Author Topic: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread  (Read 617116 times)

Offline GClark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 352
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #20 on: 05/26/2012 08:47 am »
ISTR that LM was prohibited from bidding as a prime in CC due to being prime contractor for Orion.

Offline darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
  • Liked: 546
  • Likes Given: 1495
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #21 on: 05/28/2012 10:48 am »
Has there been any comment from the revelant Congress people regarding SpaceX's recent successful berthing of Dragon at the ISS? I found the crew's comments regarding manned Dragon interesting in light of the current issues with CCDev.

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #22 on: 05/28/2012 01:28 pm »
Has there been any comment from the revelant Congress people regarding SpaceX's recent successful berthing of Dragon at the ISS? I found the crew's comments regarding manned Dragon interesting in light of the current issues with CCDev.
Other than trying to take credit when previously been trying to kill of CCDev, not really.

With respect to the current issues with CCDev, I presume you mean:
1.  The reduced funding levels from the Administration ask;
2.  The differing funding levels between House and Senate;
3.  The down-select issue;
4.  The SAA versus FAR issue.

Have I missed any?
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9769
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #23 on: 06/05/2012 06:53 pm »
ISTR that LM was prohibited from bidding as a prime in CC due to being prime contractor for Orion.

There was a clause in the NASA Authorization Act that indicates that an Orion contractor must get approval from Congress before receiving funds to modify Orion in order for it to be able to act as an ISS escape pod.

Quote
403(b)(6) [...] If one or more contractors involved with
9 development of the multi-purpose crew vehicle seek
10 to compete in development of a commercial crew
11 service with crew rescue capability, separate legisla12
tive authority must be enacted to enable the Admin13
istrator to provide funding for any modifications of
14 the multi-purpose crew vehicle necessary to fulfill
15 the ISS crew rescue function.

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 793
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #24 on: 06/14/2012 10:35 pm »
The NASA Advisory Council's Commercial Space Committee recently held a meeting (May 1, 2012) to get updates from various NASA Centers on their commercial space activities. [...]

Minutes of this meeting have just been posted:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/658655main_NAC CSC 5 1 12 FACA _FINAL_508.pdf

The section titled Commercial Crew Program Certification Status Briefing on pages 18 - 21 may be of most interest.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9769
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #25 on: 06/15/2012 02:12 am »
The NASA Advisory Council's Commercial Space Committee recently held a meeting (May 1, 2012) to get updates from various NASA Centers on their commercial space activities. [...]

Minutes of this meeting have just been posted:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/658655main_NAC CSC 5 1 12 FACA _FINAL_508.pdf

The section titled Commercial Crew Program Certification Status Briefing on pages 18 - 21 may be of most interest.

A few questions of interest from the minutes:

Quote
Ms. Smith: Assuming there will not be 3 partners in CCiCap, if you down-select from 2 to 1 partner, then what?
Mr. Mango: We need competition. The cost for 1 is greater than for 2 or 3. Optional milestones give a better return than expected. Instead of putting in the X, they put in X + Y because they saw that there was potential for the future. Competition yields a better price and a more innovative product.

Ms. Smith asked about the criteria for down-selection.
Mr. Mango had no specific criteria for that; they have the goals and how many are selected is left to the selection authorities. We know we want more than 1, but we are not committed to a particular number.

Ms. Smith raised the issue of having a finite amount of money.
Mr. Mango: In CCDev2, awards were given for varying amounts, so they already started to make some conscious decisions about what they could afford. But no algorithm for that has been devised.

Mr. Oswald feared they might be sacrificing life-cycle costs.
Mr. Mango: That would mean total costs would go up. A restricted budget means we have to look at how we incentivize competition within whatever profile Congress gives us. We are still very much in the proposal evaluation period on CCiCAP.
« Last Edit: 06/15/2012 02:18 pm by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Liked: 841
  • Likes Given: 420
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #26 on: 06/15/2012 04:18 am »
The section titled Commercial Crew Program Certification Status Briefing on pages 18 - 21 may be of most interest.

Thanks; very interesting.

A couple of questions of interest from the minutes...

Always wondered about the net effect of early down-select to 1 and subsequent non-compete (e.g., early move from SAA to FAR); "The cost for 1 is greater than for 2 or 3." is  going to get some attention.  Wish there was a bit more context.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #27 on: 06/15/2012 05:55 am »
Always wondered about the net effect of early down-select to 1 and subsequent non-compete (e.g., early move from SAA to FAR); "The cost for 1 is greater than for 2 or 3." is  going to get some attention.  Wish there was a bit more context.

Many engineering and manufacturing companies have a policy of having at least 2 suppliers for everything, one of their procurement managers could be called to brief Congress.  Also someone from the Monopolies Commission can talk about price goring.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #28 on: 06/15/2012 01:25 pm »
The section titled Commercial Crew Program Certification Status Briefing on pages 18 - 21 may be of most interest.

Thanks; very interesting.

A couple of questions of interest from the minutes...

Always wondered about the net effect of early down-select to 1 and subsequent non-compete (e.g., early move from SAA to FAR); "The cost for 1 is greater than for 2 or 3." is  going to get some attention.  Wish there was a bit more context.

I'm sure that is one of the items that the folks in Congress hear, and question the management in the Commerical Crew office.

Since no spending plan based on what the available funding is going to be.

Offline 8900

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #29 on: 06/16/2012 08:23 am »
See this chart which is released at the same time as the 60 day report:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/639717main_CCDev2_Public_20120417_508.pdf
ETA Captive Carry Flight Test
this one already completed? The chart is not up-to-date, let's wait for the next release.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #30 on: 06/16/2012 05:52 pm »
Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but is there anything legally  preventing Lockheed from submitting it's own CCP proposal?

Other than the fact that the deadline past, nothing.  it is likely they are involved in some of the submitted proposals if not all by themselves.

Lockheed Martin is heavily involved in the ATK/Astrium Liberty proposal.  The Liberty spacecraft appears, essentially, to be "Orion Lite", outfitted by Lockheed Martin, with final assembly at KSC alongside Orion.

 - Ed Kyle
Although for some reason it has a composite structure and uses a pusher escape system.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #31 on: 06/16/2012 06:59 pm »
MLAS is not a pusher LAS.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28756
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8859
  • Likes Given: 5742
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #32 on: 06/16/2012 08:20 pm »
MLAS is not a pusher LAS.
Only because of the load path. I'm betting most in this field still consider it a pusher.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32550
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11334
  • Likes Given: 334
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #33 on: 06/16/2012 08:23 pm »
Load path determines it

Offline simonbp

Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #34 on: 06/17/2012 04:53 am »
No, I'd say the location of the center of thrust relative to the center of mass determines it.

If the center of thrust is is aft of the center of mass, it's a pusher. Otherwise, it's a tractor. Just the same as for any aircraft.

Offline Silmfeanor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1192
  • Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 536
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #35 on: 06/17/2012 10:34 am »
No, I'd say the location of the center of thrust relative to the center of mass determines it.

If the center of thrust is is aft of the center of mass, it's a pusher. Otherwise, it's a tractor. Just the same as for any aircraft.

Perhaps this is not really something that can be discussed or argued about, but just a standing fact in the world of aerospace engineering?
I vaguely remember reading something about MLAS before, where this same question was asked. It most certainly is a puller for the capsule engineers, no matter where the center of thrust is.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32550
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11334
  • Likes Given: 334
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #36 on: 06/17/2012 12:59 pm »
No, I'd say the location of the center of thrust relative to the center of mass determines it.

If the center of thrust is is aft of the center of mass, it's a pusher. Otherwise, it's a tractor. Just the same as for any aircraft.

I didn't post a question. 

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3732
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 10008
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #37 on: 06/18/2012 11:43 am »
 Gotta go with Jim on this one. Even if the center of thrust is aft, you're still pulling the vessel.
 Semantics and not technology maybe. More defining the term than the reality. What are you going to call it if the load path is distributed vertically?
« Last Edit: 06/18/2012 11:47 am by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9769
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #38 on: 06/19/2012 06:25 pm »
There was an update on commercial crew in this Bolden/FAA press conference:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/06/18/nasafaa-press-conference-on-commercial-crew-agreement/

Quote
Q: When will CCiCAP selection be announced?

Bolden: We fully expect to announce those selected by mid-July or so. Thatís our hope. [...]

Q: How will CciCap work?

Bolden: NASA will fund three companies this summer. Two companies will get full funding and the third company will receive half funding. That will go through 21 months. NASA will then put out a request for contracts to provide services under FAR. Any company will be able to bid on it.

NASA would prefer that Congress fully fund the Presidentís request for commercial crew at $830 million but Congress may come in at less. NASA will ask for significant greater amounts in future years to keep to a 2017 schedule for commercial crew flights.

See also:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=43025

Quote
How many companies selected in CC down select (Bolden said earlier announcement in mid-July)? Two and a half, per recent agreement with Congress. Take them through 21-month process, full funders all the way, half funded as best they could. Following that, an RFP under the FAR under which any company can bid.

And finally:
http://www.newspacejournal.com/2012/06/19/nasa-plans-to-announce-commercial-crew-awards-next-month/comment-page-1/#comment-626918

« Last Edit: 06/19/2012 06:52 pm by yg1968 »

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 793
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #39 on: 06/19/2012 07:12 pm »
Seventh 60-day report on Commercial Spaceflight has just been posted (June 2012):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf

CCDev 2 Milestone Schedule (June 13, 2012):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf

Tags: