CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Dasun]

What is it about government contracting people do not understand?  Request for proposals (RFP's) are put out, companies bid on those proposals (and all that paperwork really costs), government teams assess those proposals against criteria (legally they can not spill the details outside the assessment team) and a decision is finally made.

Boeing's bid cost more than SpaceX but outside the assessing team that would not have been known.  So, it is not about Boeing getting more than SpaceX, it  is rather that Boeing priced their RFP response higher.  The bid assessment team would have had a huge matrix of criteria to work through - technical, schedule and financial risk assessments would have been in the mix as well.  In the end they had to choose two players and the two that scored higher would have won.

Having been through the process it really boils down to that.  So stop, spitting the dummy that your favoured player did not get chosen or did not get more money, they played their best hand in their RFP response and lost.  Rather celebrate, that two technically solid solutions were chosen and that the US will have 3 manned spacecraft flying by decades end.

[MP99]

As for Bigelow... If ISS proved there was a viable business case for a private space station he would be in space already, or at least a lot further down the path.

Not really. Why launch a space station when there is no way to reach it? Once Boeing and SpaceX are flying in 2017, then we'll see if Bigelow is serious.

Bigelow did launch two test stations a few years back. Putting hardware in orbit shows they are far down the path. Bigelow's problem has been having to wait for somebody to provide passenger access to LEO. The big question is can Bigelow stay in business while on hold for another three or four years. Boeing has worked with Bigelow and will probably want to help get a commercial space station in LEO to expand their market for CST-100.

Those were simple shells.

Bigelow has moved so far beyond that, that they need funding from NASA to design a simple shell to attach to ISS (BEAM). This won't have any of the systems required for a free-floating platform, like ECLSS. It even lacks the spine that's an important part of their design.

Bigelow are a *long* way from being able to free-fly anything for a paying customer. I don't expect them to be providing an alternate destination for the CC providers in 2017 or 2018.

As for staying alive during the interim - since they seem to need more time than that to have a working system, they need to start development today even in order to be late to the party. Whenever they start, they'll need to find a lot of money to undertake their development.

cheers, Martin

[Star One]

imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killed

You still have Skylon.

He said "realistic".

I am not sure that's a particular constructive viewpoint & Skylon is perfectly realistic.

[Borklund]

imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killed

You still have Skylon.

He said "realistic".

I am not sure that's a particular constructive viewpoint & Skylon is perfectly realistic.

Skylon is a perfectly realistic paper spacecraft. The only funding for anything Skylon related is to produce and test a single full-scale prototype SABRE engine. But this is getting a little off topic.

[Lourens]

Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.

Lot of snippiness in this thread.  I really don't get the anti-Boeing sentiment (or the pro SNC sentiment for that matter).

This decision by NASA seems entirely logical.  They have a very firm requirement to get crew back into space on American launchers by 2017.  Going with a dual track effort provides a very high degree of assurance that they'll succeed in meeting the requirement. 

<snip>

Going with SNC just seems like risk piled upon risk to me if my goal is to assure access to space for American crews.  This was a downselect waiting to happen considering the history of this program.  Why throw a long bomb if your only payback is cross range capability?  That's just my opinion obviously, but I just don't get it.

I'm disappointed at this decision, and a fan of SpaceX and Elon Musk, so maybe I can explain.

First, let me state that you are right. NASA have a set of requirements, and a political reality, and SpaceX and Boeing to really do seem to be a good bet for getting crews flying to ISS in 2017. An RFP was put out, three companies bid, the best proposals were selected. Without the detailed reasoning for the decision available, there's not much more to say.

So why am I disappointed that it's Boeing and not SNC? I'm not disappointed about the specific outcome, I'm disappointed about the spirit of the thing. In the 1960's, we went from suborbital hops to footprints on the moon (on the moon!) in a decade. We took risks, big risks. I think I read somewhere that the first lunar explorers thought they had about a 50/50 chance of making it back.

But they'd done everything they could to make it a success, so they got on that rocket and flew to the moon, and made it back safely. On television, Star Trek promised a future where humans would continue exploring, and "to boldly go where no man has gone before".

Unfortunately, it was never to be. Apollo ended and we got the Space Shuttle program, the goal of which was to make space flight cheap, safe, and routine. Go around safely inside the Van Allen belts, build a space station on our proverbial front porch, launch a space telescope.

The Shuttle was a beautiful machine and a technically audacious masterpiece of engineering, and the scientific returns of Shuttle, ISS and Hubble are fantastic. We learnt an incredible amount from them, and still are. But still, to me on the outside, it didn't feel like "explor[ing] strange new worlds" any more than driving an RV to the same camp site every year feels like exploring the countryside.

Now, the Space Launch System that Gen. Bolden was going on about at the press conference is supposed to bring back exploration. And they sure are building a big rocket, although if it'll ever be as big as what we once had we don't know, and it certainly doesn't come cheap. But worse, there are no missions! Again it's the spirit of the thing. Columbus didn't go to the Queen of Spain saying "I want money to build a big ship", he wanted to find a new route to the Orient, to explore the world. Yes, Congress talks about Mars, but we've been hearing about missions to Mars for decades now, and we're still stuck in LEO. I'm not holding my breath.

Enter Elon Musk. His goal is to make humanity a multiplanetary species. To settle Mars. That's a step beyond. That's exploration. That's audacity. That's "to boldly go where no one has gone before". That's the 21st century as it was supposed to be! I don't know if he can do it, and I don't believe he can do it in the timeframe he's suggested, but by Jove the man is trying, and he's not waiting for anyone else to write an RFP.

Meanwhile, NASA selects the CST-100 design, which is best described as "to meekly retreat to where we were half a century ago", and for exactly that reason!.

Colour me unimpressed.

[Wigles]

@ Lourens

So you would rather a rapid and risky development process which has a 50/50 chance of scrapping US human space flight for at least another decade (the consequence of people being killed in todays environment) because "Establising routine access to LEO" isnt enough vision?

[Dasun]

In the last 50 years I have not seen another Kennedy "We choose to go to the moon.." speech - that, the cold war, and his untimely demise were what drove Apollo not the thirst for Exploration.  Unique conditions led to unique outcomes.

Currently NASA has a requirement to haul 4 astronaut tails uphill to ISS and they used a tried and true process to make the selection.  It is not about entertaining the masses, it is about the technical solution. 

Columbus did not need to ask for a big ship to be built, they were already built. In SLS/BFR terms in the 2020's and 2030's they will already be there waiting to fulfill someone's exploration aspirations.

Look to the South Pole for an indication - 1912 first visited and then a 40+ year wait before anyone returned, and that was via aircraft just before they built a base.  Exploration is not a continuum it is a stop start thing.

[abaddon]

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

The odds of at least one of SpaceX or Boeing succeeding at this point (maybe later but succeeding) are extremely high.  You effectively said Bigelow is not a sure bet.  Which doesn't exactly seem like going out on a limb to me...

[laszlo]

So NOW can we finally see the full DreamChaser landing video?

[MP99]

Look to the South Pole for an indication - 1912 first visited and then a 40+ year wait before anyone returned, and that was via aircraft just before they built a base.  Exploration is not a continuum it is a stop start thing.

This analogy I like.

Cheers, Martin

[Steven Pietrobon]

It seems to me that having three different capsule designs for just two to three missions total a year is not a good way to run a cost effective program. If the CCtCAP vehicles are to help with costs, then surely only going with the cheaper option and saving $4.2B, that could be used for other actual missions beyond LEO, like building a large upper stage, cryogenic propulsion stage and Lunar lander, seems to me to be a better way to use the available money.

Personally, I wanted Sierra Nevada to win so as to give someone else a chance, just like NASA gave SpaceX a chance. Anyways, here's a summary of the total program costs.

CCDEV                     CCDEV1 CCDEV2 CCDEV2+ CCiCap   CPC  CCiCap2 CCtCAP  Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing                     $18.0  $92.3  $20.6  $460.0  $10.0  $20.0  $4200  $4820.9
SpaceX                      $0.0  $75.0   $0.0  $440.0   $9.6  $20.0  $2600  $3144.6
Sierra Nevada Corporation  $20.0  $80.0  $25.6  $212.5  $10.0  $15.0          $363.1
Blue Origin                 $3.7  $22.0                                        $25.7
ULA                         $6.7                                                $6.7
Paragon                     $1.4                                                $1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                      $49.8  $269.3 $46.2 $1112.5  $29.6  $55.0  $6800  $8362.4

[MP99]

I think one of the things that makes people like SNC & Dream Chaser is that they give the feeling somewhat more of being the Musk-style enthusiasts than you'd ever expect to get from Boeing.

But, as a thought experiment, imagine we're five years down the line and someone comes up with a proposal that involves getting crews to LEO.

Is that proposal really much less likely to proceed in today's universe (the one where Boeing won), than in the alternate (where SNC won)?

Hmm, could be the subject of a poll. Thoughts, anyone?

Cheers, Martin

[Cherokee43v6]

Now, the Space Launch System that Gen. Bolden was going on about at the press conference is supposed to bring back exploration. And they sure are building a big rocket, although if it'll ever be as big as what we once had we don't know, and it certainly doesn't come cheap. But worse, there are no missions! Again it's the spirit of the thing. Columbus didn't go to the Queen of Spain saying "I want money to build a big ship", he wanted to find a new route to the Orient, to explore the world. Yes, Congress talks about Mars, but we've been hearing about missions to Mars for decades now, and we're still stuck in LEO. I'm not holding my breath.

Lourens, I'm probably one of the more 'rah rah Exploration types' that you'll find anywhere, but there is a major fallacy in the Columbus argument as you present it.

You hit on the right points but the wrong motivator.  Columbus' intent was not to 'explore for the sake of exploration', which is what the last 70 years of NACA/NASA space work has been about.  Columbus was exploring for the express purpose of 'getting rich'.  In other words, he presented a business case to the Queen of Spain that he could break the 'overland' and 'Horn of Africa' monopoly's on trade to India, China and the East Indies.  This was an economic motivator that drove him to explore westward for a 'shorter, more direct' route for that trade.

Currently, there is not an economic motivator for the type of exploration which you, me, (and probably most everyone on this board) wants.  Going to Mars won't get me from New York to Tokyo quicker.  Yes, spin-offs from space technology have, do, and will improve our lives.  We're the choir, we sing this as loud as we can, but to Joe Sixpack, voter and constituent, he can't see it, so he doesn't support it and he believes whatever tripe rolls out on his choice of visual infotainment (read as Hoaxer TV).

You find me a space or non terrestrial product or resource that beats everything that can be done on Earth in its niche and you'll have a billion Columbus queuing up and roaring to go.  The Queens of Spain will then follow.

edit: Minor grammar edits

[Darkseraph]

I'll be as popular as Joey Stalin here for saying this but....that award they gave Boeing would pay for all the American and European expedition members to fly on Soyuz...until 2028, with about 300 million left over!

*oh well, its a national space program, so cost effectiveness is rarely ever the most important metric.

[Lourens]

@ Lourens

So you would rather a rapid and risky development process which has a 50/50 chance of scrapping US human space flight for at least another decade (the consequence of people being killed in todays environment) because "Establising routine access to LEO" isnt enough vision?

No, I want an environment where we accept that exploration is dangerous, and that there's always some risk that people get killed, but where we do it anyway, because it's worth it. I like Copenhagen Suborbitals. They say that they'll risk launching a person into space on their rocket when they get the risk down to the level of an extreme sport. Climbers die in the mountains every year, and yet we don't shut down Everest for a decade whenever that happens.

And yes, I have trouble getting excited over reestablishing the routine access to LEO that I grew up with in the 1980's and 1990's, except with smaller craft and fewer people. That seems to be the extent of the ambition of the CST-100. Progress is doing things that haven't been done before, like propulsive landing and rapid reusability. That's not to say that new is automatically better, but it's definitely more satisfying.

Edit: "smaller craft and fewer people"

[abaddon]

It seems to me that having three different capsule designs for just two to three missions total a year is not a good way to run a cost effective program. If the CCtCAP vehicles are to help with costs, then surely only going with the cheaper option and saving $4.2B

And if that cheaper option fails, NASA is left holding the bag on another failed problem, no closer to regaining independence in access to space.  There are a lot of people acting like the fact that these two companies have been awarded CCtCAP contracts means the spacecraft are all but wrapped up neatly in a bow ready to use.

No, that's not acceptable, and I'm glad NASA is sticking to their guns (under substantial pressure from Congress) on keeping with two providers.  No, it's not the most cost effective solution, but it gives us options and that's a good thing.

[Rocket Science]

Thanks for the article Chris. That was one of the “strangest” pressers I’ve ever seen as they could have just sent out a memo of the results. The reps from each company should have been there and Charlie had to sobbingly conflate CC with Orion/SLS in order to somehow create excitement and inspiration about the decision... Fail...

[MP99]

It seems to me that having three different capsule designs for just two to three missions total a year is not a good way to run a cost effective program. If the CCtCAP vehicles are to help with costs, then surely only going with the cheaper option and saving $4.2B, that could be used for other actual missions beyond LEO, like building a large upper stage, cryogenic propulsion stage and Lunar lander, seems to me to be a better way to use the available money.

Personally, I wanted Sierra Nevada to win so as to give someone else a chance, just like NASA gave SpaceX a chance. Anyways, here's a summary of the total program costs.

CCDEV                     CCDEV1 CCDEV2 CCDEV2+ CCiCap   CPC  CCiCap2 CCtCAP  Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing                     $18.0  $92.3  $20.6  $460.0  $10.0  $20.0  $4200  $4820.9
SpaceX                      $0.0  $75.0   $0.0  $440.0   $9.6  $20.0  $2600  $3144.6
Sierra Nevada Corporation  $20.0  $80.0  $25.6  $212.5  $10.0  $15.0          $363.1
Blue Origin                 $3.7  $22.0                                        $25.7
ULA                         $6.7                                                $6.7
Paragon                     $1.4                                                $1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                      $49.8  $269.3 $46.2 $1112.5  $29.6  $55.0  $6800  $8362.4

Tapatalk really screws that up on mobile - doesn't honour the fixed-width font.

Let's see if this is any better:-

CCDEV	CCDEV1	CCDEV2	CCDEV2+	CCiCap	CPC	CCiCap2	CCtCAP	Total
Boeing	$18.0	$92.3	$20.6	$460.0	$10.0	$20.0	$4200	$4820.9
SpaceX	$0.0	$75.0	$0.0	$440.0	$9.6	$20.0	$2600	$3144.6
Sierra Nevada Corporation	$20.0	$80.0	$25.6	$212.5	$10.0	$15.0		$363.1
Blue Origin	$3.7	$22.0						$25.7
ULA	$6.7							$6.7
Paragon	$1.4							$1.4
Total	$49.8	$269.3	$46.2	$1112.5	$29.6	$55.0	$6800	$8362.4

cheers, Martin

Edit: nope. Epic fail there, TT.

[edkyle99]

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

I'm saying that SpaceX didn't seriously "launch" its Falcon 9 or Dragon programs until it won COTS.  Until then it was a little company trying to launch Falcon 1 from Omelek (it had only tried once at the time, and failed) working out of a small shop in El Segundo.  COTS is the reason that the company moved to the ex-Northrop facility at Hawthorne.  It is why SpaceX moved into McGregor in a big way.  NASA is the core customer, the primary "backer".  The Agency marshaled all of this to create a clean-sheet method for reaching ISS.  Falcon 9 didn't have a dedicated non-Dragon launch until only about one year ago.  Falcon 9 and Dragon don't exist without that contract win, and the resulting billions (yes, billions, because it is more than two billion if you count the initial commercial crew money, and well more than $4.5 billion if you count yesterday's win).

 - Ed Kyle

[Lourens]

Now, the Space Launch System that Gen. Bolden was going on about at the press conference is supposed to bring back exploration. And they sure are building a big rocket, although if it'll ever be as big as what we once had we don't know, and it certainly doesn't come cheap. But worse, there are no missions! Again it's the spirit of the thing. Columbus didn't go to the Queen of Spain saying "I want money to build a big ship", he wanted to find a new route to the Orient, to explore the world. Yes, Congress talks about Mars, but we've been hearing about missions to Mars for decades now, and we're still stuck in LEO. I'm not holding my breath.

Lourens, I'm probably one of the more 'rah rah Exploration types' that you'll find anywhere, but there is a major fallacy in the Columbus argument as you present it.

You hit on the right points but the wrong motivator.  Columbus' intent was not to 'explore for the sake of exploration', which is what the last 70 years of NACA/NASA space work has been about.  Columbus was exploring for the express purpose of 'getting rich'.  In other words, he presented a business case to the Queen of Spain that he could break the 'overland' and 'Horn of Africa' monopoly's on trade to India, China and the East Indies.  This was an economic motivator that drove him to explore westward for a 'shorter, more direct' route for that trade.

Currently, there is not an economic motivator for the type of exploration which you, me, (and probably most everyone on this board) wants.  Going to Mars won't get me from New York to Tokyo quicker.  Yes, spin-offs from space technology have, do, and will improve our lives.  We're the choir, we sing this as loud as we can, but to Joe Sixpack, voter and constituent, he can't see it, so he doesn't support it and he believes whatever tripe rolls out on his choice of visual infotainment (read as Hoaxer TV).

You find me a space or non terrestrial product or resource that beats everything that can be done on Earth in its niche and you'll have a billion Columbus queuing up and roaring to go.  The Queens of Spain will then follow.

edit: Minor grammar edits

You're right of course about Columbus, and I don't have a business case for colonising Mars, or for exploring BLEO. But that's exactly what makes the concept of innovation, and progress, and the spirit of the space program so important. There is no business case for watching football and buying team jerseys either, but Joe Sixpack spends $7.7 Billion a year on football (total NFL revenues), simply because it makes him feel good. If NASA could make space exploration as entertaining as football to the general public, make people feel excited again about their country exploring the universe, then maybe they'd up NASAs budget accordingly.

But to do that, they have to do spectacular new things. Not have amateurish press conferences about the government buying a couple new trucks. They should have had some more information about the CCtCap program, the three candidates, the vehicles, the companies, and then we'd have Gen. Bolden (sitting up straight and not flying off on SLS tangents) announce that the winner is...drumroll...Boeing and SpaceX! I'll stop short of demanding Elon Musk and James McNerney come down a big staircase with confetti flying, but if you compare this press conference to the Dragon V2 reveal, then I think it's clear where the enthusiasm for SpaceX is coming from.