CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[rcoppola]

For all practical purposes there are two viable companies - Boeing and SpaceX (sorry, but that is the reality in level of maturity). 

IF Sierra Nevada follows through on the orbital test flight of the OTV-1 currently under construction, it's hard to say that SNC isn't equally viable.

And considering that both SpaceX and Boeing offer capsules, and Sierra Nevada is offering a runway-landing spacecraft, I'd say that NASA - if it was possible - would really like the Dream Chaser to be one of the available choices.

No doubt SNC would need the most of amount of time and money, but I would not be surprised if NASA were to do a 1.5 down-select that Dream Chaser would be the "0.5".

I agree. I believe SpaceX gets the majority of funds to possibly accelerate their program and SNC gets what's left to continue and be available a bit later. After all, we have not seen the SNC proposal. Although they need to retire the most risk with reentry and abort among others, depending on how they have designed for efficient post flight turn-around and re-use, the economics, post development, may be highly desirable.

[rcoppola]

I don't think any of the competitors would object to a down-select to two providers, as long as they are one of the two.

IMO, A down-select to 1 (or 1.5) seems very counter-intuitive at this point. Narrow the field to 2 instead, to allow the maximum probability of success.

Ha, agreed WRT first part.

As for 1.5, that's more of a funding profile concept. You're still selecting 2 but since they are different systems with different lead times to market, it's reasonable to accelerate at least one system to maturity with funds available and at least keep your second selector moving forward to operationally compete a little thereafter.

Reality is there are 2 phases of competition. Phase 1 is to get selected. NASA has the information they need for that selection. Phase 2 is operations. Who's operating efficiently, maintaining cost profiles, delivering on their promised vehicle - mission capabilities.

[erioladastra]

For all practical purposes there are two viable companies - Boeing and SpaceX (sorry, but that is the reality in level of maturity). 

IF Sierra Nevada follows through on the orbital test flight of the OTV-1 currently under construction, it's hard to say that SNC isn't equally viable.

IF won't help them for tCAP and it is likely they will just fall further behind.

[erioladastra]

First,  I think you would be surprised but I suspect all the companies would prefer a down select.  Maybe SpaceX because they are going regardless so some money may be better.  These companies know there is not enough money so that more than one company just means less money, longer time, etc. [...]

In my opinion, astronauts shouldn't be allowed to offer suggestions for improvements under CCtCap. Each companies has already hired astronauts that are directly involved in their respective programs.

It is called the Joint Test Team in tCAP.  it WILL happen,

[sdsds]

It would be really helpful if someone could summarize what's known about the current state of Atlas V human rating efforts. Has the NASA-funded work towards that been completed? Extra points for answers using acronyms like EDS, DER, and PRA...

[yg1968]

First,  I think you would be surprised but I suspect all the companies would prefer a down select.  Maybe SpaceX because they are going regardless so some money may be better.  These companies know there is not enough money so that more than one company just means less money, longer time, etc. [...]

In my opinion, astronauts shouldn't be allowed to offer suggestions for improvements under CCtCap. Each companies has already hired astronauts that are directly involved in their respective programs.

It is called the Joint Test Team in tCAP.  it WILL happen,

That's why they should have stuck to SAAs. In the FY 2015 Budget, NASA said that it was thinking of extending CCiCap through FY 2015. Hopefully that will happen.

[Lars_J]

It would be really helpful if someone could summarize what's known about the current state of Atlas V human rating efforts. Has the NASA-funded work towards that been completed? Extra points for answers using acronyms like EDS, DER, and PRA...

Yes, that would be nice. And we does ULA expect to fly the first Atlas V with dual engine Centaur?

[erioladastra]

It would be really helpful if someone could summarize what's known about the current state of Atlas V human rating efforts. Has the NASA-funded work towards that been completed? Extra points for answers using acronyms like EDS, DER, and PRA...

Yes, that would be nice. And we does ULA expect to fly the first Atlas V with dual engine Centaur?

There were only small milestones for this in CCiCAP.  Work is ongoing but main work isn in CCtCAP.

[yg1968]

Here is a bit more on the downselect proposal:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/05/09/cjs-spending-bill-passes-full-house-appropriations-committee/

“I will confidently predict that if this policy recommendation of a downselect becomes the policy of the United States, you will find that you have saved neither money nor time,” said Jeff Greason, CEO of XCOR Aerospace. La Branche said that this issue was an “ongoing discussion” that will later involve negotiations with the Senate when it crafts its appropriations bill in the coming weeks.

[TrevorMonty]

Nothing new here except the mention of BO.

 http://www.nasa.gov/content/from-wind-tunnel-tests-to-software-reviews-nasas-commercial-crew-partners-continue-to/index.html#.U3qYO2f7Kl1

[GalacticIntruder]

Ms Shotwell is rather explicit there will be a down select in Sept, and either SpaceX, Boeing or SNC will get the bulk of the funds. 



Around 16 minutes mark.

[newpylong]

Even if it's likely I don't think she is privy to any decision on that as of yet.

[yg1968]

Even if it's likely I don't think she is privy to any decision on that as of yet.

I agree. I don't think that NASA has decided yet either.

[RocketEconomist327]

No one "really knows".  And those that do are (hopefully) not stupid enough to divulge any information.  Its in black out.  The Senate still has to pass a bill and then comes conference. 

iCap was 2 1/2.  That is to say SpaceX and Boeing got one full share and SNC got 1/2.

The FAR is going to cause a down-select.  But I hope we can get either 2 or 1 1/2.

VR
RE327

[TrevorMonty]

There are now 2 vehicles targeting late 2016 manned launches, DC & Dragon 2. I get the impression both are going fly then regardless of CC funding.

[TrevorMonty]

I stand corrected regarding launch dates being depended on CC funding.

This quote courtesy of NBC Dragon 2 article.

"If all goes well, and if NASA continues funding development, Musk said the Dragon V2's first uncrewed flight to orbit could take place by the end of 2015. The first orbital launch with test pilots aboard could follow in 2016, he said, leaving plenty of time to meet NASA's 2017 deadline."

[edkyle99]

Now that we've seen Dragon V2, or whatever its called, and have previously seen a CST-100 type mockup and clues about Dream Chaser, which one wins?

I'm left wondering about Dragon V2, which seems full of risky elements like propulsive landing and non-standard crew flight controls.  I would have been happier to see something closer to a stock Dragon cargo capsule outfitted with seats and an LAS.  Why didn't SpaceX go with what it has already proven in flight?

I personally don't like Dream Chaser right now, but it has nothing to do with the basic design (which actually seems quite strong, especially if they are using Lockheed Martin avionics).  It has to do with ridiculous secrecy about the crash landing, etc.

CST-100 seems to me to potentially look like a safer bet than Dragon to a risk-averse NASA.  But doesn't Boeing already have enough NASA contracts with the SLS core and the SLS upper stages?

 - Ed Kyle

[rayleighscatter]

I personally don't like Dream Chaser right now, but it has nothing to do with the basic design (which actually seems quite strong, especially if they are using Lockheed Martin avionics).  It has to do with ridiculous secrecy about the crash landing, etc.

I'd probably argue that SNC has been the least secretive. They've provided a lot of development updates and information about their vehicle. Boeing has only trickled out information, and SpaceX have only today told us what vehicle they're even competing with.

[Lars_J]

I'm left wondering about Dragon V2, which seems full of risky elements like propulsive landing and non-standard crew flight controls.  I would have been happier to see something closer to a stock Dragon cargo capsule outfitted with seats and an LAS.  Why didn't SpaceX go with what it has already proven in flight?

That's what the "DragonFly" test bed will prove.

And even if propulsive landing proves to be unreliable, the design can just as easily do propulsive-assisted parachute landing, or parachute only landing. The spacecraft will be able to do all 3 modes, if needed.

As far as the flight controls - I would treat all of the interior as subject to change - clearly the least polished aspect that was put on display.

[ChrisWilson68]

I'm left wondering about Dragon V2, which seems full of risky elements like propulsive landing and non-standard crew flight controls.  I would have been happier to see something closer to a stock Dragon cargo capsule outfitted with seats and an LAS.  Why didn't SpaceX go with what it has already proven in flight?

CST-100 seems to me to potentially look like a safer bet than Dragon to a risk-averse NASA.

Dragon V2 has some new things and some things that are retained from V1.  That's versus CST-100 that has no previous version to retain anything from.  I'd say that is a factor in favor of Dragon over CST-100 in terms of risk.

In terms of "non-standard crew flight controls", there is no standard.  It's different from 1960s and 1970s designs for spacecraft controls, that's true.  Dragon has four big multi-function displays plus physical buttons and a center stick.  I fail to see how that's a risk.  Multi-function displays are widely used today.  In aviation, more and more functionality has been moving into multi-function displays over the years, and Dragon is in line with that trend.  And all the critical functions are controlled by physical controls as a backup for the multi-function displays.  The multi-function displays are redundant with one another, and with modern technology such things are extremely reliable.  I'd consider Dragon's crew flight controls to be very low risk -- less risky than legacy systems with lots of physical switches and single-purpose displays that can have wiring problems, get stuck, etc.

I agree that propulsive landing is a new feature, and there is potential risk there.  It's really the only area where there's potentially more risk than CST-100, in my opinion.  But SpaceX is going to be doing a lot of testing with Dragonfly to retire that risk.  And they still carry the parachute system from Dragon V1.  Propulsive landing is just an added option.  And parachutes aren't without risk either.  They can fail to deploy properly.  With parachutes, there's less control over exactly where the vessel lands.  With water landing, it doesn't matter so much exactly where it sets down, but then you have the risk of being in the water, where there's the potential to flip over, fill with water, or even sink.  With proper testing with Dragonfly, by the time Dragon V2 actually carries crew to and from orbit, I just can't see it as being riskier than the parachutes of CST-100.