CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[dcporter]

upmass-only cargo spacecraft

This is one of the arguments that gives us SpaceX fans a bad name. The bulk-tanker upmass vehicle is a crucial station need, and optimizing for it makes for a very different spacecraft than the Dragon. Cygnus is awesome and necessary. Dragon cargo is awesome and necessary. Happy days.

[A_M_Swallow]

To do CRS2 OSC may need to replace the Russian engines.  That adds to the costs.

[docmordrid]

To do CRS2 OSC may need to replace the Russian engines.  That adds to the costs.

AIUI, now that they've merged with ATK a solid lower stage is being considered. Keeps it in house and solves their Ukraine core sourcing as well.

[woods170]

upmass-only cargo spacecraft

This is one of the arguments that gives us SpaceX fans a bad name. The bulk-tanker upmass vehicle is a crucial station need, and optimizing for it makes for a very different spacecraft than the Dragon. Cygnus is awesome and necessary. Dragon cargo is awesome and necessary. Happy days.

Respectfully, I disagree. I'm as much a fan of Orbital as I am a fan of SpaceX. It's just that I have a personal preference with regards to value-for-money. Note the word 'personal'.
The primary reason for Cygnus being a much different spacecraft than Dragon is not optimizing up-mass. The primary reason is the fact that Cygnus is upmass-only. Cygnus does not need to return to Earth in one piece; it doesn't need a heatshield and an aerodynamically stable shape. Dragon, on the other hand, does need that and thus requires a completely different basic form and construction.

[notsorandom]

upmass-only cargo spacecraft

This is one of the arguments that gives us SpaceX fans a bad name. The bulk-tanker upmass vehicle is a crucial station need, and optimizing for it makes for a very different spacecraft than the Dragon. Cygnus is awesome and necessary. Dragon cargo is awesome and necessary. Happy days.

Respectfully, I disagree. I'm as much a fan of Orbital as I am a fan of SpaceX. It's just that I have a personal preference with regards to value-for-money. Note the word 'personal'.
The primary reason for Cygnus being a much different spacecraft than Dragon is not optimizing up-mass. The primary reason is the fact that Cygnus is upmass-only. Cygnus does not need to return to Earth in one piece; it doesn't need a heatshield and an aerodynamically stable shape. Dragon, on the other hand, does need that and thus requires a completely different basic form and construction.

Dragon also needs a rocket roughly twice as powerful as Cygnus does to ride up hill.

[TrueBlueWitt]

upmass-only cargo spacecraft

This is one of the arguments that gives us SpaceX fans a bad name. The bulk-tanker upmass vehicle is a crucial station need, and optimizing for it makes for a very different spacecraft than the Dragon. Cygnus is awesome and necessary. Dragon cargo is awesome and necessary. Happy days.

Respectfully, I disagree. I'm as much a fan of Orbital as I am a fan of SpaceX. It's just that I have a personal preference with regards to value-for-money. Note the word 'personal'.
The primary reason for Cygnus being a much different spacecraft than Dragon is not optimizing up-mass. The primary reason is the fact that Cygnus is upmass-only. Cygnus does not need to return to Earth in one piece; it doesn't need a heatshield and an aerodynamically stable shape. Dragon, on the other hand, does need that and thus requires a completely different basic form and construction.

Dragon also needs a rocket roughly twice as powerful as Cygnus does to ride up hill.

And they are doing it for half as much money!

[rayleighscatter]

Orbital's contract is for 1.9 billion and SpaceX's is for 1.6 billion. If we count the COTS money as well, the numbers are Orbital with about 2.2 billion and SpaceX with about 2.0 billion. So they're doing it for about 10% less.

[ChrisWilson68]

Orbital's contract is for 1.9 billion and SpaceX's is for 1.6 billion. If we count the COTS money as well, the numbers are Orbital with about 2.2 billion and SpaceX with about 2.0 billion. So they're doing it for about 10% less.

You're picking and choosing the numbers to slant them toward what you want the numbers to say.

COTS was a sunk cost by the time CRS came around.  You didn't count all the development money that went into components that were re-used for Cygnus, which were also sunk costs.  So it is reasonable to exclude COTS when looking at CRS cost numbers.

And you're also ignoring the fact that SpaceX is doing 12 missions to 8 by Cygnus.  That's not really comparing apples to apples.

[rayleighscatter]

Ok, we'll exclude the COTS numbers. SpaceX is doing it for 15% less.

NASA simply contracted both companies to haul 20 mT to the station. The number of trips required to complete the task is irrelevant at best. Unless someone is trying to slant numbers towards what they want them to say.

[baldusi]

Actually, the services are slightly different. Cygnus has more volume and is 100% pressurized, and can do waste disposal. Dragon has unpressurized upmass and disposal and pressurized upmass and return. Only pressurized upmass is comparable. And we're not getting into the custom services costs.
It was a Dutch auction system and SpaceX was first and Cygnus third. That's also another way to look at it.
But just let's be clear that while somewhat overlapping neither is offering exactly the same service.

[rcoppola]

Not much direct news as the blackout period remains but I thought the announcements as of late were...interesting.

So, in a span of a week or so, SNC buys one company and contracts yet another. One to design and build the tools that the DC will use to be moved around for build-out and integration and the other mainly for ECLSS and propulsion for DC.

While at the same time Boeing announces it will shortly send out 60 day notices, as required by law, for 250 layoffs....IF they are not selected by NASA. But the timing seems off, as when Boeing claims to be doing this does not seem to line up with any committed "down-select" announcement date from NASA.

So, one company is growing their commitment and one is narrowing their commitment. Hm.

It was also revealed that while SNC already ordered a one-off AtlasV for an orbital test flight, the proposed Crew Access Tower design out at ULAs' Cape Pad is currently designed for the CST-100. 

Well...that's that.

[joek]

This time do a 1.5 with the 1/2 as a backup.    Lock in some milestones with "time" as the driver. If the first (full share) doesn't make the time milestone, at that point the program increases funding to the backup. 

Yes, but the idea that there can be fractional CCtCap awards should be shot and buried; it is misleading and erroneous.  Based on the published RFP and FAR there cannot be a ".5" or any fractional CCtCap award.  Every awardee will be committed to fulfilling the terms of the contract in whole, which includes among other things achieving certification, crewed test flights, and a pricing commitment for follow-on missions.

All other things equal, the only legally allowable variable NASA has to work with between CCtCap awardees is time and the consequent funding profile (negotiated with each awardee based on milestones).  In short, every CCtCap awardee will be committed to child birth, as will NASA to every CCtCap awardee; the only question is the gestation period.

[A_M_Swallow]

With the restrictions on use of Russian made engines by both the US and Russian Governments the RFP will need changing to require the bidders to show how their equipment can be made compliant.  The RFP will also need changing to reflect the increased financial reporting information Congress demands.  It could easily take until FY16 before NASA is ready to make the awards.

[TrevorMonty]

The biggest plus Dragon V2 has over DC and CST100 is being able to take large unpressuried items in its trunk. NASA has already put this good use and I doubt they would want to lose this ability.
Ironically having D V1 means NASA doesn't need D V2.

[docmordrid]

Musk did say they'd transition away from DV1 in a few years. Depending on their  definition of "few" that could mean at the start of CRS-2, making both cargo and crew DV2 based.

[yg1968]

Musk said that they would have both in parallel for a few years:

Over time we expect Dragon version one to be phased out, but we're going to carry both of them in parallel for at least a few years.

http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-dragon-2-unveil-qa-2014-05-29

[arachnitect]

The biggest plus Dragon V2 has over DC and CST100 is being able to take large unpressuried items in its trunk. NASA has already put this good use and I doubt they would want to lose this ability.
Ironically having D V1 means NASA doesn't need D V2.

This was being discussed earlier. Is this a confirmed capability? Dragon V2 trunk is different from V1.

Also, it will be pretty much impossible to access at Node 2 Fwd. Node 2 Zenith will probably work.

[sublimemarsupial]

The biggest plus Dragon V2 has over DC and CST100 is being able to take large unpressuried items in its trunk. NASA has already put this good use and I doubt they would want to lose this ability.
Ironically having D V1 means NASA doesn't need D V2.

This was being discussed earlier. Is this a confirmed capability? Dragon V2 trunk is different from V1.

Elon directly said it could carry trunk cargo during the Dragon V2 Reveal Q&A:

From the transcript:

"I think, something around - if you really cram stuff in - about a ton of pressurized cargo and two to three tons of unpressurized cargo... It will carry trunk cargo."

[arachnitect]

The biggest plus Dragon V2 has over DC and CST100 is being able to take large unpressuried items in its trunk. NASA has already put this good use and I doubt they would want to lose this ability.
Ironically having D V1 means NASA doesn't need D V2.

This was being discussed earlier. Is this a confirmed capability? Dragon V2 trunk is different from V1.

Elon directly said it could carry trunk cargo during the Dragon V2 Reveal Q&A:

From the transcript:

"I think, something around - if you really cram stuff in - about a ton of pressurized cargo and two to three tons of unpressurized cargo... It will carry trunk cargo."

Thanks.

[JasonAW3]

The biggest plus Dragon V2 has over DC and CST100 is being able to take large unpressuried items in its trunk. NASA has already put this good use and I doubt they would want to lose this ability.
Ironically having D V1 means NASA doesn't need D V2.

You know, I hate to say it, but that comment can be interprated in SOOO many ways...

But seriously, I can't really see how the Cream Chaser could bring up external stores, unless they set up a trunk with a tunnel and blast deflectors for their engines.

The CST-100 and Orion, on the other hand, could use a stackable trunk with a consumables extension on the side of the trunk to the capsule.  They've already shown illustrations of such an arrangement in the past.