LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards and Decision Discussion - April 18

[Robotbeat]

Obviously no spacecraft provided wants it.

Proof?  Data?  Tangible evidence that nobody would fly anything on Liberty?  Or just more anti-ATK arm-waving?

From page 16:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/SelectionStatement-Final_Signed.pdf
"However, a significant weakness [with ATK's proposal] was the lack of a linkage to any spacecraft. ATK did not have any commitments, Memoranda of Understanding, or any partnership details from any spacecraft developer, nor did any spacecraft developer include the Liberty vehicle in their baseline CTS configurations."

[yg1968]

Eventually Dragon / Falcon 9 vs. CST-100 / Atlas 402 seems a likely outcome.

I agree but I am hoping that Dream Chaser also makes the cut for CCDev-3. I think that NASA has a soft spot for lifting body spacecrafts.

[Namechange User]

Obviously no spacecraft provided wants it.

Proof?  Data?  Tangible evidence that nobody would fly anything on Liberty?  Or just more anti-ATK arm-waving?

From page 16:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/SelectionStatement-Final_Signed.pdf
"However, a significant weakness [with ATK's proposal] was the lack of a linkage to any spacecraft. ATK did not have any commitments, Memoranda of Understanding, or any partnership details from any spacecraft developer, nor did any spacecraft developer include the Liberty vehicle in their baseline CTS configurations."

To be fair, NASA has been in a black-out for some time with regards to CCDev-2 and Liberty was a relatively late entry.  So, in other words, the story may be different today.  As I said, the ball is in ATK's court now but I think people need to throttle back on being anti-ATK or make broad assumptions like above. 

In addition, Liberty rated very high on the Source Selection criteria.  In fact so did Orbital.  So as long as people are wanting to "brag" about what they posted in the other thread, look at the top 5 in the source selection and look at my list. 

[pathfinder_01]

Next step should be to cancel Orion since I guess any of the two capsules makes a perfect exploration vehicle, if one is really needed.

No not really. Space X Dragon has a heat shield for BEO capability but the rest is currently undefined. Boeing CST100 lacks a BEO capable heat shield and has a endurance of 2 days. You can't even get one way to the moon in 2 days.CST100 can support itself with a space station for up to 7 months(i.e. it is storable). 

Orion is planned to support a crew for 21 days, support itself with or without a space station 6 months.

[pathfinder_01]

Obviously no spacecraft provided wants it.

Proof?  Data?  Tangible evidence that nobody would fly anything on Liberty?  Or just more anti-ATK arm-waving?

To my knowledge ATK-Liberty would only launch crew, they did not present plans to launch satellites. Atlas, Delta, and Falcon 9 do more than launch crew.  The have other customers to spread costs over.

[hektor]

So we are going to have three or four human spacecraft in development in parallel ? in the current fiscal context ? really ?

[Chris Bergin]

If Liberty is dead, and I think it would be more accurate to say it "ain't looking great", then that also dooms the Ares I ML - several hundred million dollars worth. UNLESS something can be done with past Block 0 (that goes on a Shuttle ML) SLS.

[ugordan]

So we are going to have three or four human spacecraft in development in parallel ?

This is not about full-fledged development yet.

[hektor]

Well it will be the Mike Griffin memorial.

[hektor]

So we are going to have three or four human spacecraft in development in parallel ?

This is not about full-fledged development yet.

Well Orion plus two commercial competing LEO vehicles (if you don't want a monopoly for LEO transportation) makes three.

A bit of an overkill...

That's why I was suggesting that Orion would fade away and that one of the two capsules would be evolved when needed (2025 ) into a BEO vehicle.

[mr_magoo]

Maybe ATK wasnt seen as playing nicely in the sandbox with the commercial players.   I wonder if they hobbled their ability to create partnerships with a year of aggressive SLS lobbying.

[Robotbeat]

If Liberty is dead, and I think it would be more accurate to say it "ain't looking great", then that also dooms the Ares I ML - several hundred million dollars worth. UNLESS something can be done with past Block 0 (that goes on a Shuttle ML) SLS.

From page 11:

"ATK
...
For the Business Information evaluation, the level of confidence changed from Yellow to Green. There was one new strength identified for demonstrating viable capabilities and a marketable business strategy. All weaknesses were fully addressed."

That's interesting to me. Maybe there really is a business strategy, then? If so, they should be able to do it on their own, if more slowly. I hope they go ahead, though they should have to pay a fair price for any equipment at LC-39 (i.e. they shouldn't have their infrastructure heavily subsidized).

[Namechange User]

That's interesting to me. Maybe there really is a business strategy, then? If so, they should be able to do it on their own, if more slowly. I hope they go ahead, though they should have to pay a fair price for any equipment at LC-39 (i.e. they shouldn't have their infrastructure heavily subsidized).

Hasn't that been covered repeatedly?

[yg1968]

Obviously no spacecraft provided wants it.

Proof?  Data?  Tangible evidence that nobody would fly anything on Liberty?  Or just more anti-ATK arm-waving?

From page 16:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/SelectionStatement-Final_Signed.pdf
"However, a significant weakness [with ATK's proposal] was the lack of a linkage to any spacecraft. ATK did not have any commitments, Memoranda of Understanding, or any partnership details from any spacecraft developer, nor did any spacecraft developer include the Liberty vehicle in their baseline CTS configurations."

The keyword is baseline. I don't think that Boeing would have chosen the Liberty as its baseline vehicle.

In any event, the main reason for not chosing ATK is detailed in the Selection Statement. NASA thought that spending limited funds on a spacecraft made more sense than spending money on another vehicle.

[pathfinder_01]

A bit of an overkill...

That's why I was suggesting that Orion would fade away and that one of the two capsules would be evolved when needed (2025 ) into a BEO vehicle.

LM is currently moving Orion to be BEO capabale asap. It might get killed but that is LM plan to adress this problem. Orion might vist the ISS but it won't carry crew or cargo.  Orion is in theory the back up to commercail crew.

[Robotbeat]

A bit of an overkill...

That's why I was suggesting that Orion would fade away and that one of the two capsules would be evolved when needed (2025 ) into a BEO vehicle.

LM is currently moving Orion to be BEO capabale asap. It might get killed but that is LM plan to adress this problem. Orion might vist the ISS but it won't carry crew or cargo.  Orion is in theory the back up to commercail crew.

How much would all the abort testing (that is left to do) cost for Orion? I would imagine it could run into the billions of dollars. If there are two viable spacecraft that are selected for commercial crew and are tested and found to be both robust and economical, I can imagine a scenario where Orion is never launched with crew, but is used for crew return (perhaps as an ISS lifeboat initially, then a deep space crew return vehicle...). But that has been rehashed a few times.

[MikeAtkinson]

So we are going to have three or four human spacecraft in development in parallel ?

This is not about full-fledged development yet.

On the graph on page 1a-31 of http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS03S_Boeing_SAA_Combined_Redacted.pdf the Boeing spend rate reaches a maximum at the end of CCDev2.

[Chris Bergin]

I think I'm starting to fall in love with Dream Chaser

[pathfinder_01]

How much would all the abort testing cost for Orion? I would imagine it could run into the billions of dollars.

In theory yes, but the bigger problem is that the law requires that the MPCV be capable of carring crew to the ISS.

[hektor]

Once there are two LEO capsules in 2017-18 there will be lots of explaining to do to show that there is a need for a third different one for BEO.