CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[yg1968]

Commercial Crew is paying for the man rating of the vehicles as well as development of the spacecraft.  If Dream Chaser replaces the CST-100 then the cost of man rating the Atlas 5 will have to be transferred to the Dream Chaser program.

Unless DC decides to launch on the Falcon 9.

[BrightLight]

My understanding of the report is that the cost benefit analysis is for the life operations expectancy of ISS based on the study that NASA is currently doing on this (which is expected to be 2028).

Do you have a reference for this date, if so, the CC program will look a lot better.  A cost-benefit analysis can have many in it things as stated in this thread which will make CC a bargain but my fear is that the powers that have called for the analysis are doing so to prevent CC from going forward.  Every year in the out-years that ISS is operating, the CC program looks better per cost per seat - including development. The four years from 2024 to 2028 will have Russian Soyuz seat costs projected at $85 million (according to posts in this thread) or an additional $1.36 billion over four years. So if CC starts operations in 2018 the equivalent costs sent to Russia would be about 3.5 billion dollars - I think we can do CC for 3.5 billion.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Oh I am sure that certain senators will happily send money to the Russians instead of financing commercial crew, which is a thorn in their pork...
On a different note, I am wondering whether NASA might take a more gambling approach to the whole down select issue. E.g. I could see them pick Dreamchaser and CST-100, but give SpaceX a much larger commercial cargo contract this time. If I understand it correctly (and correct me if I am wrong), the crewed version of Dragon will be almost flight ready by the time their current paid milestones are fulfilled (like the abort tests). Dragon would be flying cargo missions anyway, so it gets its flight testing essentially for free (just without crew). So NASA could have three crew capable spacecraft and two LVs for the price of two, with only two being used for actual NASA crew missions. Meanwhile SpaceX can do manned missions for other clients or on their own (as they want to do that anyway). And then who knows what the future (and future contracts) brings. There might be other (non ISS) manned NASA missions that go to SpaceX and it could always serve as a sort of a backup.
Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.

[yg1968]

My understanding of the report is that the cost benefit analysis is for the life operations expectancy of ISS based on the study that NASA is currently doing on this (which is expected to be 2028).

Do you have a reference for this date, if so, the CC program will look a lot better.  A cost-benefit analysis can have many in it things as stated in this thread which will make CC a bargain but my fear is that the powers that have called for the analysis are doing so to prevent CC from going forward.  Every year in the out-years that ISS is operating, the CC program looks better per cost per seat - including development. The four years from 2024 to 2028 will have Russian Soyuz seat costs projected at $85 million (according to posts in this thread) or an additional $1.36 billion over four years. So if CC starts operations in 2018 the equivalent costs sent to Russia would be about 3.5 billion dollars - I think we can do CC for 3.5 billion.

See page 116-117 of the explanatory statement related to the FY Appropriation bill:
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-FM-B.pdf

The 2028 extension has been discussed several time by Gerst. See this link:
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=48674

At that time, the partners added that there were “no identified technical constraints to continuing ISS operations beyond the current planning horizon of 2015 to at least 2020″ and that, moreover, “the partnership is currently working to certify on-orbit elements through 2028.” The decision to maintain a permanent U.S. presence aboard the station for at least another full decade goes a significant distance in establishing some middle ground between these two dates. Meeting that target will be challenging, though not impossible. In 2010, ISS Program Manager Michael Suffredini reported that he felt comfortable that the station was structurally capable of supporting human occupants until at least the early 2020s, whilst analysis of relevant factors—including the procurement of spare parts—are expected to be completed by all ISS partners no later than 2016.

[baldusi]

Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.

It would also be illegal. Government procurement works by setting requirements and awarding contract to the best offeror. You can't leave the best offeror out bevause he "could supply it anyways".
Btw, it's not even the best way to bootstrap a commefcial LEO market. The missing supplier is space station one. If they want to really start the market, they should do something like COTS for the next National Laboratory in space for 2024-2044 and make the contract for a certain level of science utilization.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.

It would also be illegal. Government procurement works by setting requirements and awarding contract to the best offeror. You can't leave the best offeror out bevause he "could supply it anyways".
Btw, it's not even the best way to bootstrap a commefcial LEO market. The missing supplier is space station one. If they want to really start the market, they should do something like COTS for the next National Laboratory in space for 2024-2044 and make the contract for a certain level of science utilization.

Looking at the discussions on this topic here and elsewhere, it is not quite clear who "the best offeror" really is.
I am sure arguments could be made for either one of them (as has been done here countless times). Also, if SpaceX got a large resupply contract instead of the crew, they might just go along (COTS was a lot less bureaucratic anyway and that might just be what they want).
I do agree that having a COTS for the next space station would be a good thing to do.

[BrightLight]

The following is from HR3547 (Thanks to YG1968):
"The primary purpose of the CCP has always been to develop a national capability to
restore domestic access to the International Space Station (ISS) as quickly and safely as possible.
Currently, the ISS is scheduled to complete its mission by 2020, and NASA has no definitive
plan yet to extend the mission beyond that date. This uncertainty has a substantial impact on
planning and financial requirements in the CCP that must be addressed. To that end, the
agreement withholds from obligation a portion of CCP funds until NASA certifies that the
program has undergone an independent benefit-cost analysis that takes into consideration the
total Federal investment in the CCP and the expected operational life of the ISS. "Expected
operational life" shall be determed by NASA based on an ISS sustainability plan that includes a
comprehensive systems assessment, identification of critical functional and scientific capabilities
and long term funding projections as described in the Senate report. Benefits and costs shall be
examined in relation to current ISS crew transportation practices.

The cost-benefit analysis is directly related to ISS access not BLEO, further the analysis allows for a comprehensive assessment including scientific capabilities - thus the improved crew and science capability can be included in the analysis for the benefit to the ISS.  This option not only provides for the cost from development through operations but the added benefit of improved transportation to ISS.  When the document was written, the ISS life was to 2020, shortly after the congress and administration agreed to a 2024 extension and also in other documents (NASA Authorization ), planning is allocated for 2025 and 2030 - supporting the 2028 extension.  It's hard for me to believe that a cost-benefit analysis would not show that CC is a fantastic bargain - even at the 2024 life span, if ISS goes to 2028 it only gets better.

[baldusi]

Looking at the discussions on this topic here and elsewhere, it is not quite clear who "the best offeror" really is.
I am sure arguments could be made for either one of them (as has been done here countless times). Also, if SpaceX got a large resupply contract instead of the crew, they might just go along (COTS was a lot less bureaucratic anyway and that might just be what they want).
I do agree that having a COTS for the next space station would be a good thing to do.

Best offeror is determined by the selection comitee based on the parameters of the tender. Anything not strictly on the tender rules is object of protest. BTW there's content on this site that stongly suggest that SpaceX is the leading offeror right now. And remember that somethin like 60% of the selection criteria is price.

[Jim]

Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.

Why does it have to fair to Spacex, the point is maximizing return for NASA

[Jim]

I do agree that having a COTS for the next space station would be a good thing to do.

There is no repeating of COTS.  It is done and no need for anymore.  Any future contracts will be for services.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.

Why does it have to fair to Spacex, the point is maximizing return for NASA

Uhm, which was the point, I was trying to make?!

[Elmar Moelzer]

I do agree that having a COTS for the next space station would be a good thing to do.

There is no repeating of COTS.  It is done and no need for anymore.  Any future contracts will be for services.

I was referring to a post by Baldusi, who suggested that NASA should buy services for a new commercially operated space station by taking a similar contractual approach to COTS.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Best offeror is determined by the selection comitee based on the parameters of the tender. Anything not strictly on the tender rules is object of protest. BTW there's content on this site that stongly suggest that SpaceX is the leading offeror right now. And remember that somethin like 60% of the selection criteria is price.

I agree that SpaceX looks like the top contender (though some people here will disagree).
I do wonder though, who would protest it, if not SpaceX and if they ended up with another, equally attractive contract, why would they? Anyway, I get your point, lots of legal hurdles there. It was just fun speculation on my part, so lets not take this further than necessary.

[Jim]

I was referring to a post my Baldusi, who suggested that NASA should buy services for a new commercially operated space station by taking a similar contractual approach to COTS.

Still wrong.  COTS was funding development of launch vehicles and cargo deliver spacecraft via SAA and it was not funding cargo services.   Services for a commercially operated space station could be done like launch services (NLS) and cargo service (CRS) contracts. 

[guckyfan]

Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.

Why does it have to fair to Spacex, the point is maximizing return for NASA

Are you sure this is the regulations?

Or is it that the best offer should get the contract?

[Jim]

Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.

Why does it have to fair to Spacex, the point is maximizing return for NASA

Are you sure this is the regulations?

Or is it that the best offer should get the contract?

It all depends on the selection criteria.

[A_M_Swallow]

Commercial Crew is paying for the man rating of the vehicles as well as development of the spacecraft.  If Dream Chaser replaces the CST-100 then the cost of man rating the Atlas 5 will have to be transferred to the Dream Chaser program.

Unless DC decides to launch on the Falcon 9.

Then NASA loses the operational safety of having redundant launch vehicles.  Having recently lost the ability to launch people into space I suspect NASA will not be in a hurry to repeat that embarrassment.

It should be possible to design the Dream Chaser so that it can be launched on both Atlas V and Falcon 9 LV.

[rcoppola]

Commercial Crew is paying for the man rating of the vehicles as well as development of the spacecraft.  If Dream Chaser replaces the CST-100 then the cost of man rating the Atlas 5 will have to be transferred to the Dream Chaser program.

Unless DC decides to launch on the Falcon 9.

Then NASA loses the operational safety of having redundant launch vehicles.  Having recently lost the ability to launch people into space I suspect NASA will not be in a hurry to repeat that embarrassment.

It should be possible to design the Dream Chaser so that it can be launched on both Atlas V and Falcon 9 LV.

This brings up something I've been wondering about the F9v1.1.
SpaceX has always maintained that the F9 was designed and built from the beginning to be human rated. Is it considered that now? Or are there additional avionics, monitoring sensors, redundancies, etc. that will need to be added or updated for the inclusion of the LAS?

[Go4TLI]

This brings up something I've been wondering about the F9v1.1.
SpaceX has always maintained that the F9 was designed and built from the beginning to be human rated. Is it considered that now? Or are there additional avionics, monitoring sensors, redundancies, etc. that will need to be added or updated for the inclusion of the LAS?

I hate the term "man-rated".  It is outdated and never really used correctly.  The requirements for "man-rating" are vague and nebulous. 

Man-rated should be based on applicable reliability and accepted risk via some level of redundancy in critical systems. 

Any launch vehicle with a crew vehicle on it will need some sort of avionics package that allows the booster to "talk" to the vehicle.  This is in the event emergency separation is required and triggered by the av package if monitored parameters are at the redline or trending that way quickly. 

[rcoppola]

This brings up something I've been wondering about the F9v1.1.
SpaceX has always maintained that the F9 was designed and built from the beginning to be human rated. Is it considered that now? Or are there additional avionics, monitoring sensors, redundancies, etc. that will need to be added or updated for the inclusion of the LAS?

I hate the term "man-rated".  It is outdated and never really used correctly.  The requirements for "man-rating" are vague and nebulous. 

Man-rated should be based on applicable reliability and accepted risk via some level of redundancy in critical systems. 

Any launch vehicle with a crew vehicle on it will need some sort of avionics package that allows the booster to "talk" to the vehicle.  This is in the event emergency separation is required and triggered by the av package if monitored parameters are at the redline or trending that way quickly.

Hmm. Well technically I used the term "human-rated". And while I appreciate your disdain for the term, there must be some HSF guidelines to all participants as to what is specifically needed for their systems to be considered adequately "rated for human occupancy". And since there are, I was wondering how close or even beyond the F9 is to those evaluations?