CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Jim]

That SpaceX revived an industry that NASA and DoD oversaw the decimation of is simply miraculous.

And the true colors come out.  Really painted yourself into that corner.

[PahTo]

Interesting point is that Dual Centaur, probably because of human rating requirements, will require RL-10A4, even after the rest of the EELV migrate to RL-10C1/2. That will certainly impact its costs structure.

I was under the impression the RL-10C1 would be the human rated evolution of the A4.  Do you have it on good authority the existing stock of A4s will be HR to the exclusion of C1s?  That doesn't provide much long term use (unless there are hundreds sitting around somewhere)--especially if SLS-1B flies.
What I'd really like to see is ULA finish/make production a common 5m upper stage with two variants:  a 2x RL-10C1 and 1x RL-10C2.  That would open up the possibility of D-IVM lofting commercial crew or other human spacecraft, USAF and RS-68A notwithstanding (I still offer myself as ballast for DC on D-IVM4+2).

[ncb1397]

If you want NASA to be more supportive of US rocket industry, I can understand that position, even if I don't agree that it's necessary. The 2 annual commercial crew flights are only a fraction of the job then: bring home Orion SM, stop using RD-180 for all science launches, stop accepting foreign launches in barter arrangements (JWST, GPM, GRACE-FO, etc).

For COTS, NASA had an explicit goal of bringing new LVs to the market. For crew NASA had no such luxury; look how CCdev > CCiCap >CPC/CCtCap weeded out anybody who was building new rockets. If NASA wants to implement a new industrial policy, kneecapping commercial crew at the 11th hour is the wrong way to go about it.

You are reaching way too far. What would be wrong with other countries donating their launchers as a contribution for a science mission(i.e. Ariane 5 and JWST)? ESA donating the Orion SM isn't a problem either. We are given them a lift to ISS in return, presumeably on our crew vehicles past 2017? Far different than outsourcing government contracts.

3 years out isn't the 11th hour. All competitors knew that the program was about domestic crew access to space from the get go. Otherwise, why not continue to use Soyuz? It is far safer than a new system.

How do you weight that factor? Either it's weighted enough to swing the competition or it's not a factor at all.

The weight is not zero and so therefore it could tip the competition, all else being equal.

We've talked about this elsewhere, and how substantial of an undertaking it would be. The top line of NASA's budget looks big, but moving even $50M around causes a fight on capitol hill and throws somebody's life work out the window. And even if it could happen it would rely on the Russians for years during a tricky handover.

Right, the Russians have signed on tell 2020. After that, you either have a backup plan or systen, rely on them extending the program when they appear to want their own station (and really don't get along with the U.S. either) or be forced to abandon the project. ISS was concieved pre-Putin. It really is a vestigial organ of a bygone era and such a west-east alliance probably doesn't fit within his world view.

Oh come off it. Spacex would never have gotten where they are today without both NASA and USAF.

I'll give you NASA but DoD/USAF has put very little money into SpaceX. Asiasat and Orbcomm have as many contracted launches with SpaceX as DoD does. Without SpaceX though, CRS would go to Antares, Crew would go to Atlas and U.S. propulsion besides solids would be in very sorry shape. We are talking small upper stage engines and a few Delta first stages per year with almost no commercial launches and in transition between Constellation/Shuttle and SLS.

[baldusi]

Interesting point is that Dual Centaur, probably because of human rating requirements, will require RL-10A4, even after the rest of the EELV migrate to RL-10C1/2. That will certainly impact its costs structure.

I was under the impression the RL-10C1 would be the human rated evolution of the A4.  Do you have it on good authority the existing stock of A4s will be HR to the exclusion of C1s?  That doesn't provide much long term use (unless there are hundreds sitting around somewhere)--especially if SLS-1B flies.
What I'd really like to see is ULA finish/make production a common 5m upper stage with two variants:  a 2x RL-10C1 and 1x RL-10C2.  That would open up the possibility of D-IVM lofting commercial crew or other human spacecraft, USAF and RS-68A notwithstanding (I still offer myself as ballast for DC on D-IVM4+2).

I think it was a Mr. Sommers interview. But I remember that an ULA official stated that the CCtCap clients were going to use the A4 version because they had special needs. I'm assuming that human rating requirements is in it. I can't think of any other cause to have to special order such handmade engines. AIUI, is not that is not available. It's just that they are expensive. the C1/2 versions have made great advances into manufacturing automation.
BTW, I'm guessing that human rating the C1 was a significant fraction of the supposedly huge cost of human rating the ICPS for SLS.

[arachnitect]

Interesting point is that Dual Centaur, probably because of human rating requirements, will require RL-10A4, even after the rest of the EELV migrate to RL-10C1/2. That will certainly impact its costs structure.

I was under the impression the RL-10C1 would be the human rated evolution of the A4.  Do you have it on good authority the existing stock of A4s will be HR to the exclusion of C1s?  That doesn't provide much long term use (unless there are hundreds sitting around somewhere)--especially if SLS-1B flies.
What I'd really like to see is ULA finish/make production a common 5m upper stage with two variants:  a 2x RL-10C1 and 1x RL-10C2.  That would open up the possibility of D-IVM lofting commercial crew or other human spacecraft, USAF and RS-68A notwithstanding (I still offer myself as ballast for DC on D-IVM4+2).

I think it was a Mr. Sommers interview. But I remember that an ULA official stated that the CCtCap clients were going to use the A4 version because they had special needs. I'm assuming that human rating requirements is in it. I can't think of any other cause to have to special order such handmade engines. AIUI, is not that is not available. It's just that they are expensive. the C1/2 versions have made great advances into manufacturing automation.
BTW, I'm guessing that human rating the C1 was a significant fraction of the supposedly huge cost of human rating the ICPS for SLS.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1406/04rl10c/

Sowers said the RL10C will become the standard upper stage engine for all of the company's Atlas 5 and Delta 4 launches. An exception will be for the two-engine version of the Atlas 5's Centaur upper stage, which will continue flying with the RL10A-4-2 version of the engine.

The shape of the RL10C's bell-shaped nozzle prevents two of the engines from being placed side-by-side in a dual-engine configuration, Sowers said.

[PahTo]

Thanks--I wonder how many RL-10A4-2 engines are in storage/available?-  The implication is ACES or some other form of common upper stage is not going to appear any time soon--or at least Centaur will not be going away in lieu of a common US (unless AtlasV stops, but there are threads for that).  Further implication is SLS 1B should it ever fly... 

[docmordrid]

This should prove interesting.

SpacePolicyOnline....

Hartman: U.S. and Russian Crews to Fly Both Soyuz and U.S. Commercial Vehicles

NASA intends to use future U.S. commercial crew vehicles to carry not only its astronauts, but also those of its Russian partner, to the International Space Station (ISS), said Dan Hartman, deputy space station program manager, at a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting on Monday (July 28).
>

[Robotbeat]

I have not seen or heard anything that would dissuade me from thinking that SpaceX can and will finish first and offer the cheapest service.

I tend to agree because I keep thinking of the costs of an Atlas 5 launch versus an F9 launch.

So does Boeing,

http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/boeing-spacex-detail-capsule-test-plans

[John Mulholland, VP Commercial Programs]

"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”

It really does seem that SpaceX is going to be THE dominant player in space launch, certainly in the US. Even if Dragon somehow loses, SpaceX still wins with Falcon 9. This would ensure at least another couple launches per year for Falcon 9, ones that otherwise would go to ULA.

This is all assuming SpaceX doesn't majorly screw up, like back-to-back failures (though a single full failure would be pretty bad!).

[manboy]

This should prove interesting.

SpacePolicyOnline....

Hartman: U.S. and Russian Crews to Fly Both Soyuz and U.S. Commercial Vehicles

NASA intends to use future U.S. commercial crew vehicles to carry not only its astronauts, but also those of its Russian partner, to the International Space Station (ISS), said Dan Hartman, deputy space station program manager, at a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting on Monday (July 28).
>

We've known this for at least a year and a half.

"The USCV will carry four crewmembers, meaning that once it docks to the ISS, the crew of the station will be boosted to seven – allowing significant extra research activities to be performed. However, one of the crewmembers on the USCV will be Russian – just as one American crewmember will continue to be rotated on the Soyuz." - Year in Review (1 January 2013)

[yg1968]

Bolden gave an update on commercial crew at the NAC meeting today:

Bolden: think it will be "sooner rather than later" this yr when we select CCtCAP companies. Can be done by end 2017 if Congress fully funds

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/494541290369859585

Bolden believes NASA on track to award Commercial Crew contracts "much sooner than later this year"

https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/494541417134690304

Bolden: source selection deliberations for next comm'l crew phase, CCtCap, going "better than expected".

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/494541204281753600

[yg1968]

That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further tamper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.

[GalacticIntruder]

That is scary. It is 2017 because it has not been fully funded. Most people don't expect it be fully funded in the future. The most recent statement from one of Elon's interview was Dragon would be ready by end of year 2016, so that has slipped on their timeline as well. (or he is just lowering expectations as he gets closer)

EM: There will be a difference if you want a dramatic improvement in safety and emergency systems. As it is, our cargo Dragon maintains sea level pressure and normal room temperature in the pressurized module. If somebody had stowed on any of our [four cargo] flights, they would have made it to ISS and back fine, no problem. We’re required to transport biological cargo – fish and mice – so it has to be able to support life. And the pressurized cargo area is big – 12 cubic meters – plenty of room. As for people, it’s quite likely by the end of 2016 we will start [flying them].

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimclash/2014/07/28/elon-musk-tells-me-his-secret-of-success-hint-it-aint-about-the-money/

[yg1968]

Not necessarily a slip. NASA just thinks that SpaceX is being overly optimistic. NASA is planning for the end of 2017 but they would be happy with an earlier date. Incidentally, the latest draft FY 2015 appropriation bills are not that far off from fully funding commercial crew.

[baldusi]

Not necessarily a slip. NASA just thinks that SpaceX is being overly optimistic. NASA is planning for the end of 2017 but they would be happy with an earlier date. Incidentally, the latest draft FY 2015 appropriation bills are not that far off from fully funding commercial crew.

Or they are confident on Boeing's projections. It still is an open race and Boeing has probably the more robust plan.

[yg1968]

Not necessarily a slip. NASA just thinks that SpaceX is being overly optimistic. NASA is planning for the end of 2017 but they would be happy with an earlier date. Incidentally, the latest draft FY 2015 appropriation bills are not that far off from fully funding commercial crew.

Or they are confident on Boeing's projections. It still is an open race and Boeing has probably the more robust plan.

DC also projects a late 2017 crewed flight. NASA is being conservative by choosing the end of 2017 and it is based on their own estimates (not on anyone's proposal). I am not sure that this date says anything about Boeing's proposal being robust. Bolden is likely not the selecting officer for CCtCap (it was Gerst for CCiCap). He doesn't have much details on Boeing's proposal.  Price is an important factor for selection for CCtCap. So I would expect SpaceX to do much better than Boeing on that front.

[Coastal Ron]

Not necessarily a slip. NASA just thinks that SpaceX is being overly optimistic. NASA is planning for the end of 2017 but they would be happy with an earlier date. Incidentally, the latest draft FY 2015 appropriation bills are not that far off from fully funding commercial crew.

Where is NASA saying anything about Commercial Crew participant schedules?

The only people within NASA that know what the schedules are for each participant on Commercial Crew can't talk about it, since they are involved with CCtCap selection process.  Bolden says he doesn't even know what the details are.

As far as SpaceX goes, they are running a little behind on the "In-Flight Abort Test" milestone (slipped to later this year), which should complete the CCiCap contract for them.  As long as no major issues are uncovered, that leaves 2 years to fly with humans and meet the 2016 SpaceX goal.

When Musk unveiled the Dragon V2 back in May Aviation Week wrote:

“The first key milestone for the Dragon V2 is a launch pad abort test in which the vehicle will be positioned at pad height and then launched to simulate an emergency. “Next year we expect to do the high altitude abort test at Max Q [max dynamic pressure] and execute an abort. These are tests, so they could go wrong,” Musk says. “Conceivably we could do the first flight to orbit at the end of 2015, and the first flight with people in 2016.""

Being ready by the end of 2016 for commercial service is not out of the realm of possibility, and being ready in 2017 to take over when contracted Soyuz flights end definitely looks doable for SpaceX.

Just as a note, the last Soyuz contract extension in April cost NASA $458M for six round-trip seats.  One can only imagine how much sooner the Commercial Crew participants could have been ready to take over from the Russian Soyuz if Congress would have provided that money to U.S. companies at the beginning of the Commercial Crew program instead of to Russia...

[abaddon]

It might be worth reviewing NASA's assessment of its CCiCAP partners when the awards were announced:  http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docID=645.

In the Initial Evaluation, SpaceX was rated as Green (4/5) for technical approach with a low level of confidence rating, and Green for business approach with a medium level of confidence rating.  Boeing was rated as Green for technical approach with a medium level of confidence rating, and White (3/5) with a medium level of confidence rating.  SNC was rated Green for technical approach with a low level of confidence rating, and White with a medium level of confidence rating for business approach.

In the "Final Evaluation after Due Diligence", SpaceX was rated as Blue (5/5) for technical approach with a medium level of confidence rating, and Blue for business approach with a high level of confidence rating.  Boeing was rated as Blue for technical approach with a high level of confidence rating, and for business approach remained White, but now with a high level of confidence rating.  SNC was rated Blue for technical approach with a medium level of confidence rating, and Blue with a medium level of confidence rating for business approach.

There is a very thorough discussion of these factors in more detail in the same document that are well worth reading if interested in the subject.  If you are curious why SNC ended up in third place in the CCiCAP awards (not really evident from these ratings alone) it is explained there.

Obviously, this was when CCiCAP was awarded and now we are getting close to the end of CCiCAP.  It will be very interesting to see how things have changed since when the CCtCAP awards are announced, assuming that we get a similar level of disclosure this time around (and I hope we do).

[rcoppola]

It might be worth reviewing NASA's assessment of its CCiCAP partners when the awards were announced:  http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docID=645.

In the Initial Evaluation, SpaceX was rated as Green (4/5) for technical approach with a low level of confidence rating, and Green for business approach with a medium level of confidence rating.  Boeing was rated as Green for technical approach with a medium level of confidence rating, and White (3/5) with a medium level of confidence rating.  SNC was rated Green for technical approach with a low level of confidence rating, and White with a medium level of confidence rating for business approach.

In the "Final Evaluation after Due Diligence", SpaceX was rated as Blue (5/5) for technical approach with a medium level of confidence rating, and Blue for business approach with a high level of confidence rating.  Boeing was rated as Blue for technical approach with a high level of confidence rating, and for business approach remained White, but now with a high level of confidence rating.  SNC was rated Blue for technical approach with a medium level of confidence rating, and Blue with a medium level of confidence rating for business approach.

There is a very thorough discussion of these factors in more detail in the same document that are well worth reading if interested in the subject.  If you are curious why SNC ended up in third place in the CCiCAP awards (not really evident from these ratings alone) it is explained there.

Obviously, this was when CCiCAP was awarded and now we are getting close to the end of CCiCAP.  It will be very interesting to see how things have changed since when the CCtCAP awards are announced, assuming that we get a similar level of disclosure this time around (and I hope we do).

That's a great baseline reminder, thanks. That may explain why SpaceX decided to do 2 abort scenarios and self fund the DragonFly testing program, to retire as much risk as possible before CCtCAP. But looks like they fell behind a bit. Hopefully they can get the pad abort done before final decisions are made. Although I'm not sure how much, if at all that would matter at this point.

I'm sure their propulsive landing proposal elevated NASA's risk assessment. IIRC, originally they were going to do water landings, then upgrade to propulsive landings. Somewhere along the line they decided to go directly to propulsive landings. (Obviously water for abort scenarios)

[TrevorMonty]

NASA can request water landings but it will most likely cost them more.

[erioladastra]

That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.

Yes, that would be good.  Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs.  late 2017 is probably ideal.  Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost).  One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work.  The longer NASA waits the worse it gets.  So I don't think 2017 is realistic.