Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[PeterAlt]

Although its painful to talk about or even think about, we all know from gut feeling that not all the current CCDev candidates will actually fly commercial crew services to the ISS under contract by NASA. This will become even more evident as NASA's budgetary process moves along and now that both versions of next year's spending bill by both chambers in Congress agree to fund the program at somewhere over half the requested amount.

This is a time when NASA will be forced to choose favorites. Doing otherwise will only delay actual services and risks putting the entire program in jeopardy. Some members of Congress have suggested that NASA force the candidates to consolidate and merge their efforts into some kind of partnership. This idea is outrageous and probably impossible.

So, who will stay, who gets eliminated, and which ones could possibly partner up? Here's my quick assertion:

- SpaceX is the strongest candidate and they are here to stay in the race as a solo player to the very end.

- The Atlas V is the chosen LV for a number of CC service candidates; therefore, human-rating this vehicle is all but guaranteed.

- Liberty, in my opinion, has a strong but unproven LV. Its crew vehicle is furthest behind in the development process than any contender. If they can partner with Boeing or Blue Origin, their chances of staying in increase. I don't see Boeing switching their LV from Atlas to Liberty, unless the funding for completing development on human-rating Atlas V isn't found. Also, the Boeing LV is being designed with Atlas in mind. Will it work with Liberty?

- Boeing's success is closely linked to the success and funding of human rating the Atlas V. If human rating Atlas falls through, the Boeing proposal is dead (or unless they partner with Liberty, see above). Boeing's chances of success is anything but guaranteed.

- Sierra Nevada is the one with very small odds that we really want to succeed. The odds are not in their favor, in my opinion, but I really want to see Dream Chaser fly. It's for that reason why I can't justify eliminating them as a contender just yet - considering their rapid pace of progress. Like Boeing, they depend on the success and funding of human-rating Atlas V. Also, I see no way they could forge partnerships with any of the other contenders, decreasing their overall odds of staying in.

- Secretive Blue Origin will get funded with or without NASA assistance due to the fact that the company's billionaire owner said he will bank roll it with whatever it takes. Service of this vehicle may not make it on time when ISS crew services begin, though.

Okay, I've failed to eliminate any one. Can any of you succeed in making the tough choice of elimination? More importantly, will NASA succeed and choose wisely?

[MrScienceGuy]

Here is my personal run down of the current line up:

- SpaceX - After coming off of their COTS 2+ mission, they are far and away the favorites from my perspective. Not only have they successfully launched and returned Dragon twice now, but they have continuously built a working relationship with NASA which (I would imagine) would give them a unique perspective in CCDev.

- Blue Origin - As much as I personally love Blue Origin for their push for reusable VTVL rockets, I don't see them being chosen for CCDev 3. They are just starting to work on their engine (I am still unclear as to whether it is for their sub-orbital or orbital rocket) and don't really have a working prototype (that we know of) for their bionic capsule. In a perfect world where Congress allocated the $800 million the administration asked for, I could see 4 or 5 carries continuing on to CCDev 3, but by the tone of Congress, it seems likely that the field will be narrowing.

- Sierra Nevada - Their recent progress with the carry tests and engine development seems to put them in a fairly good location. I could easily see them getting chosen.

- Atlas V - I completely agree with your assessment. Considering 3 of the proposed vehicles (if you include Blue Origin) plan to launch on the rocket, it seems like an obvious choice.

- Boeing - I don't see them going anywhere. They're recent drop tests and milestone checks shows them progressing at a fairly rapid clip. They seem like one of the safest bets for he next round of funding.

- ATK - While Liberty does nothing for me personally, it sounds like they presented a strong proposal to NASA. Considering their history, their progress on rocket testing for Liberty, and the capsule's heritage, I think they have a fairly good shot.

If I were to rank them:

1. SpaceX
2. Boeing
3. Sierra Nevada
4. Liberty
5. Blue Origin

[MikeAtkinson]

My first tough choice

Atlas V - not funded

Reason, it will not need a failure detection system until launch abort testing.  Boeing and Sierra Nevada won't be ready for abort testing this round.

[MikeAtkinson]

Second tough chose

Blue Origin - not funded

Reason, they seem to be missing milestone dates by a wide margin. They also seem to have more left to do than Sierra Nevada or Boeing.

[MikeAtkinson]

Third tough choice

Liberty - not funded

Reason, longer timescale than the others. More risk as developing both launcher and capsule.

[PeterAlt]

My first tough choice

Atlas V - not funded

Reason, it will not need a failure detection system until launch abort testing.  Boeing and Sierra Nevada won't be ready for abort testing this round.

That leaves only SpaceX Dragon and ATK Liberty left, if Atlas V is eliminated. This has more potential drama than a reality show!

If I had to make the decision, I would give SpaceX and Atlas top priority. With all that's at stake with the Atlas, I would fund the rocket first and its crew vehicle payloads second. Without the rocket being human-rated, there's no point in spending government money developing crew vehicles for it. After human-rating the rocket (which should be seen as a milestone), then continue to fund work to accelerate the crew vehicle work. In the meanwhile, SpaceX will have a monopoly, but that's okay because they won it fair and square by putting a lot of their own cash into it and having a great team in place working on it.

I would also find funds for human-rating the Delta IV Heavy, even if it's at the expense of funding any of those other companies besides SpaceX. Or even if its never used. Why? This would give NASA a back-up LV for Orion for LEO. This should only be funded as a priority third after SpaceX and Atlas V human rating work in order to avoid law-makers from getting any ideas to divert funds from the first two priorities because of any potential "redundancy of capabilities" rationale human-rating the Delta IV Heavy could cause. Also, human-rating that rocket could open up other undiscussed commercial crew possibilities.

[Jim]

- Boeing's success is closely linked to the success and funding of human rating the Atlas V.

NASA isn't dealing with Atlas separately.   The CCP proposer will have to deal with ULA.  Human rating Atlas V is not independent of Boeing or SNC.  Who ever wins will have to pay ULA for human rating Atlas V.

So it isn't Boeing or SNC, it is
Boeing with subcontractor ULA,
Sierra Nevada with subcontractor ULA
and even Blue Origin with subcontractor ULA.
 Even Liberty is ATK with subcontractor LM.

[Jim]

but they have continuously built a working relationship with NASA which (I would imagine) would give them a unique perspective in CCDev.

That is not a consideration.

[Jim]

And there will be be no more CCDev.

[JBF]

Atlas V is not an absolute. Boeing has said the CST-100 will fit on a Falcon 9 and I'd be surprised if SN doesn't have a back-up plan to get Dream Chaser on it as well.

[Lurker Steve]

My first tough choice

Atlas V - not funded

Reason, it will not need a failure detection system until launch abort testing.  Boeing and Sierra Nevada won't be ready for abort testing this round.

That leaves only SpaceX Dragon and ATK Liberty left, if Atlas V is eliminated. This has more potential drama than a reality show!

If I had to make the decision, I would give SpaceX and Atlas top priority. With all that's at stake with the Atlas, I would fund the rocket first and its crew vehicle payloads second. Without the rocket being human-rated, there's no point in spending government money developing crew vehicles for it. After human-rating the rocket (which should be seen as a milestone), then continue to fund work to accelerate the crew vehicle work. In the meanwhile, SpaceX will have a monopoly, but that's okay because they won it fair and square by putting a lot of their own cash into it and having a great team in place working on it.

I would also find funds for human-rating the Delta IV Heavy, even if it's at the expense of funding any of those other companies besides SpaceX. Or even if its never used. Why? This would give NASA a back-up LV for Orion for LEO. This should only be funded as a priority third after SpaceX and Atlas V human rating work in order to avoid law-makers from getting any ideas to divert funds from the first two priorities because of any potential "redundancy of capabilities" rationale human-rating the Delta IV Heavy could cause. Also, human-rating that rocket could open up other undiscussed commercial crew possibilities.

Actually, the one thing that NASA could do is to take some of the KSC 21st century spaceport funding, and build a crew access tower that can be used by both DreamChaser and CST-100 launches at LC-41. Or they can spend even more money to build a MLP structure for Altas to launch crews from LC-37, but I think the crew-launch infrastructure at LC-41 would be more cost-effective.

I haven't seen any plans from SpaceX on how to get crew into the capsule, so NASA can't help there. Hopefully, that would be one of their milestones in the next round.

[Prober]

- Boeing's success is closely linked to the success and funding of human rating the Atlas V.

NASA isn't dealing with Atlas separately.   The CCP proposer will have to deal with ULA.  Human rating Atlas V is not independent of Boeing or SNC.  Who ever wins will have to pay ULA for human rating Atlas V.

So it isn't Boeing or SNC, it is
Boeing with subcontractor ULA,  Sierra Nevada with subcontractor ULA and even Blue Origin with subcontractor ULA.  Even Liberty is ATK with subcontractor LM.

good info

problem with the whole progam has been the lack of different launchers.  It's too bad Orbital's launcher isn't operational, would make this program more interesting.

or LM Orion lite on Delta? 

This would be real competition.

[Jason1701]

problem with the whole progam has been the lack of different launchers.  It's too bad Orbital's launcher isn't operational, would make this program more interesting.

Antares is underpowered for the CCDev spacecraft, and its solid upper stage might be a no-no.

[Jim]

Actually, the one thing that NASA could do is to take some of the KSC 21st century spaceport funding, and build a crew access tower that can be used by both DreamChaser and CST-100 launches at LC-41. Or they can spend even more money to build a MLP structure for Altas to launch crews from LC-37, but I think the crew-launch infrastructure at LC-41 would be more cost-effective.

Not possible.  LC-41 is not a KSC asset nor is it on KSC.  And worse, don't want 21st century spaceport to be involved with anything to do with commercial crew. Atlas at 37 is not feasible.

[butters]

A few months ago, it would have seemed highly unlikely for ULA to be squeezed out of CCDev/CCT, but it doesn't seem so ridiculous anymore. SpaceX and ATK have done quite a good job, in their own ways, of changing the ballgame.

[yg1968]

- Boeing's success is closely linked to the success and funding of human rating the Atlas V.

NASA isn't dealing with Atlas separately.   The CCP proposer will have to deal with ULA.  Human rating Atlas V is not independent of Boeing or SNC.  Who ever wins will have to pay ULA for human rating Atlas V.

So it isn't Boeing or SNC, it is
Boeing with subcontractor ULA,  Sierra Nevada with subcontractor ULA and even Blue Origin with subcontractor ULA.  Even Liberty is ATK with subcontractor LM.

good info

problem with the whole progam has been the lack of different launchers.  It's too bad Orbital's launcher isn't operational, would make this program more interesting.

or LM Orion lite on Delta? 

This would be real competition.

What Jim mentionned in his post isn't news. We already knew that CCiCap is for end-to end proposals. We already know that DC, Boeing and Blue Origin have chosen the Atlas V as their LV. I seriously doubt that LM Orion lite on a Delta IV or on Atlas V is being proposed by LM. If it had, we would have heard of it by now. A number of companies disclose their proposal not long after submitting their proposal (e.g., Liberty capsule and LV). The advantage of doing so is that their competitors can no longer react to their proposal.   

[yg1968]

A few months ago, it would have seemed highly unlikely for ULA to be squeezed out of CCDev/CCT, but it doesn't seem so ridiculous anymore. SpaceX and ATK have done quite a good job, in their own ways, of changing the ballgame.

Despite the ATK rumors, I suspect that NASA will continue with (in order):

1-SpaceX
2- Boeing
3- Dream Chaser.

If you read the CCDev-2 selection statement, one of the reason they choose Dream Chaser was because it was a lifting body and they wanted something different in their portfolio. So they choose Dream Chaser over Orbital's Prometheus. That may still be a consideration for Dream Chaser to get the nod over ATK.  At least that is what I am hoping for.

[Robert Thompson]

ATK can deliver underpants and serve as keystone to a solid missile industry.
Not that I agree with what I think.

[baldusi]

I don't think you quite grasp the risk involved in Commercial Crew. To minimize development and launch risk, there's just on choice: CST-100 on Atlas V. Boeing is the most knowledgeable company on human transport outside of Russian (and may be even in the whole world), they have taken a very conservative and safe approach, and have been working diligently towards a whole solution. Dragon is a more proven capsule, but that's the previous evolution. The software is all about automation and the attachment method is berthing. Boeing is past PDR on its software, the LAS is using legacy engines, the capsule has been studied for at least a decade and a half and, more importantly, they are both the contractors of the previous US crew vehicle and the current contractors of the ISS. You simply can't have a more knowledgeable and "safe" approach.
Dragon, as I said, has already flown, have proven lots of parts, but: the LAS is in its infancy, the software will be different, the shape will be different, the approach and docking procedures are different to the berthing procedures and the Falcon 9 will has flown just three times, and then it's supposed to fly with new engines and tank stretch and who knows how much changes. So it's not a done deal the Dragon, and the Falcon 9 is a lot of times more risky than the Atlas V.
I can say that both Boeing and SpaceX are above the rest, though.
It's wonderful the advances of SNC on the DC, but it's a lot more complex and still require a lot more work and development and operation risk than either Dragon or CST-100. The launch integration is also more complex to the LV. What's worse, DC can not be easily evolved to an EML1/2 base station supply ship, which the capsules can. So it simply can't be NASA's first choice.
From the money Blue Origin got, the sort of advances that they had in their milestones, and the lack of participation of them in general, even to Congressional Hearings, I think they are out of the race.
Which leaves us ATK. I still can't believe that a project of a Lego rocket, with a project of a LAS, with a failed test of a structural test article and the SRR of a BEO SM are suddenly the "strongest" contestant to the crewed competition. Just the LV risk is simply too much to bear. What's worse, the LV is stated to be limited to LEO, to avoid cross competing with Ariane, so pushing it along won't help NASA's requirements nor DoD's lion share of launches. I know most people talks about the political clout behind ATK, but there's no way this would go through a protest to the GAO. There's simply no legal way to put it ahead of CST-100 and Dragon.
So, first choice should be CST-100 (if second alternative is risky) or Dragon (if second alternative is "safe"). Clearly, the CST-100/Dragon combo would be the safest thing NASA can do.
I could see CST-100/DC, CST-100/Liberty as options. But if they chose Dragon I couldn't see DC or Liberty along.

[JBF]

I think we would see a CTS-100/Falcon before CTS-100/Liberty.