CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Robotbeat]

What a wonderful way to reward success. Cutting the best chance NASA has at getting near-term domestic crew capability. Why, it's a wonder everyone in the investment world doesn't jump into human spaceflight.

[spectre9]

SpaceX deserves to be cut because the rocket they want to use hasn't flown 3 times.

It would be irresponsible for lawmakers to select SpaceX as the primary provider if forced to down select very soon.

Falcon 9 v1.1 isn't proven reliable. They retired the rocket that was.

[Elmar Moelzer]

By that logic the SLS would deserve to be cut too. It has not flown yet either and it probably wont fly for a very long time.

[Silmfeanor]

SpaceX deserves to be cut because the rocket they want to use hasn't flown 3 times.

It would be irresponsible for lawmakers to select SpaceX as the primary provider if forced to down select very soon.

Falcon 9 v1.1 isn't proven reliable. They retired the rocket that was.

Oh please. Dual engine centaur?
Also, by the time CCiCAP flies falcon 9 v1.1 will have flown 3 times.
Short-sighted black and white reasoning.

[A_M_Swallow]

SpaceX deserves to be cut because the rocket they want to use hasn't flown 3 times.

It would be irresponsible for lawmakers to select SpaceX as the primary provider if forced to down select very soon.

Falcon 9 v1.1 isn't proven reliable. They retired the rocket that was.

SpaceX will just have to fly Falcon 9 v1.1 at least 3 times before they put people in it.  Given their backlog that may be easy.

[vt_hokie]

The situation sucks no matter how you slice it.  The further we get the more wasted money and effort there is on two out of these three programs, whichever two end up getting the axe.

[QuantumG]

The situation sucks no matter how you slice it.  The further we get the more wasted money and effort there is on two out of these three programs, whichever two end up getting the axe.

That implies the remaining provider could or would have produced the same if the other two hadn't been competing.

When you think about it that way, the absolute worst thing NASA could do is say they'd prefer to keep all three.

[Elmar Moelzer]

The situation sucks no matter how you slice it.  The further we get the more wasted money and effort there is on two out of these three programs, whichever two end up getting the axe.

That implies the remaining provider could or would have produced the same if the other two hadn't been competing.

True, also, they might find use for their technology elsewhere. I still think that a downselect is a bad idea. Diversity is a good thing.

[Chalmer]

The situation sucks no matter how you slice it.  The further we get the more wasted money and effort there is on two out of these three programs, whichever two end up getting the axe.

That implies the remaining provider could or would have produced the same if the other two hadn't been competing.

When you think about it that way, the absolute worst thing NASA could do is say they'd prefer to keep all three.

True. It is not a competition if everybody wins. Openly saying that they will down select to 1 or 2 puts pressure on the teams to perform.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Well technically, even the currently unfunded projects still have a chance, from what I understand. So, there has not been any downselection at all, yet and anyone could still re- enter the competition. So if ATK or BO suddenly pulled something out of their sleeves they might still end up getting selected (unlikely as it is). Didnt ATK claim they would continue development on their own?

[rcoppola]

This is about cost and savings for NASA. Everything else is gravy. It is frankly counterintuitive and borderline absurd to suggest that because SpaceX will develop Crewed Dragon regardless of selection that it means they won't be selected.

The fact that F9 V1.1 has not flown 3 times and therefore should not be selected to launch a crewed Dragon 2-3 years from now is equally absurd. They'll have more then proven out the launcher before then.

SpaceX will offer a crewed service that is both value and capabilities oriented, grounded in and leveraged from a successful and extremely cost competitive commercial business of Sat and CRS launches.

They have and will continue to gain valuable experience on ISS ops and continue to prove out Dragon and F9V1.1. With budgets being what they are, the services they are already providing and the milestones already achieved, do you really think they will not be in the final selection? Do you really think they will not be able to provide the best service for the best price? And do you really expect NASA and Congress to walk away from that scenario?
 
This is a zero sum game. SpaceX will offer the greatest capability for the best price. And that my friends is what this is all about. Period. There is not a chance in hell they will not be selected.

[vt_hokie]

Do you really think they will not be able to provide the best service for the best price? And do you really expect NASA and Congress to walk away from that scenario?
 

On the contrary I see SpaceX way in the lead which makes CST-100 and especially Dream Chaser extreme long shots and likely wasted efforts, sadly.

[Rocket Science]

I still believe that a good outcome would be SpaceX for cargo missions and DC on Atlas V for Commercial Crew. SpaceX is going to continue ahead with their crewed Dragon regardless. We would get two different spacecraft on two different launchers and a potential human rated spacecraft just in case...

[joek]

Do you really think they will not be able to provide the best service for the best price? And do you really expect NASA and Congress to walk away from that scenario?

On the contrary I see SpaceX way in the lead which makes CST-100 and especially Dream Chaser extreme long shots and likely wasted efforts, sadly.

So what would you have done?  Award a non-compete single-source contract to SpaceX or whoever?  NASA tried to fast-forward with CCiDC but it didn't fly.  So we have competition between the remaining contenders.  Yes, it involves some "wasted effort", but competition always does.

The operative question is: Will that competition ultimately pay off in lower cost to the customer in the end?  The jury is still out, but let's cut NASA some slack as this is (for them) a new way of doing business.

[newpylong]

By that logic the SLS would deserve to be cut too. It has not flown yet either and it probably wont fly for a very long time.

4 years is a blink of an eye in this business, but what does SLS have to do with Commercial Crew whatsoever?

[Lars_J]

A down-select to two is reasonable and should be done ASAP, IMO. But since the program is relatively low cost (and to ensure that it stays low cost), two providers should be in the running for as long as possible, to prevent a situation where a contractor starts acting like the only game in town - and to guard against schedule problems. A proper fly-off would be great to see if it is possible within the budget.

[newpylong]

At this point this is pure speculation and blind homage to SpaceX without considering reality.

From my seat Dragon offers the least and Dreamchaser offers the most capability. EVA capable, ability to land anywhere, ability to handle larger down mass for sensitive equipment, (which most likely would make up the bulk of cargo on a crewed return), more proven lift vehicle, etc.

The only advantage of Dragon I see at this point might be price, and in the end, NASA may not care as long as the vehicle is launched from US soil and the seat is cheaper than a Soyuz.

 
This is a zero sum game. SpaceX will offer the greatest capability for the best price. And that my friends is what this is all about. Period. There is not a chance in hell they will not be selected.

[newpylong]

By what metric do you base this conclusion on? The CST-100 is currently in the lead for the number of CCiCap milestones completed. Is SpaceX in the lead just because they are SpaceX?

On the contrary I see SpaceX way in the lead which makes CST-100 and especially Dream Chaser extreme long shots and likely wasted efforts, sadly.

[Jim]

This is about cost and savings for NASA.*
 Everything else is gravy.*
 It is frankly counterintuitive and borderline absurd to suggest that because SpaceX will develop Crewed Dragon regardless of selection that it means they won't be selected.*

The fact that F9 V1.1 has not flown 3 times and therefore should not be selected to launch a crewed Dragon 2-3 years from now is equally absurd. They'll have more then proven out the launcher before then.

SpaceX will offer a crewed service that is both value and capabilities oriented, grounded in and leveraged from a successful and extremely cost competitive commercial business of Sat and CRS launches. *

They have and will continue to gain valuable experience on ISS ops and continue to prove out Dragon and F9V1.1. With budgets being what they are, the services they are already providing and the milestones already achieved, do you really think they will not be in the final selection? Do you really think they will not be able to provide the best service for the best price?*
 And do you really expect NASA and Congress to walk away from that scenario?*
 
This is a zero sum game. SpaceX will offer the greatest capability for the best price.* And that my friends is what this is all about. Period. There is not a chance in hell they will not be selected.*

Unsubstantiated conjecture at every place with an *

[baldusi]

NASA crew to fly ISS test flights

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36098nasa-astronauts-to-fly-on-space-taxi-test-flights-to-station#.UdkCFL-9LTo

So at least one will be cut.

With or without NASA, Crewed Dragon will be deployed, so even though I am a Dragon enthusiast, I would advocate to cut SpaceX, for the pure purpose of allowing CST-100 and Dreamchaser to be matured and deployed long enough to allow a commercial market to develop that could support at least one of them, with or without NASA. Crewed Dragon will fly anyway, so why needlessly cut either of the other two? And if two must be cut I would cut Dragon and CST-100 in order to keep the lifting body spacecraft alive. Dreamchaser offers the most cross range, the largest launch and recovery windows, earth-wide landing capability and the gentlest return flight for delicate payload and/or injured personnel. It's landing opportunities and cross range exceed even Shuttle's because it can utilized much shorter runways than Shuttle for emergency returns.

Cutting SpaceX will not stop Crewed Dragon from flying, but cutting either of the other 2 would, imo, be a death blow to that spacecraft.

Funny, I thought FAR didn't allowed for leaving out the best bid out because it will "happen anyways". But of course I haven't read it all.