CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Jim]

I think the biggest loser in all of this is ULA.  NASA doing a very deep investigation into Falcon 9 and certifying it to fly NASA astronauts makes any claim that Falcon 9 isn't reliable enough for national security payloads look so silly that it's untennable.

And once Falcon 9 is considered reliable enough for national security payloads, it's not long before Falcon Heavy also has to be considered reliable enough, given the commonality between the two.

If NASA is booking flights for astronauts on Falcon 9 starting in 2017, what justification is there for the Air Force to say it's not safe enough for any launch after 2017?

The CCtCap award killed ULA.

Not true at all.  Crew vehicles have abort systems.  NASA isn't going to look that deep

[TomH]

Gingrich criticizes CCtCAP decision and rips SLS:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/opinion/gingrich-nasa-contract/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

[Brovane]

.  I don't know about you but for me having a Falcon 9 1st stage coming back down and landing would be pushing boundaries.

Meaningless if it can't be reused

Why wouldn't it be re-used at some point? 

[Brovane]

I think the biggest loser in all of this is ULA.  NASA doing a very deep investigation into Falcon 9 and certifying it to fly NASA astronauts makes any claim that Falcon 9 isn't reliable enough for national security payloads look so silly that it's untennable.

And once Falcon 9 is considered reliable enough for national security payloads, it's not long before Falcon Heavy also has to be considered reliable enough, given the commonality between the two.

If NASA is booking flights for astronauts on Falcon 9 starting in 2017, what justification is there for the Air Force to say it's not safe enough for any launch after 2017?

The CCtCap award killed ULA.

Not true at all.  Crew vehicles have abort systems.  NASA isn't going to look that deep

Do we know the difference in requirements between USAF certification for DOD payloads and NASA certification for human-rating a rocket? 

[Jim]

Do we know the difference in requirements between USAF certification for DOD payloads and NASA certification for human-rating a rocket? 

NASA is not human rating any of the crew launch vehicles.

[Jim]

.  I don't know about you but for me having a Falcon 9 1st stage coming back down and landing would be pushing boundaries.

Meaningless if it can't be reused

Why wouldn't it be re-used at some point? 

We don't know if it can be reused or how much.

[Mike Harris-Stone]

I'm a big Dream Chaser fan -- my Dad was NASA's project manager for HL-20 on which Dream Chaser is based, so naturally I'm very disappointed.  Then today I ran across the obscure but fascinating fact.

SNC's new subsidiary -- Orbitec -- is making the life support and environmental control system for the CST-100.  So a bit of the CST-100 belongs to Sierra Nevada.  How odd.  Link is below:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/nasa-commercial-space-announcement-very-disappointing-for-madison-s-orbitec/article_f06abd1a-0b3e-5e28-af4b-a1b31414818c.html
 

[Brovane]

We don't know if it can be reused or how much.

The 1st stage of F9v1.1 has been designed with re-usability in mind.  The Merlin 1D engines have been tested through multiple cycles of firing.  If they get the 1st stage to land vertically on land there is a high degree of confidence it can be re-used as it was designed to do.  I don't know how much more excitement you want.  You have a private company  trying to do what NASA has never done before in spaceflight. 

[Brovane]

Do we know the difference in requirements between USAF certification for DOD payloads and NASA certification for human-rating a rocket? 

NASA is not human rating any of the crew launch vehicles.

Not specifically the crew launch vehicles.  However they are human rating the entire Commercial Crew transport system which includes the spacecraft and Launch vehicle. 

[Chris Bergin]

I'm a big Dream Chaser fan -- my Dad was NASA's project manager for HL-20 on which Dream Chaser is based, so naturally I'm very disappointed. 

Wow! Very cool!

Welcome to the site's forum!

[vt_hokie]

What a long, strange road it's been for the HL-20!  I just hope that the final chapter has not yet been written.  Oh how I wish I had Elon Musk type $$ to actually do something about it, but alas, all I can do in my present state is volunteer to stand outside of storefronts with a "Save Dream Chaser" collection plate!   

[brokndodge]

I'm a big Dream Chaser fan -- my Dad was NASA's project manager for HL-20 on which Dream Chaser is based, so naturally I'm very disappointed.  Then today I ran across the obscure but fascinating fact.

SNC's new subsidiary -- Orbitec -- is making the life support and environmental control system for the CST-100.  So a bit of the CST-100 belongs to Sierra Nevada.  How odd.  Link is below:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/nasa-commercial-space-announcement-very-disappointing-for-madison-s-orbitec/article_f06abd1a-0b3e-5e28-af4b-a1b31414818c.html
 

Between the Blue Origin deal and this deal, Boeing is spreading the wealth around pretty well.  Where I come from we call those "good ole boys".

[edkyle99]

I have been on selection boards, I know the process

Jim, could you elaborate on the process a bit?  Don't these selections involve a multi-step process that might, at one point, produce a document that ranks competitors in several areas and that might be interpreted by some as favoring one or two over the others, even though it is only an input to the final decision making process?  I wonder if something like that happened here, offering one explanation for the rumors.

 - Ed Kyle

[Mike Harris-Stone]

Wow! Very cool!

Welcome to the site's forum!

Thanks!  I've been keeping my Dad up to date on Dream Chaser's progress since the Space Dev days.  A couple of years ago, SNC even had a special event at LRC to thank the old HL-20 crew for their contribution which my Dad and Mom attended.  Very classy of SNC.

all I can do in my present state is volunteer to stand outside of storefronts with a "Save Dream Chaser" collection plate! 

  I'd like to join you in that effort.

One thing that gave me a sinking feeling in the days leading up to the announcement was the realization that both CST-100 and Dragon V2 can boost the ISS's oribt.  Dreamchaser can't do that, not with the engines pointed at the station while she is docked.  If Russia does abandon the station early, that capability will be needed and may have been a factor in the decision.

Speaking of engines, does anyone know what went wrong with SNC's hybrid technology?  Both Virgin Galactic and SNC seem to have abandoned it.  Or is that covered somewhere else in the forum?

[FinalFrontier]

Read over alot of the material surrounding the down-select decision. I was rather upset, though not surprised, to SNC shorted out, in my view. Was not surprised however because I expected it would be unlikely, despite how little real world progress has been made on the Boeing vehicle, that they would get shorted when it came to this contract.


I am upset however, because I view this distinctly as an inside the loop "were sorry for not giving you JSF so have this" type deal, and I have my reasons for that, I also believe both SNC and Spacex have made far more real world progress than Boeing, with both their vehicles actually built and hardware being tested where as Boeing lags behind, in addition to the fact that Boeing already has major contracts for SLS, so I really do not view it as a fair or fiscally responsible decision. I hope SNC is able to continue to move forward but I know in reality that will be unlikely (having watched JSF itself many years ago very closely it is winner take all regardless of what NASA may say).

Still, I hope Boeing continues forward and is able to get their vehicle flying, and I look forward to SpaceX, hopefully, getting flying as well (though personally I can't lie I'd like to see dragon fly crew first), just getting us off the bloody Russians right now would be a godsend. So good luck to both companies.

[vt_hokie]

I distinctly remember reading a quote about the 2016 Dream Chaser test launch happening regardless of the NASA decision, but it'll be interesting to see if that still holds true.

[woods170]

Gingrich criticizes CCtCAP decision and rips SLS:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/opinion/gingrich-nasa-contract/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Boring and hypocritical piece by Gingrich. First part of his piece he's lashing out to US politicians. He seems to be forgetting he has been one of those for a substantial part of his life.

[Steven Pietrobon]

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.

If redundancy is required, there are much cheaper options. For example, flying Orion on Falcon Heavy or simply paying the Russians until the problems are fixed. The US vehicle would also be the backup for Soyuz as well. Having three capsules means more money is tied up into only going to LEO.

By the way SpaceX have hot-tested 50 Merlin engine in actual flown missions this year. Just how many RD-180 have flown in total?

Six on Atlas III and 49 on Atlas V, for 55 in total.

[raketa]

Wow! Very cool!

Welcome to the site's forum!

Thanks!  I've been keeping my Dad up to date on Dream Chaser's progress since the Space Dev days.  A couple of years ago, SNC even had a special event at LRC to thank the old HL-20 crew for their contribution which my Dad and Mom attended.  Very classy of SNC.

all I can do in my present state is volunteer to stand outside of storefronts with a "Save Dream Chaser" collection plate! 

  I'd like to join you in that effort.

One thing that gave me a sinking feeling in the days leading up to the announcement was the realization that both CST-100 and Dragon V2 can boost the ISS's orbit.  Dreamchaser can't do that, not with the engines pointed at the station while she is docked.  If Russia does abandon the station early, that capability will be needed and may have been a factor in the decision.

Speaking of engines, does anyone know what went wrong with SNC's hybrid technology?  Both Virgin Galactic and SNC seem to have abandoned it.  Or is that covered somewhere else in the forum?

There is problem with stability and smoothness trust of hybrid engines

[ugordan]

I was referring to the RD-180.  The article linked to below [1] indicates that the new BE-4 engine is intended to replace the RD-180.  While it doesn't specifically state so. 

That's not an Atlas V anymore and it's not related to the CCtCAP award.