CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[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.*

Unsubstantiated conjecture at every place with an *

Conjecture by its' very nature is unsubstantiated. Feel free to choose one or the other, no need for both words.

We'll see where this nets out soon enough and then we'll see how unsubstantiated this is.

*For the record, I personally would love to see the DC included and supported for future crew services. My response was specific to the idea put forth that SpaceX should not or would not be chosen since they will develop Crewed Dragon regardless. Context is important in understanding the response.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Again, I thought there is no such thing as a downselect? After all everyone is still free to compete until the end via unfunded agreements. Right?

[spectre9]

The "iCap" in CCiCap means "integrated capability".

That includes the rocket.

It's not my fault that SpaceX hasn't proven their launch vehicle before the crunch from the higher ups has come.

SpaceX fans might not be happy but it is what it is.

[guckyfan]

As the most conservative design, and the smallest departure from an existing tried and proven spacecraft, it's the least likely to encounter some surprising reason for failure.

With the SuperDraco as the launch abort system I don't see it as the smallest departure from tried and proven. To me that's revolutionary and a risk for development at least until the Pad-abort has been done.

Even with its composite build the least departure from tried and proven would be the Boeing CST-100.

That said I see Dragon as the most promising design and it has the advantage of a flight history.

[Silmfeanor]

The "iCap" in CCiCap means "integrated capability".

That includes the rocket.

It's not my fault that SpaceX hasn't proven their launch vehicle before the crunch from the higher ups has come.

SpaceX fans might not be happy but it is what it is.

Please stop this. You have not adressed any of the points made. IE- Dual engine centaur.

[spectre9]

DEC is proven technology using proven engines.

Maybe not this generation of Centaur but it has worked in the past.

The Atlas V first stage has a perfect record.

Merlin 1D and Merlin 1DVac have not flown.

Government procurement doesn't look at how many times a vehicle will "have flown" it can only take the record at the time of awarding the contract.

Right now it's most likely that a 1.5 down select is coming in the immediate future. I say 1.5 because that's what Bolden has been hinting. Also what was said in the recent house hearing saying they want to fly 2017 and they want the plan that shows how that can be done under all funding profiles. $820m+ simply is not on the table nor has it ever been. The hope of having 2+ providers for Commercial Crew is gone. Sequester took care of that.

[Silmfeanor]

DEC is proven technology using proven engines.

Government procurement doesn't look at how many times a vehicle will "have flown" it can only take the record at the time of awarding the contract.

The record of DEC, please? Comparable to the record of Falcon 9? The record of ISS knowledge from SpaceX?

Please stop making statements like facts when they are very questionable.
Not saying SpaceX will be or will not be chosen, but the amount of "knowledge" that gets sprayed around ( especially on the SpaceX parts of the forum ) that are just speculation, build on more speculation, build on someone saying "hey wouldn't it be a great idea if " and "hey guys my argument" while real sources are ignored or snowed under is truly amazing.

The confidence with which various statements are made is starting to really annoy me.

[Jim]

*For the record, I personally would love to see the DC included and supported for future crew services. My response was specific to the idea put forth that SpaceX should not or would not be chosen since they will develop Crewed Dragon regardless. Context is important in understanding the response.

That is a great reason not to select them, and most likely will be the case.  Knowing a little about the spaceflight industry is important when making responses that  include informed conjecture (which would be "substantiation").

The fact that Spacex got selected for COTS is something along this line.  NASA could have selected a spacecraft that used a ULA launch vehicle, which would have been a quicker, cheaper and less risky solutions. But instead selected solutions that require launch vehicle development, which was going beyond meeting ISS cargo delivery requirements.

[spectre9]

DEC is proven technology using proven engines.

Government procurement doesn't look at how many times a vehicle will "have flown" it can only take the record at the time of awarding the contract.

The record of DEC, please? Comparable to the record of Falcon 9? The record of ISS knowledge from SpaceX?

Please stop making statements like facts when they are very questionable.
Not saying SpaceX will be or will not be chosen, but the amount of "knowledge" that gets sprayed around ( especially on the SpaceX parts of the forum ) that are just speculation, build on more speculation, build on someone saying "hey wouldn't it be a great idea if " and "hey guys my argument" while real sources are ignored or snowed under is truly amazing.

The confidence with which various statements are made is starting to really annoy me.

Centaur has 50 years of history.

Atlas I had a few problems with it.

The Atlas II used DEC and retired with a perfect record. Other versions of Atlas and Titan also used it.

Centaur failed on the maiden flight of Titan IIIE in 1974. There was a 1999 failure on a Titan IV. Then there was the 2007 Atlas early shut down.

I don't know the exact record.

100s of successful flights.

Putting on an extra engine of the same make hardly changes anything but that still doesn't mean it's proven.

SpaceX is using a new engine with a new nozzle trying to get a boost in ISP. It isn't yet known what the exact performance is supposed to be.

[Oli]

That is a great reason not to select them, and most likely will be the case.

Except that the assumption that SpaceX will develop crewed dragon regardless is unsubstantiated. 

Or where do you see a market? Bigelow?

[Jim]

That is a great reason not to select them, and most likely will be the case.

Except that the assumption that SpaceX will develop crewed dragon regardless is unsubstantiated. 

They said they would

[Oli]

^

To whom? I think what SpaceX tells the general public is not of much relevance to NASA.

[TrueBlueWitt]

*For the record, I personally would love to see the DC included and supported for future crew services. My response was specific to the idea put forth that SpaceX should not or would not be chosen since they will develop Crewed Dragon regardless. Context is important in understanding the response.

That is a great reason not to select them, and most likely will be the case.  Knowing a little about the spaceflight industry is important when making responses that  include informed conjecture (which would be "substantiation").

The fact that Spacex got selected for COTS is something along this line.  NASA could have selected a spacecraft that used a ULA launch vehicle, which would have been a quicker, cheaper and less risky solutions. But instead selected solutions that require launch vehicle development, which was going beyond meeting ISS cargo delivery requirements.

Jim,

Quicker and less risky, I agree..  However, over the life of the COTS/CRS would a ULA based alternative's total cost really have been less to NASA?

If ULA alternative was cheap, why aren't commercial Satellite operators lining up for launches on ULA rockets?

[newpylong]

Dual Engine Centaur - > 200
Falcon 9 V 1.1 - 0

The record of DEC, please? Comparable to the record of Falcon 9? The record of ISS knowledge from SpaceX?

[Silmfeanor]

Dual Engine Centaur - > 200
Falcon 9 V 1.1 - 0

The record of DEC, please? Comparable to the record of Falcon 9? The record of ISS knowledge from SpaceX?

The point of course is that DEC hasn't flown yet in the current config. Neither has Falcon 9.
This all in reaction towards Spectre9 saying that the falcon launch vehicle is unproven- by that same standard, so is DEC.
And the over-arching point over all of this -

We are discussing a possible downselect from 2.5 providers to an unknown number of providers flying on hardware that is in flux and still under development while these same providers are interacting on diffirent projects with NASA aswell. Political games also play a role.
People who for the most part are not part of the industry are making statements and technical arguments that are not representative of the real discussions and professional assessments going on, where they have access to more data and look at other criteria.

Here, people are having discussions that are not grounded at all. Making statements like "They will be selected" or "this will never work" or "this is better then that" while having NO idea of what's really going on? 
Statements are often build on one-sided arguments that only look at part of the real situation. sigh.

I prefer to lurk and ask questions instead of making statements in a field where i am not a professional or very knowledgeable.  I think this thread could greatly use some of that.

I'll log off for a while, I am getting annoyed.

[newpylong]

Dual Engine Centaur Pre-Atlas V - > 200
Falcon 9 V 1.0 - 5

Dual Engine Centaur Atlas V - 0
Falcon 9 V 1.1 - 0


Better?

[Lurker Steve]

Dragon has carried cargo to and from the ISS three times already.  Men have been inside it in space.  I'd say that puts it more than a little ahead of the others, in terms of stage of development.

As the most conservative design, and the smallest departure from an existing tried and proven spacecraft, it's the least likely to encounter some surprising reason for failure.

And beyond the basic functionality of the initial version, there is potential for development of further capabilities, such as extreme operational convenience and landing on planets other than Earth.

Dragon represents the incremental approach, it isn't just the poor man's space capsule.  More conservative doesn't always mean less ambitious, and sometimes smaller steps can take you to more places.

The real problem is the constant "evolution" of the spacecraft and launch vehicle. Have they flown the same configuration twice yet ?

Also remember that the capsule that will carry astronauts is significantly different from the capsule that has visited the ISS. Just like I said that the F9-Revised is a completely new rocket from below the ground up, I think we may find out the same thing about the crewed Dragon. New propulsion, new avionics, new docking adapter, new ECLSS, no solar panels. Name 1 thing that hasn't changed other than the SpaceX logo decal.

[Jim]

  I also strongly suspect that they're going to be testing their launch abort / propulsive landing off a Grasshopper,

What does that accomplish?

[mmeijeri]

That is a great reason not to select them, and most likely will be the case. 

Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, are you saying that SpaceX will likely not be selected and that that is a good thing?

[arachnitect]

  CST-100 depends on a LOX/ethanol engine, while Dragon uses a much simpler hypergolic system.

So in this critical emergency system, the CST-100 is adding new points of failure, by depending on an ignition system, a cryogenic propellant, and one propellant which freezes solid at the temperature of the other propellant.

Last I heard CST-100 was using modified Bantam engine running NTO/MMH. Pressure fed.

Video of abort motor tests clearly shows the infamous red cloud on shutdown.