CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[mlindner]

It's worth noting however that the unique vehicle with so much potent......

The "potential" is grossly over stated.  Parachute or wings are means and not an end.  The recovery system on a spacecraft is in use a small fraction of its mission.  What matters is what it does on orbit and not how "gracefully" returns to earth.  So this passion for winged spacecraft is misplaced.

For once we entirely agree. I never understood the love for DC.

[friendly3]

$ for $, and assuming one test flight and six operational missions for each :

http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc458/friendly222/Dragon-CST100OK_zps10d72969.jpg[/img]

[ipsyd]

$ for $, and assuming one test flight and six operational missions for each :

http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc458/friendly222/Dragon-CST100OK_zps10d72969.jpg[/img]

By your math there is no value in the dozen cargo flights in the SpaceX CRS contract.  Apples and oranges.   Nice graphic, but it's not accurate.

Come to think of it, the majority of the responses in this thread have turned into an apples and oranges conversation.  Bottom line is we have 2 new solid chances at crewed spaceflight.  This is a day to celebrate future space.

Thanks NASA!

[Lars-J]

The absolutely best part of this CCtCAP announcement was IMO that two providers will be fully funded to the point that they do a crewed test flight to ISS. This is GREAT news as I feared that a final down-select would be done before this point.

So assuming congress keeps funding the program, by the end of 2017 the US will have 3 human capable spacecraft. (Orion should be close as well then) That is GREAT news no matter how you slice it.

[MP99]

Well, I think this whole decision stinks. Hopefully one day a commission will expose all the backroom dealing that went on, and those responsible will be held to account.

I look forward to reading the selection documentation once it's been re-written to fit today's selection.

What data are you basing  that accusation on?  You are actually saying that a crime was done.

NASA always wanted multiple providers so, OK, one is more expensive. Even after six flights, NASA will sign contracts for follow-on flights, and will have to pay whatever the second cheapest requires. These are the consequences of keeping two providers viable (and I suspect there will be a painful gap before purely commercial demand starts to shoulder part of the load.)

SpaceX was late with COTS, Boeing was late with Dreamliner. I don't know if either is really a completely safe pair of hands in terms of flying operationally in 2017. Actually, I suspect neither will, due to budgets. And I really don't see how SNC could make up their CCiCAP half award to fly in 2817.

We've had it drummed into us how the process is completely free from political interference. Reports that pressure might have affected the outcome are deeply disturbing. And I have no way to evaluate whether those reports are justified (and some will never be persuaded otherwise), but I repeat that the reports themselves are very disturbing, exactly because that would imply something criminal.

As counterpoint, there is always the possibility that these reports come from a faulty reading of the tea leaves beforehand, and that the announcement is just different than expected. Many warnings beforehand, of course, that even those close to the process often have a faulty read on what the outcome will be.

I don't know how we could get to the stage of resolving this, short of some whistle blower leaking a pre-release report, and comparing recommendations to awards. Major repercussions there, and I don't see it happening.

Cheers, Martin

[HIP2BSQRE]

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

I hope that you are wrong....

[HIP2BSQRE]

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

Why only 30%???

[macpacheco]

It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.

Not very surprising, sad to say.

I don't know about you. But for me Space is about human dreams, human aspirations.
SpaceX so far is fulfilling our dreams while making money.
Boeing, ULA, LockMart, RocketDyne are 100% for profit companies that are dream killers instead, with a history of taking cost plus contracts and consistently ending up costing more than predicted.
So, yeah, I Like pro SpaceX and anti Boeing posts. Deal.

[Darkseraph]

Well, I think this whole decision stinks. Hopefully one day a commission will expose all the backroom dealing that went on, and those responsible will be held to account.

I look forward to reading the selection documentation once it's been re-written to fit today's selection.

What data are you basing  that accusation on?  You are actually saying that a crime was done.

NASA always wanted multiple providers so, OK, one is more expensive. Even after six flights, NASA will sign contracts for follow-on flights, and will have to pay whatever the second cheapest requires. These are the consequences of keeping two providers viable (and I suspect there will be a painful gap before purely commercial demand starts to shoulder part of the load.)

SpaceX was late with COTS, Boeing was late with Dreamliner. I don't know if either is really a completely safe pair of hands in terms of flying operationally in 2017. Actually, I suspect neither will, due to budgets. And I really don't see how SNC could make up their CCiCAP half award to fly in 2817.

We've had it drummed into us how the process is completely free from political interference. Reports that pressure might have affected the outcome are deeply disturbing. And I have no way to evaluate whether those reports are justified (and some will never be persuaded otherwise), but I repeat that the reports themselves are very disturbing, exactly because that would imply something criminal.

As counterpoint, there is always the possibility that these reports come from a faulty reading of the tea leaves beforehand, and that the announcement is just different than expected. Many warnings beforehand, of course, that even those close to the process often have a faulty read on what the outcome will be.

I don't know how we could get to the stage of resolving this, short of some whistle blower leaking a pre-release report, and comparing recommendations to awards. Major repercussions there, and I don't see it happening.

Cheers, Martin

What? Everything will have flown by 2817...even Skylon, SLS and VentureStar!

[GraniteHound92]

It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.

Not very surprising, sad to say.

I don't know about you. But for me Space is about human dreams, human aspirations.
SpaceX so far is fulfilling our dreams while making money.
Boeing, ULA, LockMart, RocketDyne are 100% for profit companies that are dream killers instead, with a history of taking cost plus contracts and consistently ending up costing more than predicted.
So, yeah, I Like pro SpaceX and anti Boeing posts. Deal.

I am a fan of SpaceX, and I think what they're doing for space exploration and the American space program cannot be understated.  However, the idea that Boeing, ULA, Lockheed Martin, and Rocketdyne are "dream killers," is incorrect.  These companies have been the back bone of the American aerospace industry for decades.  Most of whatever you think of when you think about space exploration can be attributed to these companies. 

Rocketdyne designed the F-1 rocket engine.  Every dream about space you've ever had lifted off with that engine.

[R7]

The two innovations it offers are landing in the dessert

Waiter, there's a capsule in my pudding!

[MP99]

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

I hope that you are wrong....

I think that he is right, unfortunately...

Cheers, Martin

[Nibb31]

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.

By that logic, a Boeing 787 is nothing more than 1930's DC-3. Modern planes use the same layout as old planes because that's the design that works. We've tried other arrangements, pusher engines, dirigieables, and other stuff, but that doesn't meant that modern airliners are a "step back".

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.

A cargo DreamChaser would also need CBM berthing instead of a LIDS/IDSS/NDS or whatever it's called this week. There is no point in having reentry capability if you can't fit an ISPR through the hatch. Is DreamChaser's rear end tall enough to house a CBM without changing the moldline? I don't think so...

[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

I hope that you are wrong....

Me too!

~Jon

[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

Why only 30%???

They'd basically have to get far enough along with DreamChaser 100% on their own dime to have a shot at competing for the CRS-2 contract. They'd then have to show how even in spite of having to self-fund how they'll be better than all the competition (Dragon V1, CST-100 cargo version, and Cygnus). Seems like a long-shot. Not impossible, but very, very risky unless they have a lock on some really unusual advantage, or can make a strong case for being cheaper...

I *wish* they had better odds, I just don't think they do.

~Jon

[cambrianera]

It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.

Not very surprising, sad to say.

I don't know about you. But for me Space is about human dreams, human aspirations.
SpaceX so far is fulfilling our dreams while making money.
Boeing, ULA, LockMart, RocketDyne are 100% for profit companies that are dream killers instead, with a history of taking cost plus contracts and consistently ending up costing more than predicted.
So, yeah, I Like pro SpaceX and anti Boeing posts. Deal.

I am a fan of SpaceX, and I think what they're doing for space exploration and the American space program cannot be understated.  However, the idea that Boeing, ULA, Lockheed Martin, and Rocketdyne are "dream killers," is incorrect.  These companies have been the back bone of the American aerospace industry for decades.  Most of whatever you think of when you think about space exploration can be attributed to these companies. 

Rocketdyne designed the F-1 rocket engine.  Every dream about space you've ever had lifted off with that engine.

The Dream was fully paid by American Taxpayer, only business as usual for the companies (except for the excitement of individuals inside the organization).
But "dream killers" is really a little bit harsh.

[Star One]

On the question of why no more excitement from some of us, well, in my case it's quite simple: imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killed, while NASA chooses to use its limited resources to fund three different flavors of capsule designs. On a more abstract level, I think it reflects risk aversion and a lack of willingness to do new and interesting things. No longer are we the country that does things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

There is already a spaceplane in use the X-37B & I suppose you could call the XS-1 one as well so they are still out there.

[woods170]

Remember that SpaceX has a head start on all this thanks to ISS cargo - a contract that has paid them billions already.

 - Ed Kyle

Just a tad short of 2 billion US$ actually. SpaceX was awarded 396 million US$ under COTS and then 1.6 billion US$ under CRS-1.

1.6 billion lower. For the same result.

SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO.  That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?

 - Ed Kyle

Nope. The capacity to launch a (cargo) capsule to ISS by SpaceX was developed and realized with NASA investing just 396 million US$ into SpaceX under COTS.
You are also ignoring the fact that SpaceX developed Falcon 9 v1.1 from money NOT coming from COTS and/or CRS-1. Elon stated that himself.
CRS-1 payments do not actually benefit the commercial crew efforts from SpaceX.

[MP99]

Remember that SpaceX has a head start on all this thanks to ISS cargo - a contract that has paid them billions already.

 - Ed Kyle

Just a tad short of 2 billion US$ actually. SpaceX was awarded 396 million US$ under COTS and then 1.6 billion US$ under CRS-1.

You're saying they've been paid for nine CRS flights that haven't happened yet?

Cheers, Martin

[R7]

There is already a spaceplane in use the X-37B & I suppose you could call the XS-1 one as well so they are still out there.

And there are winged aspirations outside US too; Avatar from India