CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[QuantumG]

This is more than paperwork.

No, it's not. In fact, this is the paperwork phase of the program. You can expect to see more paperwork milestones than ever before.

[Chris Bergin]

Look. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. So long as that opinion does not breach site rules, I'm not touching it.

A member can be overjoyed, they can be outraged. That is not against site rules.

I would, however, urge members to get their point across and not go on and on about it. Threads are for everyone, not just two people having a coffee morning chat about it in front of thousands of people reading these threads.

204,000 reads by the way. Blimey!

PS I've nearly finished my article on this. I'm beyond tired, so forgive me for not writing a 3,000 word epic feature. We'll get the news out, with a bit of "I actually give a crap about Dream Chaser too", and we'll do specific features over the coming period.

[ChrisWilson68]

I wonder if SNC is going to continue with the Dreamchaser or just close up house on it?

I suspect Dreamchaser will die a slow, drawn-out death.  SNC will talk about how they'll continue the program but at a much slower pace.  Over time, little progress will be made, and in a few years it will be formally cancelled.

Actually, did a bit of research.  Don't think that's actually likley afterall.  The Japanese and Euopeans are VERY interested in the Dream Chaser.  JAXA is a ctually one of their partners.  So without NASA to compete with, I think that this bird may fly sooner rather than later or never.

The Japanese and Europeans have only demonstrated an interest in talking about Dream Chaser.  There's close to zero chance they'll spend money on it.  National space programs are all about spending money in their own countries.  Just look at how Ariannespace production is split among different countries in Europe.  They'd never agree to spend a large amount of their budget to have a foreign company develop and build a vehicle.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Boeing's CST-100 nearly puts me to sleep every-time I see it. The fact remains that it is nothing more than a 1960's Apollo Command Module stripped down and tied with duct tape to a Gemini Service module, then stuffed with as many people as possible inside. It has the capability to fly in space for a long weekend on its own. The two innovations it offers are landing in the dessert (except that was developed for Orion) and the liquid pusher abort system, which uses the already existing RS-88 Bantam. 

How is that worth over twice the asking price of the Dragon V2? Regardless of lifting body versus capsule, Dreamchaser (and Dragon) offered the ability to do freeflying microgravity experiments.  The payload version of Dreamchaser even offered a platform to return to satellite servicing, albeit much smaller and robotic than shuttle. CST-100 is just designed for maximum return on investment for Boeing with as little risk, at least SNC tried to work with other space agencies so NASA would not be the only client (wasnt that what they wanted to foster in the first place)

The only silver lining I can see is the possible use of DC for cargo flights.  Now that the DC doesnt need an abort system, cockpit displays/chairs or full eclss, maybe that full OTV has a chance to fly unmanned cargo flights (probably worth more money in total) for NASA and under the fairing on the Ariane 5/HTV. We might not get a family of DC's, but one flying version could still keep going.

[jongoff]

The only silver lining I can see is the possible use of DC for cargo flights.  Now that the DC doesnt need an abort system, cockpit displays/chairs or full eclss, maybe that full OTV has a chance to fly unmanned cargo flights (probably worth more money in total) for NASA and under the fairing on the Ariane 5/HTV. We might not get a family of DC's, but one flying version could still keep going.

I was thinking something similar. By refocusing DC on unmanned cargo initially they might be able to simplify it enough to have a reasonable shot at CRS-2 (if they can move fast enough)... The unmanned version would also be more relevant to DoD and other non-NASA users. My guess is that without the abort system, and all the man-rating, they could probably finish a cargo DC for a small enough amount that SNC might just be able to afford it.

And if they did find a way to get a cargo vehicle flying and operating, it might be possible to bootstrap their way to a crew vehicle in time for a 2nd round of commercial crew flight contracts (if ISS keeps flying long enough).

Definitely a long-shot, I'd give it less than 30% chance of even a cargo-only Dreamchaser happening at this point. But I'd be really happy to see them pull it off--and not just because they're local.

~Jon

[TrevorMonty]

If Europe and Japan want to be partners in ISS they need to pay some of the operational costs. Using the DC on their LVs to supply cargo keeps that money in local economy while paying for ISS's upkeep.

[vt_hokie]

The immediate question is will SNC remain committed to completing OTV and following through on the 2016 orbital test flight, as previously stated?

[butters]

I just hope that Boeing and SpaceX can demonstrate again that this type of milestone-based competitive procurement model works for NASA, that it more effectively harnesses the ingenuity of U.S. industry to deliver cost-effective solutions for NASA's space transportation needs. Do us space fans a favor and knock this out of the park.

It would be a shame if we wound up with three capsules and no human exploration program. Maybe NASA's next commercial program should focus on in-space vehicles, mkay? We just need to, you know, come up with some objectives, turn those into requirements, and see what the industry comes up with in terms of first-round milestones. Get that first round going and let's see our range of options take shape. Let's see what's possible and go from there rather than attempt design by committee yet again.

[TomH]

...What matters is what it does on orbit and not how "gracefully" returns to earth.  So this passion for winged spacecraft is misplaced.

I have to wonder, however, from a cost/benefit analysis whether those wings would have given long term-low cost reusability or not. The capsules are said to be reusable up to 10 times. Some here are speculating they may actually fly no more than 3 times each.

Certainly shuttle never lived up to its reusability cost advantage hype. Refurbishment costs of tiles, engines, boosters, and so many components were grossly understated when the system was proposed.

How much could we accurately predict whether DC would have been less expensive than shuttle to turn around? Could each spacecraft possibly have flown 100 times as opposed to the 3-10 predicted for the capsules? There would be no RS-25s to break down, inspect, and reassemble. Would the lower number of tiles have been easier to service? With the spacecraft atop the LV, could we assume TPS damage would be impossible, or would we need a miniature Canada Arm inspection on each flight? With the ever increasing amount of space debris, would the exposed TPS be at risk of MMOD strike while the covered heat shields on the capsules are not? (ISS cupola alone now has two.) Could a fleet of 3 or 4 have been built and then flown for decades while the production line for the capsules continues to churn them out? Would RTLS have saved money over capsule recovery, particularly water recovery requiring rental of an entire well deck ship for several days?

Sure, I was really disappointed. I wanted to see this bird flair out and those wheels touch gracefully down at KSC. But this contentious banter is providing no intellectual insight. I look forward to actual facts, the specific criteria upon which the decision was made. I just hope that we the taxpayers, as well as our international friends, are able to see that information.

[TrevorMonty]

There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.

[QuantumG]

There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.

Those chickens aint hatched yet.

[Darkseraph]

There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.

Those chickens aint hatched yet.

I was going to say Dragons haven't hatched yet...but 

[WindyCity]

The big winner may turn out to be crewed space flight to Mars. Giving SpaceX an R&D boost to finish DV2 for transporting crews to the ISS will also energize the company's long-term program.

[vt_hokie]

The only other point I'd like to make is that, spaceplanes vs capsules aside, SNC seems to have made an impressive amount of progress and produced a lot of bang for the buck given its relative funding level.  It kills me that a program that has produced so much for so little is abandoned while NASA continues to have programs that produce so little with so much funding!

[nadreck]

I mean no offence to DC supporters, but DC was not a space plane, it is a lifting body not all that dissimilar from the one that we saw in the opening credits of The Six Million Dollar Man. Skylon is a true space plane, but I don't think it is truly viable. I really don't think real space planes are practical with chemical engines. I do favour the Dragon over the CST-100, but mainly because in completely unrelated hardware (DC-X, Grasshopper, LEM, F9RDev1 etc) we (humanity) have proven that we really can do, and get better at, propulsive vertical impulse landings.

However just because the Dream Chaser was not a true space plane, does not take away from its value as a competitor, and I would have loved to have seen it funded too.

So, what happened today is NASA ponied up with money today that sounds like a big deal, but is peanuts compared to other program spending and is nothing compared to the wastage seen in false starts on the various manned projects that have come and gone before this.  The money committed today funds something absolutely necessary, manned space operations. There is paperwork, review and a lot of oversight before a new manned vehicle carries a person, but it is coming, it is coming tons cheaper than the Space Shuttle did, and it is coming with program redundancy to cover eventualities that are reality in the commercial world.

I salute everyone who gets to go ahead with work they love, I sympathise with those who lost out, and I am keenly aware of the potential to harness the products going forward.  To those looking at the dollar sign, NASA just committed (as much as it can under its own funding constraints) to pay to develop two different vehicles that in total (looking from this end of the process) will cost about 1/5th what the Dreamliner cost to develop.  At the end, the incremental per launch cost of the CST-100 will probably rival that of a brand new,reusable, Dreamliner and I a am wllling to bet a St Gaudin's Double Eagle that SpaceX will be able to fly a Dragon V2 5 times for that cost by 2020. Still, in either companies hands, it puts manned space flight back in the realm of possibility for a variety of uses.

NASA just bought us two dreams, sad it couldn't have been 3, but happy it was two and not just one. Also I am happy we simply have direction again in this area.

[Seattle Dave]

Chris's article.

Here's my first article on all of this:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/09/dream-chaser-misses-out-cctcap-dragon-cst-100-win/

Was a bit more edgy in draft with more source notes, but decided to straight shoot it in the end as this is about the award. We'll be doing more articles on this over time.

[ChrisWilson68]

If it was true commercial I'd have all the companies make a full prototype product on their own dime and demonstrate it to me independently. I'd then discard all the companies except the best two.

And you'd find you had exactly zero choices because no company would put itself in that position.

Having a customer pay for the development of a product that has only one customer is very common in the purely commercial world.  I used to work for a chip company.  Some of our chips were for a broad market with lots of potential customers.  Those we would develop on our own dime and make available to anyone who wanted them.  Other chips were specifically focused on a specific customer's needs.  That customer would pay for the development of those chips.  The government wasn't involved in any way, all of this was one business selling a product to other businesses.

[jongoff]

There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.

Those chickens aint hatched yet.

I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...

~Jon

[edkyle99]

Boeing's CST-100 nearly puts me to sleep every-time I see it. The fact remains that it is nothing more than a 1960's Apollo Command Module stripped down and tied with duct tape to a Gemini Service module, then stuffed with as many people as possible inside.

CST-100 is bigger than Apollo, at 4.56 meters diameter.  It is also bigger than Dragon V2, which is 3.7 meters diameter.

How is that worth over twice the asking price of the Dragon V2?

The price included development and certification, and so isn't really an "asking price" for a certain number of spacecraft.  SpaceX is already flying its rocket.  Boeing still has to pay to certify two-engine Centaur and the other changes to Atlas 5.  SpaceX already has a factory already building Dragons.  Boeing still has to tool up a factory floor to build CST-100.  SpaceX has already won contracts totaling close to $2 billion for Dragon/Falcon 9 missions.  Boeing hasn't.

 - Ed Kyle

[friendly3]

Honestly after the SNC Dreamchaser ETA crash, the notification of the abandon of their own hybrid motors a few weeks before the CCtCAP decision definitely condemned them.