CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[spectre9]

Some very interesting remarks about the demise of Dream Chaser in this thread.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33182.0

I still think they should have shown the video. Now they're cut and it's over.

[Proponent]

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.

Indeed, he blames NASA, and by extension the Obama administration, and suggests that Congress would do something about it, ignoring the fact that Congress created SLS over the administration's objections and Congress has been unsupportive of commercial crew.  The is a nonsensical hatchet job.

[spectre9]

I like CST-100.

It lands on land. Good for live coverage of egress.

Good internal volume for the diameter.

Service module propellant is used for abort. Solid abort tractor tower I find icky in comparison.

Shape can handle BEO reentry.

It's light enough to launch on existing rockets.

Compared to Orion it's a hot rod dream machine.

Today is the day Orion became obsolete in my eyes.

Well done to Boeing. Get it on SLS and go to The Moon.

[ChrisWilson68]

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

What expected failure rate for the launch vehicle would NASA accept?  What expected failure rate for the launch vehicle would the Air Force accept for the highest-priority national security payloads?

[ncb1397]

The crew isn't gaurenteed to survive if the LV has an issue even with an abort system. There is a probability of LV failure and a probability of abort failure. You need to minimize both in order to maximize crew survivability. NASA definately has an interest in LV reliability for crew systems, and if they aren't looking at it, they are putting on the exact same pair of blinders they did in the past - with potentially disastrous results. A future accident investigation where NASA is blamed for not qualifying the LV to carry humans as a result of an LV exploding and the abort malfunctioning or the capsule being damaged by the explosion ... Let's just try to avoid this? Not looking at the reliability of the LV is equivalent to ignoring foam insulation.

[jtrame]

I like CST-100.

It lands on land. Good for live coverage of egress.

Good internal volume for the diameter.

Service module propellant is used for abort. Solid abort tractor tower I find icky in comparison.

Shape can handle BEO reentry.

It's light enough to launch on existing rockets.

Compared to Orion it's a hot rod dream machine.

Today is the day Orion became obsolete in my eyes.

Well done to Boeing. Get it on SLS and go to The Moon.

I'll add reusability to that list.  Another of Orion's original specs since abandoned.

[Marslauncher]

Why do the people that interview Musk ask all the wrong questions?

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/tech/2014/09/18/orig-jag-space-race-space-war.cnn.html?hpt=hp_t2


Apart from NSF that is 

[Proponent]

Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.

I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN.  Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.

[chuck34]

Boeing, its supporters in Congress and independent analysts were all surprised by the outcome, because in recent days, the Chicago-based company seemed to have given up hope of winning.

Who says Boeing had given up hope of winning this contract or that Boeing, its supporters in Congress and independent analysts were all surprised by the outcome?

That was a quote from the article.  The author didn't give out his sources, sorry.  One of the Congressmen quoted (not a Boeing supporter in this instance) was Sen. Shelby.  I'm sure you will have lots of rebuttals about how these guys don't know anything, etc. etc.  Fine.  All I'm saying is that when there is smoke, there is well ummm.... smoke.  I'm not making claims that something illegal or even necessarily bad happened here, just that there may have been considerations outside of pure engineering involved.  Is that really so hard to believe?

Frankly those of you who are trying to portray this process as some sort of completely above board, separate from politics, and somehow sacred process are sounding a bit absurd.  To borrow a line from Casablanca, "There's politics in government contracting?  I'm SHOCKED!"

[Jim]

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

NASA is not doing that.  NASA levied requirements on the contractors.  NASA has insight but not oversight. 

[Jim]

  I'm not making claims that something illegal or even necessarily bad happened here, just that there may have been considerations outside of pure engineering involved.  Is that really so hard to believe?

That is in the selection criteria that is known to everybody.  Again, what smoke? 

[Jim]

The crew isn't gaurenteed to survive if the LV has an issue even with an abort system. There is a probability of LV failure and a probability of abort failure. You need to minimize both in order to maximize crew survivability. NASA definately has an interest in LV reliability for crew systems, and if they aren't looking at it, they are putting on the exact same pair of blinders they did in the past - with potentially disastrous results. A future accident investigation where NASA is blamed for not qualifying the LV to carry humans as a result of an LV exploding and the abort malfunctioning or the capsule being damaged by the explosion ... Let's just try to avoid this? Not looking at the reliability of the LV is equivalent to ignoring foam insulation.

Did I say they weren't looking at it or didn't have an interest?  I just said NASA isn't certifying it or mandating the vehicles. that is for the contractor to do.

[tobi453]

Maybe the engineering board did favour SNC and SpaceX but the selection authority disagreed. This has happened before with Planetspace/Orbital. Planetspace sued and lost.

I guess we will find out soon.

[ChrisWilson68]

Frankly those of you who are trying to portray this process as some sort of completely above board, separate from politics, and somehow sacred process are sounding a bit absurd.  To borrow a line from Casablanca, "There's politics in government contracting?  I'm SHOCKED!"

There's nothing absurd about believing it's likely that this particular decision-making process was above board and separate from politics.  A special selection committee was set up of people who are not politicians and over whom no politician holds sway.  Political influence on such a setup would be illegal.  If "the fix was in", why would they make it so hard on themselves?  SLS awarded far more money without a competitive process, and non-competitive pork spending like that is common.

What's absurd is to think that if politicians really had fixed it they wouldn't have just openly made it a non-competed award rather than put themselves through all the trouble and legal risks of setting up a competitive award process.

[ChrisWilson68]

Also, for those who think all government decisions are just automatically corrupt: if that were true, the United States would be no different from third world countries that are riddled with corruption.  A big part of what separates the rich countries from the poor countries is the relative lack of corruption in the rich countries.

Of course, that's not to say there isn't room for improvement in the United States.  But the mindless posts assuming corruption just because the decision went against what they thought it should be betray a deep ignorance about the level of corruption in the U.S. government.

[chuck34]

  I'm not making claims that something illegal or even necessarily bad happened here, just that there may have been considerations outside of pure engineering involved.  Is that really so hard to believe?

That is in the selection criteria that is known to everybody.  Again, what smoke?

The smoke is in the fact that on two separate bid processes almost identical statements have been made.  Boeing thought they were out, the experts thought they had lost, etc.  Now sure, everyone could have been wrong.  It simply seems strange to me that two separate sets of reporters would end up thinking the same things about two separate programs. 

But you are right, no politics (from politicians or bureaucrats or low level functionaries) could have possibly entered into anyone's minds even at a low level.  Those on the selection committees are 100% impartial, just like you Jim.   

[chuck34]

Also, for those who think all government decisions are just automatically corrupt: if that were true, the United States would be no different from third world countries that are riddled with corruption.  A big part of what separates the rich countries from the poor countries is the relative lack of corruption in the rich countries.

Of course, that's not to say there isn't room for improvement in the United States.  But the mindless posts assuming corruption just because the decision went against what they thought it should be betray a deep ignorance about the level of corruption in the U.S. government.

Oh come on.  That is ridiculous.  OF COURSE there is corruption within the US government.  Are you kidding me?  It is not necessarily automatic.  But it is also not automatic that there is none.  The fact that on two completely separate bid processes there are stories that sound very similar should at least make one think, no?

[Brovane]

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

NASA is not doing that.  NASA levied requirements on the contractors.  NASA has insight but not oversight.

The Commercial Crew Transport system has to meet NASA human-rating standards for the NASA commercial crew contract.  It is a contractual requirement that the contractors have to meet for NASA crew launches.  If they don't meet NASA human-rating standards then they don't get paid and they don't launch NASA astronauts.  I don't see why you are are trying to split hairs about this and where you are trying to go.

However as far as meeting DOD launch standards  I don't really consider the Commercial Crew contract human-rating that relevant because probably by the end of the year or early next year the Falcon 9v1.1 will be certified to compete for DOD launches.

[chuck34]

And just to be completely 100% clear here.  I am NOT saying that there was anything illegal at all with this bid process.  Simply that there are other factors involved than pure engineering.  Plus, I actually think that the winners are correct, Boeing and SpaceX.  Dream Chaser just didn't seem to tick off all the right boxes, and seemed to have a lot more technical hurdles/unknowns than CST-100 or Dragon.

[Mongo62]

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.

To be fair, he's not ripping ALL politicians, only those US politicians behind the SLS pork-distribution project.