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

[Ronsmytheiii]

It seems less likely, especially given ATP for some form of SLS, that it would be worth rebuilding LC-39B and the MLP just for crewed Atlas V 402, but it's still (as far as we know) a publicly-possible CONOPS.

Well remember a couple of things:

1) Kennedy is already undergoing a conversion to the "21st century spaceport" vision, so would better to actually use all of that new stuff.
2) While the modifications at LC-41 would be less, they would still possibly interfere with Atlas V launches, and that might not sit well with DoD or be a nightmare for any construction crews.
3) VAB is already going to lift/mate/checkout Orion on SLS, so having Crewed Atlas V will share the infrastructure, so hopefully the cost will go down for both (not as much if they were derivatives, but still some)

So yes LC-41 is probably the cheaper option, but the question is how much do these factors have on the decision process.

[Antares]

Almost certainly a crewed Atlas V from LC-41 would have a second VIF and MLP built.  DoD wouldn't have it any other way.

[simonbp]

Almost certainly a crewed Atlas V from LC-41 would have a second VIF and MLP built.  DoD wouldn't have it any other way.

At that point, why are you still using 41?

[alexw]

Almost certainly a crewed Atlas V from LC-41 would have a second VIF and MLP built.  DoD wouldn't have it any other way.

At that point, why are you still using 41?

    Because it's the cheapest option, per ULA's own analysis (VIF2 or SMARF + MLP2, vs. LC-37A, vs. LC-39) [PATD2010].

    -Alex

[Patchouli]

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.

   IIRC, it was posted a little while back (Ross?) that the loads analysis conclusion was that the Ares I MLP could be reused for Atlas (or Delta?), but not the Heavies.

   It seems less likely, especially given ATP for some form of SLS, that it would be worth rebuilding LC-39B and the MLP just for crewed Atlas V 402, but it's still (as far as we know) a publicly-possible CONOPS.

     -Alex

Yeah, I remember asking one of the actual ML guys about other vehicles. Liberty would have been the only one that could use that launch mount, and for EELVs etc as they've had to scrap the whole mount and build a new one - to the point it might be viable just starting over, based on costs involved. Might as well send the Ares ML to Disney.....at least you could still slap the Rollercoaster EES on it and charge 5 bucks a shout

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/11/nasa-will-build-rollercoaster-for-ares-i-escape/

I'd assume that also means SLS is not simple either, but at least they can start with the near nominal Pad 39A to start with and worry about the deal for 39B later.

Why not redo 39B like Vandenberg as far as support structure goes?
Maybe go farther keep the clean pad and have multiple launch platforms for SLS,Atlas,Delta,and F9.

[Downix]

Almost certainly a crewed Atlas V from LC-41 would have a second VIF and MLP built.  DoD wouldn't have it any other way.

At that point, why are you still using 41?

    Because it's the cheapest option, per ULA's own analysis (VIF2 or SMARF + MLP2, vs. LC-37A, vs. LC-39) [PATD2010].

    -Alex

Not true.  ULA's analysis had LC-39 as the cheapest option after using LC-41 as/is.  Followed by using LC-37, building LC-37A *then* building another pad at LC-41.

[Downix]

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.

   IIRC, it was posted a little while back (Ross?) that the loads analysis conclusion was that the Ares I MLP could be reused for Atlas (or Delta?), but not the Heavies.

   It seems less likely, especially given ATP for some form of SLS, that it would be worth rebuilding LC-39B and the MLP just for crewed Atlas V 402, but it's still (as far as we know) a publicly-possible CONOPS.

     -Alex

Yeah, I remember asking one of the actual ML guys about other vehicles. Liberty would have been the only one that could use that launch mount, and for EELVs etc as they've had to scrap the whole mount and build a new one - to the point it might be viable just starting over, based on costs involved. Might as well send the Ares ML to Disney.....at least you could still slap the Rollercoaster EES on it and charge 5 bucks a shout

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/11/nasa-will-build-rollercoaster-for-ares-i-escape/

I'd assume that also means SLS is not simple either, but at least they can start with the near nominal Pad 39A to start with and worry about the deal for 39B later.

Why not redo 39B like Vandenberg as far as support structure goes?
Maybe go farther keep the clean pad and have multiple launch platforms for SLS,Atlas,Delta,and F9.

That's what AJAX would do with it, clean pad with everything into the platforms to support multiple launchers.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Because it's the cheapest option, per ULA's own analysis (VIF2 or SMARF + MLP2, vs. LC-37A, vs. LC-39) [PATD2010].

Again though, ultimately it is up to NASA/DoD where the commercial crew launches from, as they send the checks.

[vt_hokie]

So, to me the big question is what happens after ISS?  Even under a best case scenario, these new craft will have only 4 or 5 years of operation prior to the 2020 ISS retirement date.  Maybe ISS will be extended a bit (or maybe it won't even make it to 2020) but in any case, I have to wonder what comes next, and what happens if the brief overlap between commercial crew inauguration and ISS retirement disappears due to CCDev delays or ISS failure. 

[alexw]

    Because it's the cheapest option, per ULA's own analysis (VIF2 or SMARF + MLP2, vs. LC-37A, vs. LC-39) [PATD2010].

Not true.  ULA's analysis had LC-39 as the cheapest option after using LC-41 as/is.  Followed by using LC-37, building LC-37A *then* building another pad at LC-41.

     That's not what the paper seems to suggest, but perhaps you have more recent information? Clearly you've been studying additional documentation on cost structures for AJAX.
      You're right of course that just using LC-41 (or LC-37B in the case of Delta) would be cheaper, but I am assuming for the sake of argument that the DOD may nix that.
     

Again though, ultimately it is up to NASA/DoD where the commercial crew launches from, as they send the checks.

     Yup. Or, rather, since they send the *first* cheques -- we all hope that a growing commercial market would make NASA just one buyer of commercial crew among many.

   It's interesting that an initial read of CCDEV2 suggests that NASA is so unconcerned about Atlas V's viability as a crew launcher that they chose not to fund any further risk-reduction proposal. (Similarly, for Paragon?) That's reinforced by not funding Liberty despite judging it technically reasonable; A-V and F-9 are enough.

    They did comment that Prometheus would call for a bigger A-V, which (paraphrasing) "would limit growth potential".  Does that suggest that Prometheus wanted AV422 or 432?

   -Alex

[Robotbeat]

Most of the launch pad options being bandied about here seem to treat cost as if it is almost no object. How much would they cost? Many of these sound incredibly expensive, not just for initial construction but for sustainment, too. If we don't want to kill the future commercial crew (non-NASA) market entirely, the most inexpensive and sustainable option(s) must be chosen, not the coolest or the one that uses our own favorite launch pad.

[robertross]

So, to me the big question is what happens after ISS?  Even under a best case scenario, these new craft will have only 4 or 5 years of operation prior to the 2020 ISS retirement date.  Maybe ISS will be extended a bit (or maybe it won't even make it to 2020) but in any case, I have to wonder what comes next, and what happens if the brief overlap between commercial crew inauguration and ISS retirement disappears due to CCDev delays or ISS failure. 

They are toying with a 2028 date, so that changes the prospectus a bit.

[Bernie Roehl]

So, to me the big question is what happens after ISS?  Even under a best case scenario, these new craft will have only 4 or 5 years of operation prior to the 2020 ISS retirement date.

The ISS is a modular design, so it could (theoretically) have entire elements replaced over time.

You could replace the life support systems (probably with Paragon's), do orbital reboost (possibly using VASIMR engines), add on or replace modules using inflatables, and replace/augment the solar arrays with much smaller and more powerful ones.

I suspect ISS will still be around after 2020, possibly for another 5 years or more.  I also seem to remember that the Russians were interested in taking it over if the US wasn't willing/able to continue supporting it.

And even if the ISS is retired in 2020 as scheduled, by then we're likely to have at least one private station in orbit.  The most likely candidate is probably a BA-330.

[apace]

Is there any information, Why United Space Alliance has withdrawn their offer end of March?

[Jim]

The ISS is a modular design, so it could (theoretically) have entire elements replaced over time.

You could replace the life support systems (probably with Paragon's), do orbital reboost (possibly using VASIMR engines), add on or replace modules using inflatables, and replace/augment the solar arrays with much smaller and more powerful ones.
ly a BA-330.

Not true.  The core modules (Nodes 1&2, Lab and most of the truss)  can not be removed without disrupting the ISS.

[AnalogMan]

Is there any information, Why United Space Alliance has withdrawn their offer end of March?

According to the Selection Statement issued by NASA:

"United Space Alliance, LLC submitted a proposal that did not fall within the scope or intent of the CCDev 2 effort to advance orbital commercial CTS concepts and mature the design and development of elements of a system such as launch vehicles or spacecraft during the CCDev 2 timeframe, and withdrew its proposal on March 28, 2011."

This rejection was after the initial screening of proposals but before the detailed assessments and due-diligence follow-ups.

http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/SelectionStatement-Final_Signed.pdf

[Space Pete]

Here's my article on it all:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/04/four-companies-win-nasas-ccdev-2-awards

Great article, Chris!

I absolutely loved this:

"With an appearance of a baby shuttle orbiter, the Dream Chaser..."

[yg1968]

Here's my article on it all:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/04/four-companies-win-nasas-ccdev-2-awards/

More rounds will follow, with one managerial memo speaking of the build-up towards CCDEV-3.

One thing that I am still confused about is whether CCDev-3 will be a one year program or a multiple years program. I had assumed that it would be for multiple years but now I am not so sure.

Another question I had was whether any of the optional milestones in the CCDev-2 space act agreements were picked up by NASA. I believe that none of the optional milestones were picked up but it's not entirely clear when reading the space act agreements.

[Jason1701]

One thing that I am still confused about is whether CCDev-3 will be a one year program or a multiple years program. I had assumed that it would be for multiple years but now I am not so sure.

In the teleconference it sounded like the NASA people hadn't decided yet. I'm sure the level of available funding will affect the decision.

[Jim]

Another question I had was whether any of the optional milestones in the CCDev-2 space act agreements were picked up by NASA. I believe that none of the optional milestones were picked up but it's not entirely clear when reading the space act agreements.

They can be picked up later, if NASA so desires.