Well, I'll open up the floor here by posting who I'd like to win. Please don't flame me for mentioning Liberty! Who I want to win:• SpaceX (Dragon Capsule).• Sierra Nevada (Dream Chaser spaceplane).• Paragon (advanced ECLSS hardware).• ATK/Astrium (Liberty rocket).
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.
Never underestimate the power of ATK. That's all I'll say.
Was it ever clear to anyone what the appropriated amount was?
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 03:03 pmWas 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
But I don't think you are alone in having a favorable opinion of Liberty. I would be interested in your reasoning.
All of the above would likely make Liberty ready to fly crew before Atlas V.
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.
Quote from: Space Pete on 04/18/2011 03:15 pmB) 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.
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..
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?
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.
Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 04/18/2011 03:28 pmThe 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.
Quote from: rcoppola on 04/18/2011 03:21 pmI 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.
Quote from: rcoppola on 04/18/2011 03:21 pmAre 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.
… 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.
Quote from: clongton on 04/18/2011 03:03 pmBut 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: rcoppola on 04/18/2011 03:39 pmThe 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.
Quote from: clongton on 04/18/2011 03:28 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 04/18/2011 03:21 pmAre 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.
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?
Quote from: rcoppola on 04/18/2011 03:39 pmQuote from: clongton on 04/18/2011 03:28 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 04/18/2011 03:21 pmAre 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?
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 03:56 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 04/18/2011 03:39 pmQuote from: clongton on 04/18/2011 03:28 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 04/18/2011 03:21 pmAre 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.
Quote from: clongton on 04/18/2011 03:47 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 04/18/2011 03:39 pmThe 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...?
1. Boeing2. SpaceX3. Orbital4. SNC5. ATKThese 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.
I'm surprised very few are saying anything about Orbital.
Quote from: rcoppola on 04/18/2011 03:55 pmQuote from: clongton on 04/18/2011 03:47 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 04/18/2011 03:39 pmThe 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: DreamChaserBoeing: CST-100USA: to fly Commercial Shuttle until 2017
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 04:22 pmI'm surprised very few are saying anything about Orbital. The price tag of the Orbital space plane scares me.
• 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.
Can Falcon 9 lift the Dream Chaser?
• Paragon (advanced ECLSS hardware). $10mOnly if one of the three spacecraft are going to use it.
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/18/2011 04:23 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 04:22 pmI'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.
Quote from: MikeAtkinson on 04/18/2011 04:24 pm • Paragon (advanced ECLSS hardware). $10mOnly 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.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/18/2011 03:27 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.
Quote from: clongton on 04/18/2011 03:03 pmBut 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.
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
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.
Quote from: robertross on 04/18/2011 04:44 pmAnd 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=24209.0With 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:QuoteHmm. 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 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
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 04:22 pmI'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.
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.
My Top 3 in order:1) SpaceX2) Boeing -CST & Atlas V3) Dream ChaserWe get FOUR for the price of three! Three orbital vehicles and two rockets. VRTEARE327
I wouldn't fund commercial Shuttle, but I would fund the study.
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.
Is this the "plan for the plan" mentioned by Bolden for the week or is there more to come this week?
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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 05:20 pmI 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).
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/18/2011 05:30 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 05:20 pmI 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).
Then you need to fund Boeing. With the experience and workforce they have they should be finished before all other...
(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!)
Quote from: apace on 04/18/2011 05:36 pmThen 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!)
Quote from: Bernie Roehl on 04/18/2011 06:13 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...
Quote from: Bernie Roehl on 04/18/2011 06:13 pmQuote from: apace on 04/18/2011 05:36 pmThen 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.
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.
I also think SpaceX and Boeing will be the big winners today.Anyone know if there will be a live broadcast of the announcement?
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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 06:26 pmThere'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.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/18/2011 06:38 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 06:26 pmThere'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?
The winners and losers are being informed right now.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/18/2011 06:45 pmThe winners and losers are being informed right now.Hmmm. Why not just announce live at 4:30. Why the heads up?
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/18/2011 06:38 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 06:26 pmThere'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?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 06:26 pmThere'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.
It'sATrap!_mod.pdf <--- That is brilliant
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.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/18/2011 07:07 pmIt'sATrap!_mod.pdf <--- That is brilliant High praise from you, Chris. Thanks.
Quote from: billh on 04/18/2011 06:31 pmI 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.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/18/2011 07:08 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 04/18/2011 07:07 pmIt'sATrap!_mod.pdf <--- That is brilliant 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) Otherf) Some combination of the above?
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 06:34 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 06:26 pmThere'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.
It'sATrap!_mod.pdf
Can today's losers have any chance of being selected in the future rounds?
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/18/2011 07:04 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 06:34 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 06:26 pmThere'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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/18/2011 07:44 pmMy 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!
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/18/2011 07:48 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 04/18/2011 07:44 pmMy 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.
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 07:32 pmQuote from: HMXHMX on 04/18/2011 07:04 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 06:34 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 06:26 pmThere'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 can contribute one bit of official news to make the thread relevant again: t/Space lost.
Some interesting music on the telecon......
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 04/18/2011 08:07 pmSome interesting music on the telecon......Anybody recording this?
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/18/2011 07:48 pmI 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)?
RELEASE: 11-102NASA AWARDS NEXT SET OF COMMERCIAL CREW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTSWASHINGTON -- 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
RELEASE: 11-102NASA AWARDS NEXT SET OF COMMERCIAL CREW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTSWASHINGTON -- 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
What does $80 million get you nowadays?
No USA
Quote from: RocketScientist327 on 04/18/2011 05:22 pmMy Top 3 in order:1) SpaceX2) Boeing -CST & Atlas V3) Dream ChaserWe get FOUR for the price of three! Three orbital vehicles and two rockets. VRTEARE327I 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.
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 05:28 pmQuote from: RocketScientist327 on 04/18/2011 05:22 pmMy Top 3 in order:1) SpaceX2) Boeing -CST & Atlas V3) Dream ChaserWe get FOUR for the price of three! Three orbital vehicles and two rockets. VRTEARE327I 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.TEARE327
I didn't realize the dollar amounts for this award were so low. What does $80 million get you nowadays? Preliminary design work?
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 04:22 pmI'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.
Quote from: robertross on 04/18/2011 08:23 pmNo USA Wasn't expected. Too much politics and misconception out there mixed with a desire to rid the world of the "evil" space shuttle.
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 04:22 pmI'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.VRTEARE327
Quote from: RocketScientist327 on 04/18/2011 09:55 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 04:22 pmI'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.VRTEARE327TII 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.
Quote from: RocketScientist327 on 04/18/2011 09:55 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 04:22 pmI'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.VRTEARE327Taurus 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.
Why is "who is further along" relevant and not a consideration for capsule-based designs?
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?
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 10:12 pmWhy 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.
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 10:12 pmWell 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.
Quote from: Joris on 04/18/2011 10:32 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 10:12 pmWhy 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........
