 

I guess they got that from Cx trumping Ares I safety as the Greatest Thing Ever and ignoring the overall lunar mission LOM probability.

[Robotbeat]

The thing they ignore is that there is more to flying in space than just the launch. 

I guess they got that from Cx trumping Ares I safety as the Greatest Thing Ever and ignoring the overall lunar mission LOM probability.

Yeah, this is a big problem that a lot of people don't seem to appreciate... There is A LOT more to flying in space than just the launch.