CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Ronsmytheiii]

Dont forget that the companies bidding for contracts will also be the ones to request funding amounts. IF SpaceX is as far along as we have been led to believe it is entirely possible they could get the partial award due to the low amount of their bid rather than validation of the concept either way.  This is similar to why Blue Origin was picked for CCDev2, not necessarily the strength of the concept but for the low amount they requested.

[yg1968]

Dont forget that the companies bidding for contracts will also be the ones to request funding amounts. IF SpaceX is as far along as we have been led to believe it is entirely possible they could get the partial award due to the low amount of their bid rather than validation of the concept either way.  This is similar to why Blue Origin was picked for CCDev2, not necessarily the strength of the concept but for the low amount they requested.

Congress also stated that they want commercial crew ready as soon as possible. So there is some logic to giving SpaceX full funding in order for them to be ready in 2015 or 2016 (instead of 2017).

[Ronsmytheiii]

Congress also stated that they want commercial crew ready as soon as possible. So there is some logic to giving SpaceX full funding in order for them to be ready in 2015 or 2016 (instead of 2017).

Like I said, it would be dependent on the funding amounts that the company asks for. Not much reason to throw money at a provider who did not ask or need it, that is the entire point of the commercial model.

[yg1968]

I can almost guarantee you that all of the leading companies (except Blue Origin) asked for the maximum of $500M because none of the companies need less than $500M to complete their program. I am guessing that whomever gets partial funding will probably push more of its milestones to the optional phase. Although, you probably don't want to push too many milestones to the optional phase in order not to get too far behind the other ones when it comes time to downselect to two in 2014. 

[beancounter]

I can almost guarantee you that all of the leading companies (except Blue Origin) asked for the maximum of $500M because none of the companies need less than $500M to complete their program. I am guessing that whomever gets partial funding will probably push more of its milestones to the optional phase. Although, you probably don't want to push too many milestones to the optional phase in order not to get too far behind the other ones when it comes time to downselect to two in 2014. 

Sorry must have missed that.  Who was it that stated downselect to 2 in 2014?

[jjm390]

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?

If you are going by URL title, you are most likely being missled. As a computer scientist, I can almost guarantee the 2 is an iterator for page revision rather than referring to the second round of testing. 

[yg1968]

I can almost guarantee you that all of the leading companies (except Blue Origin) asked for the maximum of $500M because none of the companies need less than $500M to complete their program. I am guessing that whomever gets partial funding will probably push more of its milestones to the optional phase. Although, you probably don't want to push too many milestones to the optional phase in order not to get too far behind the other ones when it comes time to downselect to two in 2014. 

Sorry must have missed that.  Who was it that stated downselect to 2 in 2014?

It hasn't been stated directly. According to Gerst, NASA intends to buy 2 commercial crew flights per year starting in 2017 (or earlier). It has been stated previously that NASA intends to award commercial crew services contract after the CCiCap base period in 2014. So I am guessing that there will be a downselection to 2 during the CCiCap optional milestones/certification period. But it is just a guess at this point. Gerst has also made the point that these plans aren't set in stone.

[joek]

At the risk of being overly-pedantic... Need to be careful with the term "downselect".  Based on available information:
1. A subset ("2.5") of the CCiCap proposals will receive an award this year: a CCiCap funded SAA.  It is higly likely those will come from the current CCDev-2 "leaders", but not a given (can not be legally).
2. At least one from a TBD number of crew transportation services (CTS*) proposals will receive an award circa 2014: a CTS FAR contract.  It is highly likely that will be a subset of (1), but not a given (can not be legally).

In any case, NASA needs at least two willing, able and viable CTS competitors to avoid the overhead a non-compete would entail--even if there is ultimately only one CTS contract award.  Which IMHO given present and likely future budget constraints is the most probable outcome.


* I think "CTS" is still the moniker.

[yg1968]

I am not sure what you mean by 2 CTS competitors. According to Bolden, there will be 2.5 awards for the CCiCap base period. In 2014, there will likely be an award for crew transportation services for one or more companies. I am hoping that there will be two awards. But it might be one as you say. Although, going from 2.5 to 2 would make more sense than going to 2.5 to 1 in my opinion. Since the CCiCap optional milestones period, certification and the CTS contract all start in 2014, there is likely to be a reduction (or "downselection") to 2 (or one) providers in 2014 for each of these phases.

N.B. I know that NASA will say that this isn't "really" a downselection in the sense that new entrants are welcomed for each phase. But the fact remains that CCiCap will be "reduced" from 4 companies to 2.5 companies which will probably be further reduced to 2 during the CCiCap optional milestones period (or possibly one).

[Ronsmytheiii]

I have to say that the terminology of "downselect" is definitely misused in relation to CCiCap.  CCiCap has less funded contracts to offer, but that does not mean only the currently funded contracts under CCDev 2 will be eligible for a CCiCap award.  ATK is currently in the running with the complete Liberty system, and have a good chance of winning just as SpaceX, SNC, or Boeing. Not to mention bids which were submitted and for which we have no public knowledge of.  Same will apply for CTS. System maturity will definitely effect the business case, but each contract is essentially tabular rosa.

[joek]

I am not sure what you mean by 2 CTS competitors.

Only saying that there must be at least two willing, able and viable contenders to make CTS competitive--regardless of what happens with CCiCap.  Without that, tons of non-complete sole-source contract bureacracy and overhead would kick in.  Hope that makes sense.

[yg1968]

I am not sure what you mean by 2 CTS competitors.

Only saying that there must be at least two willing, able and viable contenders to make CTS competitive--regardless of what happens with CCiCap.  Without that, tons of non-complete sole-source contract bureacracy and overhead would kick in.  Hope that makes sense.

Yes I agree with that. But you seem to be implying that the 2 CTS competitors might eventually be reduced to one. My view is that whomever gets a contract for CTS in 2014 is likely to cross the finish line in 2017 unless they go bankrupt (which seems unlikely).

[joek]

I am not sure what you mean by 2 CTS competitors.

Only saying that there must be at least at least two willing, able and viable contenders to make CTS competitive--regardless of what happens with CCiCap.  Without that, tons of non-complete sole-source contract bureacracy and overhead would kick in.  Hope that makes sense.

Yes I agree with that. But you seem to be implying that the 2 CTS competitors might eventually be reduced to one. My view is that whomever gets a contract for CTS in 2014 is likely to cross the finish line in 2017 unless they go bankrupt (which seems unlikely).

Yes, I believe (or at least hope) that there will be at least 2 CTS competitors and they are most likely to be the "2.0" of the "2.5" CCiCap winners (altho again, not a given).   Whether there will be 2 CTS suppliers (more than 1 CTS contract award) and the impact if there is only 1, is another matter probably best discussed in a non-update thread.

edit: "at least 2"

[yg1968]

I am still not clear what you mean by 2 CTS competitors. There will be 2.5 commercial crew providers until the end of the CCiCap base period in 2014. All 3 of these providers (and possibly even new ones) are likely to compete for the CTS contract which will also be awarded in 2014. At that point in time, the commercial crew providers are likely to go from 2.5 to 2 or from 2.5 to 1. In other words, there will be a reduction of providers in 2014 when the CTS is awarded but that should be the last reduction of commercial crew providers.  At least, that is how I understand it.

[joek]

I think we're saying the same thing, with one small quibble: there are no "commercial crew providers" (or suppliers) until a CTS contract is awarded--and arguably not until they've show they can deliver, which may or may not happen by the time a CTS contract is awarded.  Until then, there are only potential CTS competitors.

[yg1968]

I think we're saying the same thing, with one small quibble: there are no "commercial crew providers" (or suppliers) until a CTS contract is awarded--and arguably not until they've show they can deliver, which may or may not happen by the time a CTS contract is awarded.  Until then, there are only potential CTS competitors.

OK. I sometimes use the expression "commercial crew participants" instead of providers for that reason. But I noticed that most in Congress and NASA use the expression "commercial crew providers" when speaking of the CCDev-2 companies eventhough, they may or may not be retained for a CTS contract. The terminology gets confusing...

[yg1968]

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/

Q: When will CCiCAP selection be announced?

Bolden: We fully expect to announce those selected by mid-July or so. That’s 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 President’s 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

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

We are now past mid-July.

[Rocket Science]

We never really know what negotiations are still going on behind the scene. Maybe our friend 51D might be privy to things he has seen or heard but cannot comment upon…

[vt_hokie]

We never really know what negotiations are still going on behind the scene. Maybe our friend 51D might be privy to things he has seen or heard but cannot comment upon…

The pessimist in me says SNC will likely lose out, since they've got the coolest vehicle and Congress seems intent on downgrading us to capsules...

[Lobo]

We never really know what negotiations are still going on behind the scene. Maybe our friend 51D might be privy to things he has seen or heard but cannot comment upon…

The pessimist in me says SNC will likely lose out, since they've got the coolest vehicle and Congress seems intent on downgrading us to capsules...

I don’t know about that.  In certain ways it might be the most dangerous vehicle, in that it has an exposed TPS in orbit.  But, that aside, I think it has a lot of support for a variety of reasons.

1)   It’s a reusable spaceplane that looks like a mini-space shuttle.  Many who aren’t well educated on such things view that as “high-tech” and “futuristic” in that it looks like an airplane.  Obviously the Shuttle taught us that perception isn’t necessarily reality.  But regardless, a mini-shuttle landing on the SLF at KSC is a visual effect that I think many in NASA, and even Congress would like to see with the Shuttle retired.
2)   It’s based on a NASA design, so NASA can always talk about how DC is the culmination of work that THEY did many years ago.  It’s not quite as easy to say that about Dragon and CST-100, although in certain ways it could be said.  At least some tech in those is based on previous NASA projects.  DC would reflect well on NASA in the public’s eye I think, as well as Congress’s eye.
3)   Although it probably wouldn’t take off at KSC, it would land there and be processed there, which helps validate NASA’s multi-use Spaceport concept. 

So I have a hard time seeing DC NOT be selected, barring some major technological or safety hurdle.  However, for different reasons, I have a hard time not seeing SpaceX, CST-100, and Liberty not be selected.  But obviously probably 1.5 of those contenders won’t be…so I dunno…