CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Robotbeat]

If Liberty wins, there will be real justification for accusations of favoritism. They've never developed a launch vehicle before, and picking them violates every principle of trying to get fast, domestic access to LEO.

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.

http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

As far as everyone else, well, I think they have decent proposals (though it'd be weird if Excalibur wins).

EDIT:this has nothing to do with fanboy-ism. ATK continues to /lie/ about blackzones on the existing launch vehicles. They are a bad actor.

[Downix]

If Liberty wins, there will be real justification for accusations of favoritism. They've never developed a launch vehicle before, and picking them violates every principle of trying to get fast, domestic access to LEO.

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.

http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

As far as everyone else, well, I think they have decent proposals (though it'd be weird if Excalibur wins).

EDIT:this has nothing to do with fanboy-ism. ATK continues to /lie/ about blackzones on the existing launch vehicles. They are a bad actor.

I've not seen ATK mentioning blackzones in quite awhile.

[peter-b]

Or it could be Liberty, Dream Chaser, Boeing, since that would keep three new spacecraft in the running for the time being (while SpaceX kept flying Dragon in the mean time.)

Cargo and crewed Dragon are not really the same spacecraft, so I question the validity of your assumption here.

[BrightLight]

Or it could be Liberty, Dream Chaser, Boeing, since that would keep three new spacecraft in the running for the time being (while SpaceX kept flying Dragon in the mean time.)

Cargo and crewed Dragon are not really the same spacecraft, so I question the validity of your assumption here.

This brings up a good question - what are the critical differences between the Dragon and dragon Rider - is SpaceX building a new spacecraft or modifying a cargo vehicle for manned spaceflight?

[Downix]

Or it could be Liberty, Dream Chaser, Boeing, since that would keep three new spacecraft in the running for the time being (while SpaceX kept flying Dragon in the mean time.)

Cargo and crewed Dragon are not really the same spacecraft, so I question the validity of your assumption here.

This brings up a good question - what are the critical differences between the Dragon and dragon Rider - is SpaceX building a new spacecraft or modifying a cargo vehicle for manned spaceflight?

New spacecraft which will then be used for Cargo once it enters service.

[Robotbeat]

If Liberty wins, there will be real justification for accusations of favoritism. They've never developed a launch vehicle before, and picking them violates every principle of trying to get fast, domestic access to LEO.

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.

http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

As far as everyone else, well, I think they have decent proposals (though it'd be weird if Excalibur wins).

EDIT:this has nothing to do with fanboy-ism. ATK continues to /lie/ about blackzones on the existing launch vehicles. They are a bad actor.

I've not seen ATK mentioning blackzones in quite awhile.

Well, it featured quite prominently among their claims in the public unveiling of the Liberty spacecraft and Liberty launch vehicle just a couple months ago. They should've apologized, not just repeated the long-discredited blackzone lie. They publicly lied about a supposedly big safety issue, and they should have a just-as-public apology. Fear-mongering like that has no excuse.

[Downix]

If Liberty wins, there will be real justification for accusations of favoritism. They've never developed a launch vehicle before, and picking them violates every principle of trying to get fast, domestic access to LEO.

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.

http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

As far as everyone else, well, I think they have decent proposals (though it'd be weird if Excalibur wins).

EDIT:this has nothing to do with fanboy-ism. ATK continues to /lie/ about blackzones on the existing launch vehicles. They are a bad actor.

I've not seen ATK mentioning blackzones in quite awhile.

Well, it featured quite prominently among their claims in the public unveiling of the Liberty spacecraft and Liberty launch vehicle just a couple months ago. They should've apologized, not just repeated the long-discredited blackzone lie. They publicly lied about a supposedly big safety issue, and they should have a just-as-public apology. Fear-mongering like that has no excuse.

If they'd kept it up, I would be with you. But they dropped it. It may have been carried forward from Ares I spreadsheets and some marketing guy thought it looked good.

[Robotbeat]

If Liberty wins, there will be real justification for accusations of favoritism. They've never developed a launch vehicle before, and picking them violates every principle of trying to get fast, domestic access to LEO.

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.

http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

As far as everyone else, well, I think they have decent proposals (though it'd be weird if Excalibur wins).

EDIT:this has nothing to do with fanboy-ism. ATK continues to /lie/ about blackzones on the existing launch vehicles. They are a bad actor.

I've not seen ATK mentioning blackzones in quite awhile.

Well, it featured quite prominently among their claims in the public unveiling of the Liberty spacecraft and Liberty launch vehicle just a couple months ago. They should've apologized, not just repeated the long-discredited blackzone lie. They publicly lied about a supposedly big safety issue, and they should have a just-as-public apology. Fear-mongering like that has no excuse.

If they'd kept it up, I would be with you. But they dropped it. It may have been carried forward from Ares I spreadsheets and some marketing guy thought it looked good.

Dropped it? They haven't really had a big public marketing release since then.

It wasn't an accident. The guy speaking about it spoke as if he had authority, not just some marketing guy. He had slides to "back up" the claims, and spoke strongly about the topic. Not an accident, it was intentional dishonesty. Or willful ignorance, which is the same thing.

[Tea Party Space Czar]

ATK Dropped Blackzones - and rightfully so.

It was the right thing to do.  Rommel was here at NewSpace 2012 and it never came up once.

People will continue to hate on ATK for reasons that may have been justified years ago... but refusing to see the innovation and acceptance of the new commercial economic model is something to be commended and encouraged.

I am very comfortable with ATK and their Liberty Launch System wrt how they are approaching it economically. 

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space

[ChefPat]

Here's an excellent article covering some of the down select.

[ugordan]

The person is strong in this one.  No mention at all of CST-100 or DreamChaser, with just a passing reference to Atlas.  It seemed like he was trying to paint the completion as one soley between SpaceX and ATK.

What did you expect from someone who wrote that commentary as a "response to a series by NBC News' Jay Barbree" and is working on a book about SpaceX?

[Lurker Steve]

Here's an excellent article covering some of the down select.

The person is strong in this one.  No mention at all of CST-100 or DreamChaser, with just a passing reference to Atlas.  It seemed like he was trying to paint the completion as one soley between SpaceX and ATK.

Article written by a guy who just happens to be writting a book about SpaceX.

[Rabidpanda]

The person is strong in this one.  No mention at all of CST-100 or DreamChaser, with just a passing reference to Atlas.  It seemed like he was trying to paint the completion as one soley between SpaceX and ATK.

What did you expect from someone who wrote that commentary as a "response to a series by NBC News' Jay Barbree" and is working on a book about SpaceX?

He could have at least mentioned the other competitors.

[Prober]

The person is strong in this one.  No mention at all of CST-100 or DreamChaser, with just a passing reference to Atlas.  It seemed like he was trying to paint the completion as one soley between SpaceX and ATK.

What did you expect from someone who wrote that commentary as a "response to a series by NBC News' Jay Barbree" and is working on a book about SpaceX?

He could have at least mentioned the other competitors.

they call it spin
 

[yg1968]

Here's an excellent article covering some of the down select.

Although the article is very much one sided, it's hard to disagree with anything that he says. If SpaceX doesn't receive full funding for CCiCap, NASA's decision will be difficult to explain to taxpayers. As far as ATK, their proposal is the remnant of a failed Ares I program that costs taxpayers $8 billion dollars. They don't deserve additionnal money for it.

I am also pulling for the DC mostly because it is in my opinion the most cool and futuristic spacecraft (although retrorockets are also cool and futuristic).  DC is also born through COTS unfunded agreements and private investments.

The DC and SpaceX' proposals represents everything that COTS and CCDev/CCicCap should be about. CCDev/CCicap wasn't meant as an SLS-MPCV/Ariane supplement program.  But old habits die hard. So I don't expect NASA to do the right thing.

[BrightLight]

The article is remarkably non-objective and has a very clear bias towards a vendor (SpaceX) with a obvious agenda. While it is clear that SpaceX has done outstanding work - technical and otherwise, IMO the article is not even journalism, its sales - for a book? i don't know but it is of limited value.
On the other hand a history of COTS and CCDEV could be invaluable in helping to understand how our govt. works and what can be done to improve government acquisition.

[yg1968]

The article is remarkably non-objective and has a very clear bias towards a vendor (SpaceX) with a obvious agenda. While it is clear that SpaceX has done outstanding work - technical and otherwise, IMO the article is not even journalism, its sales - for a book? i don't know but it is of limited value.
On the other hand a history of COTS and CCDEV could be invaluable in helping to understand how our govt. works and what can be done to improve government acquisition.

It's a commentary. It wasn't meant to be objective. Besides, I think that he was trying to show the contrast between a company like ATK and SpaceX. Adding comments about DC and Boeing would have detracted from the point that he was trying to make which is that NASA needs to do things differently. Choosing ATK as one of the leading commercial crew provider (if that happens) is not doing things very differently from Constellation.

[Alan Boyle]

I wanted to provide a little more information about the commentary by Stewart Money. The original pieces by Jay Barbree, which were also commentaries, were pretty positive regarding Liberty and Boeing CST-100, and didn't say much about Sierra Nevada and Blue Origin. But Jay was rather negative on SpaceX, and we did get some complaints (including from SpaceX) that the company really wasn't getting a fair shake. Of course, anyone can add comments to the story, but I felt in this case that it was appropriate for SpaceX to have an opportunity to respond at greater length if they wanted. I told them they were welcome to do so in an op-ed response.

As it turned out, the folks at SpaceX instead encouraged Stewart to write his commentary and submit it for consideration. So that's why the commentary was SpaceX-centric ... it was meant as a way to give SpaceX's supporters more of an extended say after Jay's criticism.

[edkyle99]

Although the article is very much one sided, it's hard to disagree with anything that he says.

No, it isn't hard at all.  He wrote that "SpaceX is the only entrant in the competition that has already flown to the space station with the complete system being offered", which is not true at all.  Falcon 9 v1.1 (a much-heavier stretched version of the current rocket) hasn't flown, nor has its new, much higher thrust Merlin 1D engines, and Dragon Rider (or whatever it is called) does differ from Dragon.

 - Ed Kyle 

[Alan Boyle]

Also, on the CCDev / CCP front, I wrote this story that I hope is a just-the-facts guide to what's happened so far, plus what will happen:

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/20/12840538-follow-the-money-in-the-commercial-space-race