CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Silmfeanor]

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

Thanks, a good picture of CST-100 and Blue origin's vehicle.

[manboy]

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

For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).

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

Thanks, a good picture of CST-100 and Blue origin's vehicle.

Here's a larger version.

[Silmfeanor]

For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).

thanks for the larger picture.
I'm not sure what your question is regarding the second in-situ crew trial - it's scheduled for q3 2012. The pictures we have seen are the first in-situ crew trials as far as I know.
Presumably they'll make some changes from the input they received in the first trial, then try again in the second trial.

[Geron]

Isn't it bad that the contracting mechanism switched to FAR? I seem to recall Elon Musk and others stating that they would consider opting out of Comercial Crew if FAR was used over space act agreements as the contracting mechanism is much more expensive and not productive?

[QuantumG]

Isn't it bad that the contracting mechanism switched to FAR? I seem to recall Elon Musk and others stating that they would consider opting out of Comercial Crew if FAR was used over space act agreements as the contracting mechanism is much more expensive and not productive?

For development, yes. For services provided at a fixed price, no. For example, CRS.

[Jorge]

Isn't it bad that the contracting mechanism switched to FAR?

CCiCAP is back to SAAs. CCP was always going to be FAR.

I seem to recall Elon Musk and others stating that they would consider opting out of Comercial Crew if FAR was used over space act agreements as the contracting mechanism is much more expensive and not productive?

Only for development (CCDev/CCiCAP). CRS is FAR-based and Elon hasn't opted out of that, so presumably he doesn't have a problem with CCP being FAR either.

[Robotbeat]

Of course, it wasn't just Elon who had a problem with early FAR (not saying were implying that.) I seem to recall the Dream Chaser folks weren't too happy about it either, and I doubt they were alone.

[manboy]

For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).

thanks for the larger picture.
I'm not sure what your question is regarding the second in-situ crew trial - it's scheduled for q3 2012. The pictures we have seen are the first in-situ crew trials as far as I know.
Presumably they'll make some changes from the input they received in the first trial, then try again in the second trial.

It was reported they had already completed the second trial.

[Silmfeanor]

For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).

thanks for the larger picture.
I'm not sure what your question is regarding the second in-situ crew trial - it's scheduled for q3 2012. The pictures we have seen are the first in-situ crew trials as far as I know.
Presumably they'll make some changes from the input they received in the first trial, then try again in the second trial.

It was reported they had already completed the second trial.

Interesting. NASA indeed refers to this:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/dragon_accomm2.html
but as you said, there's still a milestone on that CCDev for Q3 2012 - perhaps SpaceX split up the first milestone in 2 sessions? Or they decided they wanted to do another one?
Some miscommunication for sure. Anyone we could ask for more information about this?

[erioladastra]

For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).

thanks for the larger picture.
I'm not sure what your question is regarding the second in-situ crew trial - it's scheduled for q3 2012. The pictures we have seen are the first in-situ crew trials as far as I know.
Presumably they'll make some changes from the input they received in the first trial, then try again in the second trial.

It was reported they had already completed the second trial.

Interesting. NASA indeed refers to this:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/dragon_accomm2.html
but as you said, there's still a milestone on that CCDev for Q3 2012 - perhaps SpaceX split up the first milestone in 2 sessions? Or they decided they wanted to do another one?
Some miscommunication for sure. Anyone we could ask for more information about this?

Many of the CCDev2 milestones have a final test report/summary that comes after the actual testing that actually constitutes the completion of that milestone.

[Jason1701]

LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story

The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.

[rmencos]

LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story

The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.

Interesting.  My take on Mango's answers is that Boeing and Sierra Nevada will get full contracts and SpaceX will get the partial.  He stated that SpaceX is basically half way there.

[docmordrid]

My reading is also SpaceX and Boeing for full contracts and Sierra Nevada for a partial.

At this point in "the gap" you want to go with those closest to going live. Dragon is obviously well along, and Boeing can catch up fastest.

Both also have BEO potential, which previously didn't seem to be a consideration but recent comments by NASA types seem to bring into the mix. IMO this may be an unmentioned fallback criteria for if Orion / SLS get cut or significantly delayed.  Example - 2 years added to Orion's high altitude LAS test

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120622-orion-abort-test-delay.html

As much as I like it, DC is not yet as far along as SS2 is much less even a suborbital test flight. (not that SS2 is orbital, just an observation). I wouldn't even be surprised if it didn't make the cut, with Liberty taking #3.

[yg1968]

LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story

The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.

Interesting.  My take on Mango's answers is that Boeing and Sierra Nevada will get full contracts and SpaceX will get the partial.  He stated that SpaceX is basically half way there.

Mango was just describing the progress of CCDev-2 participants. I wouldn't read anything into it. In any event, Phil McAlister is the person making the selection.

[erioladastra]

LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story

The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.

Interesting.  My take on Mango's answers is that Boeing and Sierra Nevada will get full contracts and SpaceX will get the partial.  He stated that SpaceX is basically half way there.

Mango was just describing the progress of CCDev-2 participants. I wouldn't read anything into it. In any event, Phil McAlister is the person making the selection.

Gerstenmaier is the deciding offical, not McAlister.

[beancounter]

My reading is also SpaceX and Boeing for full contracts and Sierra Nevada for a partial.

At this point in "the gap" you want to go with those closest to going live. Dragon is obviously well along, and Boeing can catch up fastest.

Both also have BEO potential, which previously didn't seem to be a consideration but recent comments by NASA types seem to bring into the mix. IMO this may be an unmentioned fallback criteria for if Orion / SLS get cut or significantly delayed.  Example - 2 years added to Orion's high altitude LAS test

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120622-orion-abort-test-delay.html

As much as I like it, DC is not yet as far along as SS2 is much less even a suborbital test flight. (not that SS2 is orbital, just an observation). I wouldn't even be surprised if it didn't make the cut, with Liberty taking #3.

How does that work?  I haven't yet seen any hardware, test or otherwise to suggest that Liberty is anything more than vapourware at this point.

[yg1968]

LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story

The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.

Interesting.  My take on Mango's answers is that Boeing and Sierra Nevada will get full contracts and SpaceX will get the partial.  He stated that SpaceX is basically half way there.

Mango was just describing the progress of CCDev-2 participants. I wouldn't read anything into it. In any event, Phil McAlister is the person making the selection.

Gerstenmaier is the deciding offical, not McAlister.

Are you sure? It was McAlister for CCDev-2.

[erioladastra]

LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story

The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.

Interesting.  My take on Mango's answers is that Boeing and Sierra Nevada will get full contracts and SpaceX will get the partial.  He stated that SpaceX is basically half way there.

Mango was just describing the progress of CCDev-2 participants. I wouldn't read anything into it. In any event, Phil McAlister is the person making the selection.

Gerstenmaier is the deciding offical, not McAlister.

Are you sure? It was McAlister for CCDev-2.

100%

[yg1968]

I generally trust Gerst but I don't like the fact that it's somebody outside the Commercial Crew Office that is deciding.  How close is Gerst to ATK?

[Jim]

Are you sure? It was McAlister for CCDev-2.

Different award amounts.