CCDev/CCP updates

[manboy]

Which launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use?

Also are they planning to use the NDS or a Russian docking port?

If its a Commercial Crew vehicle than its required to use NDS.

[erioladastra]

New Promo video:

http://go.nasa.gov/AxyX5W

[go4mars]

New Promo video:

http://go.nasa.gov/AxyX5W

That was well done imo!

[Danderman]

Which launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use?

 

I guess they do have to baseline something, so its probably a Falcon.

[Robotbeat]

Which launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use?

 

I guess they do have to baseline something, so its probably a Falcon.

I'd lean toward expecting them to baseline Atlas V, actually.

[beancounter]

Which launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use?

 

I guess they do have to baseline something, so its probably a Falcon.

I'd lean toward expecting them to baseline Atlas V, actually.

Depends on the timeline I expect.  Should Falcon get a number (say 6) successive successful flights then they'd probably be in the running as a serious contender.  Should they strike trouble then they'd be out.   So far I'd say they're 2 for 2.  I'd say it's reasonably safe to include these 'test' flights since they were successful. 
Guess someone will say I can't have it both ways however why not?  If one's successful then it could be luck.  Two then a greater probability that it's less luck, and more good design, engineering and management.  So the longer the run of success, the better.  Six probably means they've got most critical things right and it'll be some process or mgt hitch that brings them undone. 

[Lurker Steve]

Which launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use?

 

I guess they do have to baseline something, so its probably a Falcon.

I'd lean toward expecting them to baseline Atlas V, actually.

This is an update of a Russian vehicle design, being developed on the Isle of Man, right ? Why would they choose a US Launch vehicle, ? I'm betting on them using a Russian rocket.

[Jim]

Why would they choose a US Launch vehicle, ?

Because they are vying for a CCP contract.  That is the topic of this thread, for which there would be no discussion of Excalibur Almaz if they were not using a US launch vehicle.

[mmeijeri]

Because they are vying for a CCP contract.  That is the topic of this thread, for which there would be no discussion of Excalibur Almaz if they were not using a US launch vehicle.

Would a US spacecraft on top of a non-US launcher be allowed? I know that doesn't apply in this case, but I'm wondering if there's a preference for the launch vehicle to be US-based rather than the spacecraft.

[Lars_J]

Excalibur Almaz is such an extreme long shot, so I'm not sure what point there is for them to 'pick' a LV.

They are not going to fly anyway. IMO.

[yg1968]

Here is a couple of interesting points that were made in the recent Questions and Answers for CCiCap:

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/149848-OTHER-001-001.pdf
http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/149848-OTHER-002-001.pdf

[Question] 36. To what extent will NASA enable the emergence/sustenance of a commercial market by allowing non-NASA (i.e. private citizen) visitation to the ISS-US element? (e.g. emulate the Russian’s position with commercial flyers aboard Soyuz taxi flights?

Answer: The current NASA crew transportation plans do not allow for commercial spaceflight participants to visit the International Space Station. NASA is focused on working with its international partners to support the Expedition crews on orbit and to maximize the science and research activities aboard the Station. Even though NASA’s current plans do not allow for commercial spaceflight participant transportation to the International Space Station, NASA is investigating the regulations and requirements that would apply if commercial spaceflight participants were to visit the International Space Station.

[Question] 37. In the budget brief yesterday, the NASA administration stated that the next phase would be a full and open competition (in approximately 21 months). Is this consistent with your plans for the option period and transition in to the services period?

Answer: The certification phase, anticipated to begin in 21 months is a notional contractual activity independent from the CCiCap SAA. NASA anticipates this certification activity to be a full and open competition. NASA is aware that this certification activity may overlap with the CCiCap option period.

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=38

[yg1968]

Here is the Feb. 14th 2012 CCiCap presentation to industry converted to PDF:

[BeanEstimator]

Here is the Feb. 14th 2012 CCiCap presentation to industry converted to PDF:

page 9:  Base Period: To be accomplished prior to May 31, 2014 with
funding ranging from $300M-$500M per award, with multiple
awards

page 12:  CCiCap awards anticipate funding in FY13 and FY14

In other words, this whole thing falls apart without the $800M in FY13 AND FY14.

So, proposals due this month, expected award in late summer this year.

Election year politics and history tells us a CR is very likely for FY13.  Which means they can def plan on having less than their request. 

And when you tack on the perceived low likelihood of getting the requested $800M anyway, you're basically telling us this plan is bogus. 

Got it.  Message received loud and clear.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Here is the Feb. 14th 2012 CCiCap presentation to industry converted to PDF:

page 9:  Base Period: To be accomplished prior to May 31, 2014 with
funding ranging from $300M-$500M per award, with multiple
awards

page 12:  CCiCap awards anticipate funding in FY13 and FY14

In other words, this whole thing falls apart without the $800M in FY13 AND FY14.

So, proposals due this month, expected award in late summer this year.

Election year politics and history tells us a CR is very likely for FY13.  Which means they can def plan on having less than their request. 

And when you tack on the perceived low likelihood of getting the requested $800M anyway, you're basically telling us this plan is bogus. 

Got it.  Message received loud and clear.

If 2 providers are selected at a total of $500M each spread over two years means that FY2013 and FY2014 must have CCP funded at $500M+ per year. But even if it has a funding of $400M each year it can still proceed with 2 providers. At $850M each year (2013 & 2014), 3 to 4 providers are possible for this phase.

So funding at $400M per year is still not the end of the world just an early down select to 2 providers.

Edit:typo

[A_M_Swallow]

If 2 providers are selected at a total of $500M each spread over two years means that FY2013 and FY2014 must have CCP funded at $500M+ per year. But even if it has a funding of $400M each year it can still proceed with 2 providers. At $850M each year (2013 & 2014), 3 to 4 providers are possible for this phase.

So funding at $400M per year is still not the end of the world just an early down select to 2 providers.

The Commercial Crew Program (CCP) is now easy to understand politically.  It is a beauty contest.  Which states get the money?

Also depending on the size of the budget Congress allocates will it be 2 states or 4?

Using the information from http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/626566main_2012.02.28_CCP.pdf

Under a future contract Florida will probably launch the rockets.  Under CCP NASA needs to pay for the development of both launch vehicles and spacecraft.  Where will they be made?

Listing the state containing the company's head office.

Alliant Techsystems Inc (ATK) - Promontory, UT
Blue Origin - Kent, WA
Excalibur Almaz Inc. - Houston, TX
Sierra Nevada Corp. - Centennial, CO
Space Exploration Tech. (SpaceX) - Hawthorne, CA
The Boeing Co. - Houston, TX
United launch Alliance - Englewood, CO

On this page is a NASA video parading the beauties.
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/index.html

[BeanEstimator]

Here is the Feb. 14th 2012 CCiCap presentation to industry converted to PDF:

page 9:  Base Period: To be accomplished prior to May 31, 2014 with
funding ranging from $300M-$500M per award, with multiple
awards

page 12:  CCiCap awards anticipate funding in FY13 and FY14

In other words, this whole thing falls apart without the $800M in FY13 AND FY14.

So, proposals due this month, expected award in late summer this year.

Election year politics and history tells us a CR is very likely for FY13.  Which means they can def plan on having less than their request. 

And when you tack on the perceived low likelihood of getting the requested $800M anyway, you're basically telling us this plan is bogus. 

Got it.  Message received loud and clear.

If 2 providers are selected at a total of $500M each spread over two years means that FY2013 and FY2014 must have CCP funded at $500M+ per year. But even if it has a funding of $400M each year it can still proceed with 2 providers. At $850M each year (2013 & 2014), 3 to 4 providers are possible for this phase.

So funding at $400M per year is still not the end of the world just an early down select to 2 providers.

Edit:typo

nasa wants to make multiple 300-500M awards.  talking base period here, not even messing with their optional 400m/yr.

can't do that with reduced funding.  you're looking at changing the schedule(s) for the providers, the milestones themselves, the number of providers, number of awards, etc.  (i guess you can throw acq method in there as well, although i imagine that will outgrow its usefulness in the near future)

if it was as you say, then you wouldn't have program and agency reps indicating otherwise.

they are playing chicken with congress over the funding.  "give us the money, or else".  so much so that they are publishing the plan, and the plan only works as it should with the 800m funding in 13 AND 14.  (which is my point, its no longer about just 13 funding, its 13 AND 14)

“If we only get 300 to 400 (million dollars) a year, I would say it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to do this program,” McAlister said. “If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program.”

this is probably the reason why we/nasa are asking for a prioritized list of milestones and associated funding from the providers in their CCiCap proposals:

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/149848-OTHER-001-001.pdf

see questions 6 and 17.  heck it even states there, "should the amount be less than proposed...".  that's their attempt to hedge against reduced funding - get a prioritized list from the competitors, so the agency can try to deal with reduced funding.

“Just one test fight is going to be a couple of hundred million dollars, probably. So that’s your whole year’s funding, right? So it doesn’t really make sense at that kind of funding level. If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program,” he said.

[QuantumG]

They're saying $300-$400M per award over two years. So $150-$200M/yr per award. Clearly they only need ~$500M/yr for two providers - counting the money that goes to the bureaucrats to run the program (because for some reason they need millions of dollars per year to do oversight).

[Jim]

- counting the money that goes to the bureaucrats to run the program (because for some reason they need millions of dollars per year to do oversight).

And how much is that, since you seem to know?
Also, do you know how the program is setup and how many "bureaucrats' are in it, if any?

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
So, proposals due this month, expected award in late summer this year.

Election year politics and history tells us a CR is very likely for FY13.  Which means they can def plan on having less than their request. 

That NASA is going to be living on CRs this year I believe.  However CRs may not be the only source of money.

The combination of high levels of unemployment and a presidential election may result in the US Government deciding that a stimulus package is needed.  The previous one gave CCDev $50 million.  CCiCap has several 'shovel ready' spacecraft development projects.  Plenty of new high tech jobs in towns all over the USA.  Even the possibility of exports.

[yg1968]

CCiCap also inludes most of the FY2012 funding.