CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18

[Jason Davies]

I'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.

[ugordan]

I'll be suprised if ATK gets any significant sum of money. U.S. HSF program arguably needs many things, but another rocket is not one of them, IMHO.

[gospacex]

But 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.

You forgot a small detail of actual LV not being built yet.

All of the above would likely make Liberty ready to fly crew before Atlas V.

Paper rockets always look better than real ones.
Hmm.
Scratch that, even in paper form Ares I looks awful.

[Norm Hartnett]

My two cents; (and probably not worth that)

ATK/Astrium: Liberty rocket - Ought to be dead on arrival due to the lack of an upperstage, serious issues with LAS development, and what ugordon said above.

Blue Origin: advance technologies in support of the New Shepard vehicle – Not enough information

Boeing : Continue work on CST-100 – highly probable

Excalibur Almaz Inc.: reuse Almaz capsules for commercial use. – unlikely due to low capabilities, old technology.

Orbital Sciences: Prometheus lifting-body spacecraft utilizing Atlas V – in the recent past all winged craft were dead on arrival (VSE proposals). With the new administration and the performance of the X-37 it may have a chance.

Paragon Space Development Corporation:continue work on Commercial Crew Transport-Air Revitalization System (CCT-ARS) – Not sure, might win a small award

Sierra Nevada Corporation: Continue work on Dreamcatcher - same argument as Orbital

SpaceX : LAS for Dragon – high probability

t/Space: eight-person crew or cargo transfer vehicle, Launch on Atlas V/Falcon 9/Taurus II – redundant in comparison with the Dragon and CST-100 and at a lesser stage of development

ULA:  continue CCDEv-1 work on human-rating the Atlas V rocket. - Probable

USA: Commercial Space Transportation Service, or CSTS, meaning flying Atlantis and Endeavour from 2013-2017. – Dead on arrival

So what I'd like to see funded is two capsule solutions, Space X and Boeing; two winged solutions Orbital and Sierra Nevada Corporation; and small awards for Paragon and ULA.

[Chris Bergin]

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

With 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:

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.

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

[Chris Bergin]

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

With 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:

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.

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

I'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.

I'm not even sure Orbital have a PAO. Very good company, and maybe they don't need the media, but that could be a reason there's more love for SpaceX than Orbital, simply because of the way they expose themselves in the media. Not sure.

[RocketEconomist327]

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.

I will disagree

A)  Liberty is not simple.  There hasn't been any integration between the first stage (not "man rated") and the second stage (not "man rated") and the capsule (vaporware).

B)  Since Liberty is nothing more than pretty slides a lot more work will need to be done to make Ares I Liberty ready to fly.  Meanwhile, and rather quietly mind you, LockMart in conjunction with ULA has already started testing and collecting data to "man rate" Atlas V.

C)  A new gantry for Atlas V would be peanuts compared to the abortion of the Ares I Liberty ML.  Boy did we, the taxpayers, get it stuck to us on that deal.

All of the above would likely make Atlas V ready to fly crew before Liberty.  -  Fixed that for you.

VR
TEA
RE327

[Robotbeat]

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.

[RocketEconomist327]

My Top 3 in order:

1) SpaceX

2) Boeing -CST & Atlas V

3) Dream Chaser

We get FOUR for the price of three!  Three orbital vehicles and two rockets. 

VR
TEA
RE327

[Namechange User]

My Top 3 in order:

1) SpaceX

2) Boeing -CST & Atlas V

3) Dream Chaser

We get FOUR for the price of three!  Three orbital vehicles and two rockets. 

VR
TEA
RE327

I 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. 

[mr_magoo]

Is this the "plan for the plan" mentioned by Bolden for the week or is there more to come this week?

[Namechange User]

I wouldn't fund commercial Shuttle, but I would fund the study.

Well that just makes no sense.  In other words, "I would never consider a commercial shuttle but I would waste money on a study for something I will never support." 

[yg1968]

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.

If you don't intend to commercialize the Shuttle, why would you spend funds studying it?

Dream Chaser is just as far along as the CST-100. SNC expects to be able to test fly it in 2014. I will be shocked if Dream Chaser is not selected for CCDev-2.

[yg1968]

Is this the "plan for the plan" mentioned by Bolden for the week or is there more to come this week?

No, this has nothing to do with the plan for the plan. The plan for the plan that Bolden was speaking of is for the SLS and MPCV.

[apace]

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.

Then you need to fund Boeing. With the experience and workforce they have they should be finished before all other...

[Robotbeat]

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.

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).

[Namechange User]

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).

If you look at your post however, that is not what you implied but I accept your clarification.  If you fund the study you really need to commit on funding commercial shuttle or at the very least be prepared to do so.

This option is the only bridge that takes us from where we collectively are now to where we collectively want to be and solves a lot of other issues in the process making everything else that much more stable. 

[yg1968]

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.

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).

I should have been clearer myself: I used "you" in my reply but I actually meant NASA (not you specifically). In other words, I meant that: if NASA doesn't intend on commercializing the Shuttle, why would NASA spend funds studying it? I don't think that NASA intends on commercializing the Shuttle, so that is why I said that.

The announcement of the retirement homes suggest that NASA does not intend to commercialize the Shuttle or even fund a study on it. But we will find out for sure soon enough.

[Bernie Roehl]

Then 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!)

[mmeijeri]

(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...