CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[QuantumG]

I'm confused as heck (and googling has been of no help) so could someone here let me know why only SpaceX has abort tests as milestones?

Because they bid to do it.

[Coastal Ron]

I'm confused as heck (and googling has been of no help) so could someone here let me know why only SpaceX has abort tests as milestones?

Because they bid to do it.

Yes, and there was a set amount of money that was available to fund all three CCiCap participants.  No doubt NASA spent a lot of time figuring out what combination of funding would get all three vehicles as far as possible prior to the next funding event.

Sierra Nevada received $212.5M, which got them through flying their test article and doing Main Propulsion and other testing.

Boeing received $460M, the most of the three, which gets them through their Critical Design Review (CDR) Board.

SpaceX received $440M, but likely since they were using the cargo version of their Dragon as their starting point, their last milestones are the Integrated Critical Design Review (CDR) and an In-Flight Abort Test with the Dragon V2 vehicle Elon Musk unveiled recently.

Note that both Sierra Nevada and SpaceX were funded to the point that they could do some actual vehicle tests, but Boeing won't have a test or production vehicle ready as part of their funding.  It will be interesting to see if that influences the CCtCap awards.

[CJ]

I'm confused as heck (and googling has been of no help) so could someone here let me know why only SpaceX has abort tests as milestones?

Because they bid to do it.

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that SpaceX being the only one to have abort tests as milestones was SpaceX's idea?

Because they bid to do it.

Yes, and there was a set amount of money that was available to fund all three CCiCap participants.  No doubt NASA spent a lot of time figuring out what combination of funding would get all three vehicles as far as possible prior to the next funding event.

Sierra Nevada received $212.5M, which got them through flying their test article and doing Main Propulsion and other testing.

Boeing received $460M, the most of the three, which gets them through their Critical Design Review (CDR) Board.

SpaceX received $440M, but likely since they were using the cargo version of their Dragon as their starting point, their last milestones are the Integrated Critical Design Review (CDR) and an In-Flight Abort Test with the Dragon V2 vehicle Elon Musk unveiled recently.

Note that both Sierra Nevada and SpaceX were funded to the point that they could do some actual vehicle tests, but Boeing won't have a test or production vehicle ready as part of their funding.  It will be interesting to see if that influences the CCtCap awards.

Bolding mine.

Boeing got the most money, but doesn't have to come up with a test or production vehicle? What on earth was the reasoning for that?

In general regarding my (limited) understanding of CCiCAP, I can easily see why the three companies have different milestones, due to having different design concepts (for example, it'd make no sense for DC to have a parachute test milestone, or Dragon a glide test) but... they gave the most money to the company that, from the look of it, has done the least?

[QuantumG]

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that SpaceX being the only one to have abort tests as milestones was SpaceX's idea?

Yes.. but I expect the others offered to do it, but the price they offered to do it at was too high.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
Bolding mine.

Boeing got the most money, but doesn't have to come up with a test or production vehicle? What on earth was the reasoning for that?

In general regarding my (limited) understanding of CCiCAP, I can easily see why the three companies have different milestones, due to having different design concepts (for example, it'd make no sense for DC to have a parachute test milestone, or Dragon a glide test) but... they gave the most money to the company that, from the look of it, has done the least?

Boeing was upgrading the Atlas V as well as developing the CST-100.  NASA had to pay for both.

Will the human rating of the Atlas V be finished at the end of CCiCap?

[CJ]

Boeing was upgrading the Atlas V as well as developing the CST-100.  NASA had to pay for both.

Will the human rating of the Atlas V be finished at the end of CCiCap?

Ah, you're right! Thanks for that, it makes more sense to me now.

I wonder if this is part of why SNC received less; they're using the same LV, so benefit from the money channeled through Boeing for Atlas 5 human rating.

I'd hope the human rating is done by the end of CCiCAP, assuming the RD-180 is still available.  I do wonder, though, how one human-rates a rocket with SRBs? I've seen videos of SRB failures of unmanned launchers, and they are sudden and very violent. Could the emergency detection system detect such a failure in time to make an abort survivable?

[/quote]

If I'm reading you right, you're saying that SpaceX being the only one to have abort tests as milestones was SpaceX's idea?

Yes.. but I expect the others offered to do it, but the price they offered to do it at was too high.

I think the problem I'm having stems in part from the fact that I've requested plenty of bids for various projects. In my case, I had everything specced out in advance,  so the bids were to do pretty much the exact same thing, so that probably biased my thinking.  However, in other circumstances, such as someone wanting a home built who doesn't have firm designs, they might request bids where the contractor lays out a design, which might be more analogous to what's going on in the commercial crew program.

I wonder when we'll hear more regarding the downselect.

[Coastal Ron]

{snip}
Bolding mine.

Boeing got the most money, but doesn't have to come up with a test or production vehicle? What on earth was the reasoning for that?

You have to look at this from a complete perspective.  Boeing no doubt had a very strong initial proposal, since they have a lot of history and experience with complex aerospace projects.  Based on that they were no doubt rated as the lowest risk, which likely played into their award size.  Sierra Nevada likely was rated as the highest risk, and thus received the lowest award amount.

In general regarding my (limited) understanding of CCiCAP, I can easily see why the three companies have different milestones, due to having different design concepts (for example, it'd make no sense for DC to have a parachute test milestone, or Dragon a glide test) but... they gave the most money to the company that, from the look of it, has done the least?

There is a document that NASA released that explained their reasoning - I think you should Google it (I'm time limited, but maybe someone can point you too it).

Boeing was upgrading the Atlas V as well as developing the CST-100.  NASA had to pay for both.

No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing.  And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.

If you want to see what Boeings milestones are here is the CCiCap Announcement Summary:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672130main_CCiCap%20Announcement.pdf

[newpylong]

{snip}
Bolding mine.

Boeing got the most money, but doesn't have to come up with a test or production vehicle? What on earth was the reasoning for that?

You have to look at this from a complete perspective.  Boeing no doubt had a very strong initial proposal, since they have a lot of history and experience with complex aerospace projects.  Based on that they were no doubt rated as the lowest risk, which likely played into their award size.  Sierra Nevada likely was rated as the highest risk, and thus received the lowest award amount.

In general regarding my (limited) understanding of CCiCAP, I can easily see why the three companies have different milestones, due to having different design concepts (for example, it'd make no sense for DC to have a parachute test milestone, or Dragon a glide test) but... they gave the most money to the company that, from the look of it, has done the least?

There is a document that NASA released that explained their reasoning - I think you should Google it (I'm time limited, but maybe someone can point you too it).

Boeing was upgrading the Atlas V as well as developing the CST-100.  NASA had to pay for both.

No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing.  And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.

If you want to see what Boeings milestones are here is the CCiCap Announcement Summary:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672130main_CCiCap%20Announcement.pdf

The avionic upgrade needed to human rate Centaur is Boeing, they are heavily involved in the upgrade.

[Roy_H]

SpaceX originally had bid for about 30 milestones, when the funding got cut in half the last half of the milestones were lopped off. I assume a similar process for Boeing and SNC. I expect that some of the remaining SpaceX milestones will be converted over to the next round of funding under CCtCAP and the remainder absorbed by SpaceX so they will be internal only.

Since all milestones are created by the contractor, it is up to Boeing to decide if they want pad abort and maxQ abort. This would be negotiated with NASA and NASA may decide that only one (say pad abort) would be required.

[clongton]

Apollo-Saturn did not have a max-q abort test.

[sublimemarsupial]

Apollo-Saturn did not have a max-q abort test.

Not sure if any of them were at max-q, but apollo had four in flight abort tests in addition to to two pad abort tests.

[rcoppola]

Well, that's the whole point of competition. If SpaceX is the only one of the 3 that does both a pad and MaxQ abort, (successfully) for whatever reason, they would be seen as having reduced the most risk, at least with regards to Abort capabilities. I would think that would give them extra points on whatever complex weighting chart NASA is using for down-selections.

And, if I have this right, their DragonFly program to reduce propulsive landing risk is being funded internally and not by NASA, that's another nice competitive value-add, so a few more "Checks" on NASA's down-select chart.

I'm just observing what can be observed in the blackout period but IMO I see little chance that SpaceX is not part of the down-select. (of course as long as there is no catastrophic design flaw found) The real question is who gets the second slot. (Yes, I believe there will be 2 selections with a possible 3rd unfunded invitation to continue development with their own investments for future selection potential)

[newpylong]

Apollo-Saturn did not have a max-q abort test.

Little Joe II had several with the Apollo CSM.

But you're right, Saturn didn't - who in their right mind would ditch a rocket that big doing something that can be done with a smaller vehicle. Same way Orion is using the modified Peacekeeper and not SLS for Inflight abort.

[rayleighscatter]

No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing.  And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.

But in this case Boeing would be the customer for the rocket. And as a customer with special needs they would be responsible for having those needs met, even if it means paying Lockheed or ULA to meet them.

[Roy_H]

No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing.  And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.

But in this case Boeing would be the customer for the rocket. And as a customer with special needs they would be responsible for having those needs met, even if it means paying Lockheed or ULA to meet them.

But those special needs have to do with payload mass and mounting to the upper stage, not man-rating the Atlas 5. Separate issues.

[rayleighscatter]

No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing.  And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.

But in this case Boeing would be the customer for the rocket. And as a customer with special needs they would be responsible for having those needs met, even if it means paying Lockheed or ULA to meet them.

But those special needs have to do with payload mass and mounting to the upper stage, not man-rating the Atlas 5. Separate issues.

Same issue. Boeing and SNC require a manrated rocket. Lockheed isn't providing this additional work for free, the required planning and modifications to Atlas V are being paid for by Boeing/SNC, not Lockheed.

[rcoppola]

No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing.  And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.

But in this case Boeing would be the customer for the rocket. And as a customer with special needs they would be responsible for having those needs met, even if it means paying Lockheed or ULA to meet them.

But those special needs have to do with payload mass and mounting to the upper stage, not man-rating the Atlas 5. Separate issues.

Same issue. Boeing and SNC require a manrated rocket. Lockheed isn't providing this additional work for free, the required planning and modifications to Atlas V are being paid for by Boeing/SNC, not Lockheed.

As I imagine is the same for the design and build of the crew access tower.

[AnalogMan]

Latest 60-day report on Commercial Spaceflight now available:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_ROI_Report_July_2014_Final_TAGGED_2.pdf

Includes the following milestone update:

Commercial Transportation Systems—Moving Forward

NASA’s industry partners continue to move forward with their Commercial Crew integrated Capability (CCiCap) efforts, successfully completing milestones and working toward the culmination of their CCiCap Space Act Agreements. The Boeing Company is scheduled to complete its milestones later this summer. NASA has agreed to extend the terms of the Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) agreements to March 2015 allowing for completion of work associated with remaining flight testing—SpaceX an in-flight abort test and SNC a free flight test of a Dream Chaser test vehicle. Over the past two months, several milestones are of interest:

• Successfully Completed Milestones

  • Boeing Software Critical Design Review
  • SNC Wind Tunnel Testing
  • SNC Main Propulsion and Reaction Control System Risk
  • Reduction and Technology Readiness Level Advancement Testing

• Upcoming Milestones

  • Boeing Critical Design Review Board
  • Boeing Phase 2 Spacecraft Safety Review
  • SNC Risk Reduction and Technology Readiness
  • Level Advancement Testing
  • SNC Reaction Control System Testing—Incremental Test #1
  • SpaceX Dragon Primary Structure Qualification

NASA’s Commercial Crew Development (CCDev2) partner, Blue Origin, is working toward completing its final unfunded milestone, the Space Vehicle Subsystem Interim Design Review planned for later this summer.

NASA and industry partners also recently completed the Certification Products Contract, the first phase in the certification process that will allow U.S. commercial transportation systems to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station. Under the contract, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX completed reviews detailing how each company plans to meet NASA’s safety and performance requirements. Later this year NASA will award the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract(s), the second and final phase of the certification process.

[Roy_H]

I find the report has a couple of statements about SpaceX that I find curious. First the previous report stated that SpaceX was working on milestone 13 Integrated Critical Design Review, and now this one states they are working on M12, Dragon Primary Structure Qualification. I guess both of these are running in parallel and M13 hasn't been completed yet. Second there is a new milestone 18 on the graphic, anyone know what this is?

[Roy_H]

Decided to copy my comment from the SpaceX In-Flight LAS Abort Test to here:

This extension to the end of March 2015 is very disappointing.  Now a year late. The D2 unveil was billed as actual flight hardware with Elon stating that that particular capsule was destined for orbit. It  was completely bare inside except for the temporarily mounted seats and (I assume mock-up) flight control panel. Lots of work on interior to be done. However, does the interior have to be finished for the abort tests? I think not. Since the capsule shown was for orbit, I think this implies that the abort capsule was previously built and should therefore be further on to completion. All this leads me to believe that the abort capsule is almost complete, and on hold, waiting for DragonFly test results.

It occurred to me that maybe the abort capsule IS Dragonfly. Is that possible? Test as Dragonfly first before using it as the abort vehicle?

Hopefully this delay is not on the critical path to CCtCap certification. Any insight to CCiCap and CCtCap running in parallel? AIUI CCiCap completion is a pre-requisit to CCtCap funding, so I am wondering if this delay in completing milestones could delay CCtCap.