Author Topic: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread  (Read 617242 times)

Online Silmfeanor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1192
  • Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 537
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #40 on: 06/19/2012 08:03 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
Thanks, a good picture of CST-100 and Blue origin's vehicle.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #41 on: 06/19/2012 11:12 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
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.
« Last Edit: 06/19/2012 11:17 pm by manboy »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Online Silmfeanor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1192
  • Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 537
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #42 on: 06/19/2012 11:41 pm »

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.

Offline Geron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #43 on: 06/20/2012 04:37 am »
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?

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8789
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3788
  • Likes Given: 896
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #44 on: 06/20/2012 04:50 am »
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.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6184
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #45 on: 06/20/2012 04:51 am »
Isn't it bad that the contracting mechanism switched to FAR?

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

Quote
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.
JRF

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28765
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8872
  • Likes Given: 5745
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #46 on: 06/20/2012 05:20 am »
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.
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 manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #47 on: 06/20/2012 06:09 am »

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.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Online Silmfeanor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1192
  • Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 258
  • Likes Given: 537
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #48 on: 06/20/2012 07:56 am »

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?

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #49 on: 06/20/2012 07:18 pm »

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.

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2238
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #50 on: 06/23/2012 04:24 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 06/23/2012 04:28 pm by Jason1701 »

Offline rmencos

  • Member
  • Posts: 53
  • Alexandria, VA
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #51 on: 06/23/2012 04:49 pm »
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.

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2632
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #52 on: 06/23/2012 05:43 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 06/23/2012 07:23 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9773
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #53 on: 06/23/2012 10:18 pm »
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.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #54 on: 06/25/2012 01:30 am »
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.

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #55 on: 06/25/2012 04:33 am »
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.
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9773
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #56 on: 06/25/2012 01:47 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2012 01:55 pm by yg1968 »

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #57 on: 06/25/2012 02:00 pm »
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%

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9773
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #58 on: 06/25/2012 02:17 pm »
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?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32552
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11346
  • Likes Given: 334
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #59 on: 06/25/2012 02:18 pm »

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

Different award amounts. 

Tags: