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

[A_M_Swallow]

All major points:

-NASA envisions the need for CCDev 3 or 4.  Once round 2 is completed, and with Congressional approval it is possible to get started on a big commercial crew program
-NASA has not made a final determination regarding the acquisition strategy for commercial crew beyond CCDev 2
-NASA does not know yet if three crew flights a year is sufficient to meet International Space Station (ISS) requirements, or whether commercial companies can make a business case for it.
-NASA is releasing a Request for Proposal (RFP) or an Announcement for Proposal (AFP) for commercial crew services in late summer 2011 and will be choosing 4-6 companies for the first round of efforts.  RFP is for a contract and AFP is for Space Act Agreements. 

Edit:  I dont understand from the wording if CCDEV 3/4 will be the " big commercial crew program" or if it is separate.

guessing
COTS => CRS (Cargo Resupply Services)
so
CCDEV => {something like CCRS (Commercial Crew Resupply Services)}

[rcoppola]

So stepping back out of the minutia for a minute and looking big picture context:

Spacecraft: Dragon, CST-100, New Shepard, DreamChaser.

I don't think CCDev3 will continue development of all 4. There just won't be the money if they want to field 2 maybe 3 end to end systems in time to take over from Soyuz in the 2014-2015 timeframe.

LVs: Falcon 9 and Atlas V.

Neither LV has any padflow / infrastructure to accommodate crewed launches. Not a critical path element right now but not inexpensive either.

So I would say CCDev3  brings perhaps 2 of the 3 CVs including LVs on-line with CCDev4 for Demos / Infrastructure?

[yg1968]

So stepping back out of the minutia for a minute and looking big picture context:

Spacecraft: Dragon, CST-100, New Shepard, DreamChaser.

I don't think CCDev3 will continue development of all 4. There just won't be the money if they want to field 2 maybe 3 end to end systems in time to take over from Soyuz in the 2014-2015 timeframe.

LVs: Falcon 9 and Atlas V.

Neither LV has any padflow / infrastructure to accommodate crewed launches. Not a critical path element right now but not inexpensive either.

So I would say CCDev3  brings perhaps 2 of the 3 CVs including LVs on-line with CCDev4 for Demos / Infrastructure?

I think the infrastructure costs would be paid through the 21st century complex funding. NASA hasn't decided if there will be a CCDev-4 but if there is, I imagine that it would probably be a continuity of CCDev-3 (both end to end systems programs).

NASA says that it will possibly need 3 commercial crew launches per year. But I don't know if one NASA commercial crew launch per year for each company is enough to have a business case (assuming that there is 3 providers). I suspect that you will need to combine both crew with cargo transportation services to have a business case (e.g. a cargo Dragon and a crewed Dragon, etc.). The CCDev-2 Selection Statement mentions that Blue Origin is one of the few companies to focus on crew capability first and foremost (with cargo as a growth option).

NASA does not know yet if three crew flights a year is sufficient to meet International Space Station (ISS) requirements, or whether commercial companies can make a business case for it.

See page 5:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516609main_NACMInutes_Final_20110111.pdf

[A_M_Swallow]

NASA says that it will possibly need 3 commercial crew launches per year. But I don't know if one NASA commercial crew launch per year for each company is enough to have a business case (assuming that there is 3 providers).{snip}

For a commercial company making a business case for 1 launch a year is easy

Just set Price = Total_Cost + Profit

Now whether you can get NASA to pay that high a price is a different matter.

An additional launch for a non NASA customer would permit flexibility in the price charged to NASA.

[Downix]

So stepping back out of the minutia for a minute and looking big picture context:

Spacecraft: Dragon, CST-100, New Shepard, DreamChaser.

I don't think CCDev3 will continue development of all 4. There just won't be the money if they want to field 2 maybe 3 end to end systems in time to take over from Soyuz in the 2014-2015 timeframe.

LVs: Falcon 9 and Atlas V.

Neither LV has any padflow / infrastructure to accommodate crewed launches. Not a critical path element right now but not inexpensive either.

So I would say CCDev3  brings perhaps 2 of the 3 CVs including LVs on-line with CCDev4 for Demos / Infrastructure?

I think the infrastructure costs would be paid through the 21st century complex funding. NASA hasn't decided if there will be a CCDev-4 but if there is, I imagine that it would probably be a continuity of CCDev-3 (both end to end systems programs).

LC-39's design is incredibly flexible if arranged properly.  Make an MLP for each launcher to be used, roll it out when it's time to launch.  Incredibly flexible design, due to this capacity.  I figured out once that they could realistically store up to 7 MLP's, which means 7 possible launchers could be used.

[Robotbeat]

So stepping back out of the minutia for a minute and looking big picture context:

Spacecraft: Dragon, CST-100, New Shepard, DreamChaser.

I don't think CCDev3 will continue development of all 4. There just won't be the money if they want to field 2 maybe 3 end to end systems in time to take over from Soyuz in the 2014-2015 timeframe.

LVs: Falcon 9 and Atlas V.

Neither LV has any padflow / infrastructure to accommodate crewed launches. Not a critical path element right now but not inexpensive either.

So I would say CCDev3  brings perhaps 2 of the 3 CVs including LVs on-line with CCDev4 for Demos / Infrastructure?

I think the infrastructure costs would be paid through the 21st century complex funding. NASA hasn't decided if there will be a CCDev-4 but if there is, I imagine that it would probably be a continuity of CCDev-3 (both end to end systems programs).

LC-39's design is incredibly flexible if arranged properly.  Make an MLP for each launcher to be used, roll it out when it's time to launch.  Incredibly flexible design, due to this capacity.  I figured out once that they could realistically store up to 7 MLP's, which means 7 possible launchers could be used.

How much do MLPs cost, though?

[Ronsmytheiii]

So stepping back out of the minutia for a minute and looking big picture context:

Spacecraft: Dragon, CST-100, New Shepard, DreamChaser.

I don't think CCDev3 will continue development of all 4. There just won't be the money if they want to field 2 maybe 3 end to end systems in time to take over from Soyuz in the 2014-2015 timeframe.

LVs: Falcon 9 and Atlas V.

Neither LV has any padflow / infrastructure to accommodate crewed launches. Not a critical path element right now but not inexpensive either.

So I would say CCDev3  brings perhaps 2 of the 3 CVs including LVs on-line with CCDev4 for Demos / Infrastructure?

I think the infrastructure costs would be paid through the 21st century complex funding. NASA hasn't decided if there will be a CCDev-4 but if there is, I imagine that it would probably be a continuity of CCDev-3 (both end to end systems programs).

LC-39's design is incredibly flexible if arranged properly.  Make an MLP for each launcher to be used, roll it out when it's time to launch.  Incredibly flexible design, due to this capacity.  I figured out once that they could realistically store up to 7 MLP's, which means 7 possible launchers could be used.

How much do MLPs cost, though?

The contract includes anoption for an additional Ares I mobile launcher. It is a firm fixed-price contract with a value of $263,735,000, if all options are exercised.

Of course that was for the mega tall/heavy Ares I.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12996.msg276112#msg276112

[Ronsmytheiii]

I wonder if they could still use the Ares I ML, but assign a different launch mount for each vehicle.

[joek]

NASA does not know yet if three crew flights a year is sufficient to meet International Space Station (ISS) requirements, or whether commercial companies can make a business case for it.

That three crew flights per year kind of threw me... seems odd given the rotation schedule.  In any case, I doubt we'll see more than one (maybe two) US provider any time soon (would be great to have at least one!).  For commercial crew Boeing and SpaceX look to be the near term lower risk options (3-4 yrs).  SNC and BO appear to be more long term investments (5-6+ yrs).

IIRC someone from SNC was quoted as saying Dream Chaser needed ~$1B to compelete development.  CCDev can't provide a significant portion of that in the near term without putting the entire commercial crew program at risk.*  I doubt SNC is willing or able to make up the difference to make Dream Chaser available any time soon, but maybe NASA figures it's still worth helping along.  (Technical eval "white", business eval "green".)

In the NASA eval, they specifically noted and commended BO's long term outlook and conservative estimate of market growth.  I interpret that to mean that NASA considers BO's strategy potentially viable, but not something that's going to be available any time soon.  But like Dream Chaser, still worth nurturing.* (Technical eval "white", business eval "green".)

Also of note is the contrast in NASA's eval of Boeing and SpaceX.  Boeing got the only "blue" for technical; SpaceX got the only "blue" for business.  I interpret that to mean that SpaceX can close their business case with fewer CC launches/yr than Boeing.  The only way I can see that is economies of scale using a common LV and capsule for SpaceX that leverages COTS and commercial.

E.g., SpaceX gains LV economies because they're competitive in the commercial LV market, and they get capsule economies from COTS (and maybe others such as Bigelow); Boeing doesn't get LV economies because they're not competitive in the commercial LV space, but could gain capsule economies if there are other customers (e.g., Bigelow).  And as they're LV agnostic they potentially have more options.  Being LV agnostic would seem to be a significant benefit--so why didn't Boeing get a higher score on the business eval?)

Pure speculation, but if I was betting...

1. Boeing -- primary CC provider.  LV agnostic and lower technical risk good; but may be higher cost.
2. SpaceX -- secondary CC provider.  LV economies may reduce costs good; but higher technical risk.
-- That gives NASA two potential CC providers in the 2014-2016 time frame (I hope).  Depends on whether NASA wants to ensure 2 US providers and the actual number of CC launches/yr.  If only 1 provider is essential (e.g., Russia is backup), then IMO Boeing is the favorite.  If 2 providers is essential, then maybe a 2/1 Boeing/SpaceX split (with some form of subsidy to maintain 2 providers).
3. SNC -- Continue to fund through CCDev3-CCDevX with IOC 2017-2019?*
4. BO -- Continue to fund through CCDev3-CCDevX with IOC 2020-2022?*
-- And then maybe capsules are replaced as LEO crew taxi by SNC and BO.  Or something.


* Time might be shortened if CCDev (or whatever it's called in future years) is continued at nominal levels in out years and the balance goes to SNC, BO, or whoever.  While the FY2011 PBR shows a decrease of $100M/yr from FY2013 ($1.4B) to FY2015 ($1.2B), it's unclear how that is split between CCDev and contracted commercial crew (and AFAICT NASA hasn't figured it out and we'll have to wait until "late summer" to see what they're thinking).

[Jim]

For a commercial company making a business case for 1 launch a year is easy

Just set Price = Total_Cost + Profit

Now whether you can get NASA to pay that high a price is a different matter.

Huh?  That is nonsensical and shows a lack of knowledge

If customer cant afford the product, the business case doesn't close.

[yg1968]

One idea would be to not put any test flights in CCDev-3 and put all of the commercial crew test flights in CCDev-4 (assuming that there is a CCCDev-4). The advantage of doing this is that it allows NASA to adjust the price of the test flights if necessary. IMO, NASA should pay close to market rates for the test flights.

The other advantage of doing it this way is that it allows CCDev-3 to use funds authorized for commercial crew for FY2012 and FY2013 in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill ($500M for each year) and CCDev-4 would use funds for FY2014 and beyond in a new authorization bill (which should be more than $500M per year according to Senator Nelson).

[mr. mark]

"And then maybe capsules are replaced as LEO crew taxi by SNC and BO.  Or something".

So replace a capsule such as Dragon that can make a pinpoint thruster landing on a helipad and could possible land on the moon with a glider that requires runways. Doesn't sound like progress to me.

[Bernie Roehl]

"And then maybe capsules are replaced as LEO crew taxi by SNC and BO.  Or something".

So replace a capsule such as Dragon that can make a pinpoint thruster landing on a helipad and could possible land on the moon with a glider that requires runways. Doesn't sound like progress to me.

I'm a big fan of SpaceX (well, actually I'm a fan of actual competition in the industry), and the Dragon looks like a great spacecraft, but there are advantages to both capsules and lifting bodies.  Having both sound good to me.

[Namechange User]

"And then maybe capsules are replaced as LEO crew taxi by SNC and BO.  Or something".

So replace a capsule such as Dragon that can make a pinpoint thruster landing on a helipad and could possible land on the moon with a glider that requires runways. Doesn't sound like progress to me.

Dragon cannot "make a pinpoint thruster landing on a helipad" but instead is a possible future upgrade nor is it possible yet for Dragon to land on the moon, and in fact, I've never personally even heard this discussed in any real way.

It appears to me anyway that you are just, again, trying to speak negatively of anything else, with zero data/insight/engineering judgement and substituting it for all-things-SpaceX.  It becomes tiresome.

[mr. mark]

Once again, I'm not allowed to have an opinion oh well....

[Namechange User]

Once again, I'm not allowed to have an opinion oh well....

In my opinion, you can certainly have an opinion.  However, I think there is a differnce between an opinion and just water-carrying.  This site is about more than just amazing people cheerleading. 

[mr. mark]

"Furthermore, the integrated escape system returns with the spacecraft, allowing for easy reuse and radical reductions in the cost of space transport. Over time, the same escape thrusters will also provide the capability for Dragon to land almost anywhere on Earth or another planet with pinpoint accuracy, overcoming the limitation of a winged architecture that works only in Earth’s atmosphere."

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20110419

Ok, I just backed it up. Not opinion but stated from Spacex's own website. Clearly it's not just my opinion but Spacex's as well.

[Namechange User]

"Furthermore, the integrated escape system returns with the spacecraft, allowing for easy reuse and radical reductions in the cost of space transport. Over time, the same escape thrusters will also provide the capability for Dragon to land almost anywhere on Earth or another planet with pinpoint accuracy, overcoming the limitation of a winged architecture that works only in Earth’s atmosphere."

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20110419

Ok, I just backed it up. Not opinion but stated from Spacex's own website. Clearly it's not just my opinion but Spacex's as well.

Key words:  "over time" or "another planet".  That is different than stating that landing ability exists now, which you implied.  "Another planet" is also, at this point, just fluff.  Personally, I have never heard of someone seriously suggesting a winged-lander on the moon, Mars, etc that was designed for Earth's atmosphere.  But that just me, what do I know.  Clearly the SpaceX public website is THE SOURCE for all information and can be used as a valid resource to discredit all others. 

[mr. mark]

Not offense, with that logic we have to discount just about every device that has not flown as incomplete and not worth our time that would include the up coming Mars rover and the Taurus 2 and Cygnus as well as others. You can't say that about Spacex and not include everything else that has not flown upcoming missions or technology.

[Namechange User]

Not offense, with that logic we have to discount just about every device that has not flown as incomplete and not worth our time that would include the up coming Mars rover and the Taurus 2 and Cygnus as well as others. You can't say that about Spacex and not include everything else that has not flown upcoming missions or technology.

Come on.  Seriously?  You can't say one thing about anything without basically envoking "SpaceX is better" based on nothing but amazing people-extremism.  You are the one running around proclaiming the "era of the runway" is dead.  Based on what?  What makes you so confident?  That SpaceX says "in time" (after all you pointed that out) they'd like to do propulsive landing. 

I'm not doing this any further.  My point is clear (or should be to some) by now.