CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18

[apace]

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!)

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.

[Norm Hartnett]

(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...

Therefore any sufficiently advanced engineers are magicians! (Elon the Great)

[Gregori]

I wouldn't rule out Excalibur Almaz so quickly. Unlike most of the other companies, it's hardware actually exists and has been tested in space. Just because its old does not mean its bad. Most of the technologies used in getting things to and from space are old, but they work fine.

The costs of the other papercraft are much harder to nail down compared to things that really exist and I think NASA is going to be quite conservative, being a government agency.

I can see Dragon being picked for similar reasons, its hardware exists and has been tested in space.


Overall, I think these award schemes can be quite sad as companies with perfectly viable solutions are going to get 45% of the way to a finished product and then have to shut down shop when CCDEV 3 comes a long and knocks them out.

[Bernie Roehl]

If it were my money, here's how I would spend it:

1) Paragon to develop their ECLSS
2) SNC to develop Dreamchaser
3) SpaceX for their Dragon LAS
4) ULA for human-rating the Atlas V

That would give us two human-rated launch vehicles from different suppliers, two spacecraft (one capsule, one spaceplane), and a life support system that could be used in either.

I think Blue Origin, Excalibur Almaz, Prometheus and the t/Space capsule are just too far away from actual development and/or are proposed by companies who can't afford to put in any significant amount of money on their own.

Of course, where the money actually goes will tell us a lot about how much politics has influenced the process.

[Robotbeat]

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.

[billh]

I hope CST-100 and Dragon get the biggest share of the money, because they are well along in development and have a high probability of success. Then you need to give some money to ULA for Atlas V, so you have at least two launch vehicles, also. If there's any left I'd give it to SNC, because it would be nice to keep some wings around.

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.

ATK, by the way, stands to get tons of money from SLS so they're going to be in good shape even if they don't get any money from CCDev.

[yg1968]

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!)

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.

Yes, they have advanced to much more than Powerpoint slides. For example, see page 25 of this presentation:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/524774main_COOKE.pdf

[Namechange User]

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.

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. 

[tigerade]

I also think SpaceX and Boeing will be the big winners today.

Anyone know if there will be a live broadcast of the announcement?

[yg1968]

I also think SpaceX and Boeing will be the big winners today.

Anyone know if there will be a live broadcast of the announcement?

Live audio, see the beginning of this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24849.msg725498#msg725498

[HMXHMX]

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.

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.

[Namechange User]

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.

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. 

[yg1968]

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.

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?

[clongton]

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

I agree that Boeing should be funded but your statement is simply incorrect. Not only does CST-100 not *physically* exist yet, but SpaceX has already flown Dragon twice. Once was a boilerplate model that did little more but provide the correct OML to the top of F9, but the second flight was a functional spacecraft that orbited the earth and then successfully performed a re-entry and was recovered, according to SpaceX officials,  in a condition that it could be refurbished and flown again. CST-100 will certainly not be "finished before all other".

[Namechange User]

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.

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?

[Chris Bergin]

The winners and losers are being informed right now.

[yg1968]

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.

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?

No, his point made in another thread is that if a company is able to develop, for example, a capsule for $500M, it shouldn't have put any additionnal money just to meet an artificial skin in the game requirement. If another company requires more than $500M for the development of a similar capsule, perhaps it should be required to put skin in the game since it is more expensive. The $500M is an example. He didn't use a specific number.

[rcoppola]

The winners and losers are being informed right now.

Hmmm. Why not just announce live at 4:30. Why the heads up?

[mr. mark]

The winners and losers are being informed right now

Thanks Chris for keeping us posted.  Hope Spacex and Boeing get  thumbs up phone calls!

[yg1968]

The winners and losers are being informed right now.

Hmmm. Why not just announce live at 4:30. Why the heads up?

That's the way it's always done. The participants find out a couple of hours before the public announcement.