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

[Jim]

"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.

It is not "backed up".  It is only another opinion.
Seriously, back down the fanbio cheerleading

[kch]

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)}

Always amused by NASA's penchant for "overloading" existing acronyms:

COTS - originally Commercial Off-The-Shelf
CRS - originally Can't Remember "Stuff"

In the same (acronym-repurposing) vein, perhaps CCDev could become the Commercial Crew-Carrying Project (deriving the acronym is "left as an exercise for the reader")?

[mr. mark]

I personally find nothing wrong with stating an opinion based on what a space corporation website says. I am not a Spacex amazing people. It's you, OV-106, who have labeled me that. I personally hope that Orbital's plans work out as well. What i am is not a fan of winged spaceflight. Being rasied in the pre shuttle era, I have always felt that winged vehicles are not the way to go. Of course we are still in the shuttle era and hopefully, that will change eventually with BEO applications. 

[vt_hokie]

Regarding pinpoint propulsive landings, I'll just say words are cheap, and execution means infinitely more.
 
That's actually how I feel about this whole CCDev strategy - it's lunacy to scrap our only existing human spaceflight capability when this program is in its infancy, with so much uncertainty. History would suggest not to believe current optimistic schedule or cost projections, and to be prepared for actual results to fall short of current promises.

[Rocket Science]

This discussion reminds me a bit of when the first helicopters came out and that the era of the airplane was over. Each has its own unique capabilities with some crossover. Ultimately it will be laws of physics and economics that will prevail.

[HIP2BSQRE]

Regarding pinpoint propulsive landings, I'll just say words are cheap, and execution means infinitely more.
 
That's actually how I feel about this whole CCDev strategy - it's lunacy to scrap our only existing human spaceflight capability when this program is in its infancy, with so much uncertainty. History would suggest not to believe current optimistic schedule or cost projections, and to be prepared for actual results to fall short of current promises.

I agree..but what would you do if you were NASA with a finite budget??

[Namechange User]

Regarding pinpoint propulsive landings, I'll just say words are cheap, and execution means infinitely more.
 
That's actually how I feel about this whole CCDev strategy - it's lunacy to scrap our only existing human spaceflight capability when this program is in its infancy, with so much uncertainty. History would suggest not to believe current optimistic schedule or cost projections, and to be prepared for actual results to fall short of current promises.

I agree..but what would you do if you were NASA with a finite budget??

Evaluate on a technical basis with an eye to securing the short-term in order to protect and promote the longer-term.  Not just throw a hail mary and hope and assume it will be great. 

[pathfinder_01]

Regarding pinpoint propulsive landings, I'll just say words are cheap, and execution means infinitely more.
 
That's actually how I feel about this whole CCDev strategy - it's lunacy to scrap our only existing human spaceflight capability when this program is in its infancy, with so much uncertainty. History would suggest not to believe current optimistic schedule or cost projections, and to be prepared for actual results to fall short of current promises.

The issue was that CXP was running late and the shuttle shutdown is running on time. CXP Orion was going to be both late and very costly. By 2008 saving the shuttle was not a good idea(it would have required more than a regular budget becuase some contracts and contracters would have needed to be restarted.). Commercail imho is the only sensible option that didn't need a huge NASA budget increase nor a major amount of time to fund. 

[vt_hokie]

It didn't need a huge NASA budget increase according to projections which may or may not prove to be realistic. We shall see...

[Namechange User]

Regarding pinpoint propulsive landings, I'll just say words are cheap, and execution means infinitely more.
 
That's actually how I feel about this whole CCDev strategy - it's lunacy to scrap our only existing human spaceflight capability when this program is in its infancy, with so much uncertainty. History would suggest not to believe current optimistic schedule or cost projections, and to be prepared for actual results to fall short of current promises.

By 2008 saving the shuttle was not a good idea(it would have required more than a regular budget becuase some contracts and contracters would have needed to be restarted.). Commercail imho is the only sensible option that didn't need a huge NASA budget increase nor a major amount of time to fund. 

Commercial is fine and it makes sense.  However, don't try to over-sell it by stating misconceptions and attempting to spread disinformation because that is what you would like to believe. 

[butters]

Regarding pinpoint propulsive landings, I'll just say words are cheap, and execution means infinitely more.
 
That's actually how I feel about this whole CCDev strategy - it's lunacy to scrap our only existing human spaceflight capability when this program is in its infancy, with so much uncertainty. History would suggest not to believe current optimistic schedule or cost projections, and to be prepared for actual results to fall short of current promises.

I agree..but what would you do if you were NASA with a finite budget??

Evaluate on a technical basis with an eye to securing the short-term in order to protect and promote the longer-term.  Not just throw a hail mary and hope and assume it will be great. 

That's great, but we've been securing the short term for 30 years, and over the past 25 years, it's become increasingly clear to many observers that we were sacrificing and even jeopardizing the long term by doing so. NASA can't just secure the short term and hope that the long term works out okay.

[Namechange User]

That makes no sense. 

[vt_hokie]

Let's just hope this program turns out better than "safe, simple, soon" Constellation and every prior attempt at replacing the shuttle, because this time the ISS depends on it!

[Robotbeat]

Let's just hope this program turns out better than "safe, simple, soon" Constellation and every prior attempt at replacing the shuttle, because this time the ISS depends on it!

Luckily, this time it doesn't depend on a new launch vehicle development. Every other time assumed new launch vehicle development, with the notable exception of the so-called Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program, which actually I think both Boeing's CST-100 and Lockheed Martin's Orion are at least partially descended from (before Orion got partially screwed up from the new launch vehicle requirements).

http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
Akin's Law #39:
The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:
       1)  No new launch vehicles.
       2)  No new launch vehicles.
       3)  Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles.

[A_M_Swallow]

Let's just hope this program turns out better than "safe, simple, soon" Constellation and every prior attempt at replacing the shuttle, because this time the ISS depends on it!

Luckily, this time it doesn't depend on a new launch vehicle development. Every other time assumed new launch vehicle development, with the notable exception of the so-called Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program, which actually I think both Boeing's CST-100 and Lockheed Martin's Orion are at least partially descended from (before Orion got partially screwed up from the new launch vehicle requirements).

http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
Akin's Law #39:
The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:
       1)  No new launch vehicles.
       2)  No new launch vehicles.
       3)  Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles.

The Falcon Heavy is a new launch vehicle.
The modification needed to man rate the EELV and add a LAS may be the equivalent of developing a new launch vehicle.

My suggestion:  Run the payload and LV upgrade programmes in parallel.  Have a backup plan to launch everything in 24 tonne payloads without a LAS.

[ugordan]

Luckily, this time it doesn't depend on a new launch vehicle development. Every other time assumed new launch vehicle development, with the notable exception of the so-called Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program, which actually I think both Boeing's CST-100 and Lockheed Martin's Orion are at least partially descended from (before Orion got partially screwed up from the new launch vehicle requirements).

http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
Akin's Law #39:
The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:
       1)  No new launch vehicles.
       2)  No new launch vehicles.
       3)  Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles.

The Falcon Heavy is a new launch vehicle.

What's that got to do with CCDev 2?

The modification needed to man rate the EELV and add a LAS may be the equivalent of developing a new launch vehicle.

Based on what?

[Downix]

The modification needed to man rate the EELV and add a LAS may be the equivalent of developing a new launch vehicle.

The costs to man-rate the two different EELV's and the LAS is already known.  For Delta IV, the cost is approx $1.5 billion.  For Atlas, $400 mil for the new MLP and launch pad refurbishments at LC-39 to launch from.  LAS for Orion is already paid for, and has been tested once already.

[A_M_Swallow]

Luckily, this time it doesn't depend on a new launch vehicle development. Every other time assumed new launch vehicle development, with the notable exception of the so-called Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program, which actually I think both Boeing's CST-100 and Lockheed Martin's Orion are at least partially descended from (before Orion got partially screwed up from the new launch vehicle requirements).

http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
Akin's Law #39:
The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:
       1)  No new launch vehicles.
       2)  No new launch vehicles.
       3)  Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles.

The Falcon Heavy is a new launch vehicle.

What's that got to do with CCDev 2?

The thread has moved onto manned space program using CCDev-2.  The Falcon Heavy is one of the few launch vehicles that will have sufficient delta-V to get the manned CCDEV-2 spacecraft to low lunar orbit or Lagrange Points.

The modification needed to man rate the EELV and add a LAS may be the equivalent of developing a new launch vehicle.

Based on what?

On the worldly wise rule if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck that it is a duck.

This man rating task requires rocket engineers to develop new machines that shoot exhaust out the back.

[Jim]

LAS is not part of the launch vehicle.

CCDev has nothing to with beyond LEO

stop with these foolish posts

[Nomadd]

LAS is not part of the launch vehicle.

CCDev has nothing to with beyond LEO

stop with these foolish posts

 Everybody knows the LAS isn't part of the launch vehicle. What are you talking about?
 Saying CCDev has nothing to do with BEO is like saying that getting a child to walk has nothing to do with him running.