Author Topic: LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards and Decision Discussion - April 18 (Read 220611 times)

sdsds · « **Reply #20 on:** 04/18/2011 08:43 pm »

"We are targeting approximately the mid part of this decade."

"The next phase is going to be open to everybody."

Followup (Mourning): Percentage of overall figure of skin in game?

Received a wide range of amounts and percentages in terms of company investment proportion. Most within 10 to 20 percent coming from the companies. Some outliers lower and high.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #21 on:** 04/18/2011 08:43 pm »

Quote from: clongton on 04/18/2011 08:39 pm

Quote from: yg1968 on 04/18/2011 08:34 pm
No ULA. Surprised by that.

Shouldn't be. The focus was on spacecraft and I noticed that he said all spacecraft were tied to robust launch systems. SpaceX of course uses the Falcon 9. The other 3 all will depend on Atlas-V. Manrating Atlas-V will not be difficult nor terrably expensive.

That does put SpaceX in a favorable position if Commercial Crew ultimately has more than one crew provider system for the sake of redundancy.

Cherokee43v6 · « **Reply #22 on:** 04/18/2011 08:43 pm »

I got briefly distracted... what was this 'sidemount' criteria with SpaceX. Is that something to do with how they plan to mount their LAS?

Robotbeat · « **Reply #23 on:** 04/18/2011 08:44 pm »

Quote from: Cherokee43v6 on 04/18/2011 08:43 pm

I got briefly distracted... what was this 'sidemount' criteria with SpaceX. Is that something to do with how they plan to mount their LAS?

Yup.

sdsds · « **Reply #24 on:** 04/18/2011 08:44 pm »

In response to a question from Mark (?):

At some point you were planning for more than $280 million?

No.

No company was on the list that was left off due to a reduction of funds.

simonbp · « **Reply #25 on:** 04/18/2011 08:46 pm »

Quote from: Calorspace on 04/18/2011 08:42 pm

Can someone explain to me why Blue Origin receives funding? I was under the impression they were creating a sub orbital vehicle?

The money they got for CCDEV-1 was for an Atlas V-launched biconic orbital vehicle. Presumably this a continuation.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #26 on:** 04/18/2011 08:47 pm »

Quote from: simonbp on 04/18/2011 08:46 pm

Quote from: Calorspace on 04/18/2011 08:42 pm
Can someone explain to me why Blue Origin receives funding? I was under the impression they were creating a sub orbital vehicle?

The money they got for CCDEV-1 was for an Atlas V-launched biconic orbital vehicle. Presumably this a continuation.

I heard something about chambers and pumps for Blue Origin.

Hauerg · « **Reply #27 on:** 04/18/2011 08:47 pm »

Quote from: simonbp on 04/18/2011 08:46 pm

Quote from: Calorspace on 04/18/2011 08:42 pm
Can someone explain to me why Blue Origin receives funding? I was under the impression they were creating a sub orbital vehicle?

The money they got for CCDEV-1 was for an Atlas V-launched biconic orbital vehicle. Presumably this a continuation.

Yes, biconic shape was mentioned.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #28 on:** 04/18/2011 08:48 pm »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 08:47 pm

Quote from: simonbp on 04/18/2011 08:46 pm
Quote from: Calorspace on 04/18/2011 08:42 pm
Can someone explain to me why Blue Origin receives funding? I was under the impression they were creating a sub orbital vehicle?

The money they got for CCDEV-1 was for an Atlas V-launched biconic orbital vehicle. Presumably this a continuation.
I heard something about chambers and pumps for Blue Origin.

Pusher LAS was mentioned also.

sdsds · « **Reply #29 on:** 04/18/2011 08:50 pm »

Question from Berger.

Answer: Don't rank the recipients based on dollar amounts.

Next questioner:

Answer: After the feedback sessions are complete, we will post the deliberations in detail. In the next few weeks. 17 pages describing factors considered, importance, etc.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #30 on:** 04/18/2011 08:52 pm »

I agree that this seems like a pretty good portfolio for the funding given. Not that surprising (though who knows what's going on with Blue Origin).

simonbp · « **Reply #31 on:** 04/18/2011 08:52 pm »

Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 04/18/2011 08:48 pm

Pusher LAS was mentioned also.

So that's what, four vehicles in development with pusher liquid (or hybrid) LAS, and only one (Orion) with solid tractor LAS. Methinks MLAS was on to something...

Bernie Roehl · « **Reply #32 on:** 04/18/2011 08:54 pm »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 08:52 pm

I agree that this seems like a pretty good portfolio for the funding given. Not that surprising (though who knows what's going on with Blue Origin).

Yes, Blue Origin is the big surprise. Obviously there's information about what they're doing that hasn't been disclosed yet. Maybe they have an innovative capsule design, or their pusher LAS can be adapted to both Dragon and CST-100 (Dreamchaser doesn't need one, of course).

agman25 · « **Reply #33 on:** 04/18/2011 08:55 pm »

Quote from: simonbp on 04/18/2011 08:52 pm

Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 04/18/2011 08:48 pm
Pusher LAS was mentioned also.

So that's what, four vehicles in development with pusher liquid (or hybrid) LAS, and only one (Orion) with solid tractor LAS. Methinks MLAS was on to something...

Wasn't MLAS a tractor too. It pulled Orion.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #34 on:** 04/18/2011 08:55 pm »

Quote from: simonbp on 04/18/2011 08:52 pm

Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 04/18/2011 08:48 pm
Pusher LAS was mentioned also.

So that's what, four vehicles in development with pusher liquid (or hybrid) LAS, and only one (Orion) with solid tractor LAS. Methinks MLAS was on to something...

Yes, that's a pretty interesting example of convergent evolution... with Orion being the more conservative, historically-derived vehicle which is the exception.

Someone asking about Blue Origin now...

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #35 on:** 04/18/2011 08:56 pm »

Quote from: simonbp on 04/18/2011 08:52 pm

Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 04/18/2011 08:48 pm
Pusher LAS was mentioned also.

So that's what, four vehicles in development with pusher liquid (or hybrid) LAS, and only one (Orion) with solid tractor LAS. Methinks MLAS was on to something...

Wait, what? BO was the pusher, Space X is side mount, CST-100 is tractor and I have no idea what their doing with Dream Chaser.

yg1968 · « **Reply #36 on:** 04/18/2011 08:57 pm »

Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 04/18/2011 08:56 pm

Quote from: simonbp on 04/18/2011 08:52 pm
Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 04/18/2011 08:48 pm
Pusher LAS was mentioned also.

So that's what, four vehicles in development with pusher liquid (or hybrid) LAS, and only one (Orion) with solid tractor LAS. Methinks MLAS was on to something...

Wait, what? BO was the pusher, Space X is side mount, CST-100 is tractor and I have no idea what their doing with Dream Chaser.

CST-100 is also a pusher system.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #37 on:** 04/18/2011 08:57 pm »

Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 04/18/2011 08:56 pm

Quote from: simonbp on 04/18/2011 08:52 pm
Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 04/18/2011 08:48 pm
Pusher LAS was mentioned also.

So that's what, four vehicles in development with pusher liquid (or hybrid) LAS, and only one (Orion) with solid tractor LAS. Methinks MLAS was on to something...

Wait, what? BO was the pusher, Space X is side mount, CST-100 is tractor and I have no idea what their doing with Dream Chaser.

CST-100 is pusher. Dream Chaser is pusher. SpaceX is probably closer to pusher than tractor.

hektor · « **Reply #38 on:** 04/18/2011 08:57 pm »

Are you sure CST-100 is tractor

Hauerg · « **Reply #39 on:** 04/18/2011 08:57 pm »

Quote from: Bernie Roehl on 04/18/2011 08:54 pm

Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 08:52 pm
I agree that this seems like a pretty good portfolio for the funding given. Not that surprising (though who knows what's going on with Blue Origin).

Yes, Blue Origin is the big surprise. Obviously there's information about what they're doing that hasn't been disclosed yet. Maybe they have an innovative capsule design, or their pusher LAS can be adapted to both Dragon and CST-100 (Dreamchaser doesn't need one, of course).

I also have the feeling that Blue Origin is mainly for the LAS in the next year. Might be a nice backup and may explain the "low " amount awarded compared to the scope of the award.