Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[Political Hack Wannabe]

Understand, though in both the short term and longer term, it may be easier for NASA to control a vastly smaller more space launch dedicated company like SpaceX than a giant like Boeing who is involved in multiple aspects of aviation. NASA could easily control vast aspects of SpaceX's direction through their contracts and eventual oversight of NASA related SpaceX projects. NASA already has had oversight influence on Dragon and Falcon 9 as related to COTS.

Forgive me, but this is good how? 

[yg1968]

What i'm saying is that I see SpaceX in a long term NASA support role mainly doing cargo resupply to LEO and BEO destinations. SpaceX would still have a manned option but, eventually by it's own doing.

I understand what you are articulating.  What I am saying is it doesn't actually scratch my itch.  I don't want just one provider that may, at somepoint, have a second provider at some future date, unknown date. 

I want to see Commercial Crew development get to a point where it can have a formal flyoff with more than one vehicle.  I'd really like it to be able to have at a minimum 3 vehicles. 

As for BEO - that is a whole other can of worms I don't want to open in this thread.

That can of worms will have to be opened soon enough. Alan Lindenmoyer already alluded to a BEO role for commercial companies at the SpaceX press conference. A L2 Gateway could use help from commercial companies such as SpaceX. If NASA decides to build a L2 Gateway, it will certainly not be announced prior to the election.

In any event, I agree with you that we should keep competition going as long as possible for CCiCap and maintaining 3 providers for the CCiCap base period is important.  My prediction is that Boeing and Space are ahead of Dream Chaser, so down selecting to two could mean no DC which would be a shame.

[docmordrid]

Speaking of an L2 Gateway - let's not forget that has been discussed previously and Chris has a good articles about it -

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27446.0

[Political Hack Wannabe]

yg1968

I don't mind discussing BEO options.  I just don't think this is the right thread to be doing so.  My recent post about the death of new infrastructure in the space policy section was actually related to that.  I am just suspecting that this isn't the thread for it. 

And I really would like a 4 provider option for CCiCap, but I don't believe that will happen, and will settle for 3.  But I wouldn't rule out the possibility that DC gets cut, even in a 3 award situation for CCiCap.

[mr. mark]

Understand, though in both the short term and longer term, it may be easier for NASA to control a vastly smaller more space launch dedicated company like SpaceX than a giant like Boeing who is involved in multiple aspects of aviation. NASA could easily control vast aspects of SpaceX's direction through their contracts and eventual oversight of NASA related SpaceX projects. NASA already has had oversight influence on Dragon and Falcon 9 as related to COTS.

Forgive me, but this is good how? 

It's good in the fact that the more oversight NASA has on SpaceX projects the more likely they are to be chosen by NASA simply because they have that additional oversight feature. NASA can also "Guide" SpaceX toward mutual goals that both have which would be eventual BEO exploration and support. Remember SpaceX views ISS resupply and manned contracts by NASA and others as a stepping stone to BEO. Musk has stated time and again that SpaceX's long term goal is to get supplies and people to Mars and other BEO destinations. ISS is simply part SpaceX's evolutionary path.     

[yg1968]

yg1968

I don't mind discussing BEO options.  I just don't think this is the right thread to be doing so.  My recent post about the death of new infrastructure in the space policy section was actually related to that.  I am just suspecting that this isn't the thread for it. 

And I really would like a 4 provider option for CCiCap, but I don't believe that will happen, and will settle for 3.  But I wouldn't rule out the possibility that DC gets cut, even in a 3 award situation for CCiCap.

DC biggest advantage (over ATK's proposal, for example) is that it is not a capsule. But its biggest disadvantage is also that it's not a capsule (which implies that it is a more complex spacecraft). But NASA has kept choosing DC in previous rounds partly because it was a different spacecraft with different strenghts. So I wouldn't count it out just yet. Its upcoming test flights may help its cause too.

[mr. mark]

yg1968

I don't mind discussing BEO options.  I just don't think this is the right thread to be doing so.  My recent post about the death of new infrastructure in the space policy section was actually related to that.  I am just suspecting that this isn't the thread for it. 

And I really would like a 4 provider option for CCiCap, but I don't believe that will happen, and will settle for 3.  But I wouldn't rule out the possibility that DC gets cut, even in a 3 award situation for CCiCap.

DC biggest advantage (over ATK, for example) is that it is not a capsule. But its biggest disadvantage is also that it's not a capsule (which implies that it is a more complex spacecraft). But NASA has kept choosing DC in previous rounds partly because it was a different spacecraft with different strenghts. So I wouldn't count it out just yet. Its upcoming test flights may help its cause too.

Totally agree on this. The upcoming Dreamchaser drop test will do as much to change or direct opinions as much as SpaceX's last COTS mission did. I think people are vastly underestimating Dreamchaser's appeal. That's why I stated earlier that SpaceX may just end up continuing NASA cargo resupply to eventually handle NASA's needs for cargo resupply to BEO destinations as well.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

yg1968 - I haven't ruled anyone out yet (in fact, I keep thinking that there are more options than most people assume).  I just think that if you assume there will be 3 awards (regardless whether its 3 full or 2+ a follower), it is a mistake to assume that Dream Chaser is one of those 3.  (Which is not to say they couldn't be an awardee - merely that they aren't guaranteed to be an awardee)

[Lurker Steve]

yg1968

I don't mind discussing BEO options.  I just don't think this is the right thread to be doing so.  My recent post about the death of new infrastructure in the space policy section was actually related to that.  I am just suspecting that this isn't the thread for it. 

And I really would like a 4 provider option for CCiCap, but I don't believe that will happen, and will settle for 3.  But I wouldn't rule out the possibility that DC gets cut, even in a 3 award situation for CCiCap.

DC biggest advantage (over ATK's proposal, for example) is that it is not a capsule. But its biggest disadvantage is also that it's not a capsule (which implies that it is a more complex spacecraft). But NASA has kept choosing DC in previous rounds partly because it was a different spacecraft with different strenghts. So I wouldn't count it out just yet. Its upcoming test flights may help its cause too.

Sure, Dreamchaser is more complex than a capsule.

That hasn't stopped SNC from meeting each milestone on time and on budget. That tells me they are either leaving all of the tough technical challenges to the very end, or they are have a pretty decent handle on the overall design and they have learned enough from the earlier NASA lifting body testing where the development is pretty straight forward.

[Jim]

That hasn't stopped SNC from meeting each milestone on time and on budget.

There is no budget involved, it is their money

[yg1968]

Sure, Dreamchaser is more complex than a capsule.

That hasn't stopped SNC from meeting each milestone on time and on budget. That tells me they are either leaving all of the tough technical challenges to the very end, or they are have a pretty decent handle on the overall design and they have learned enough from the earlier NASA lifting body testing where the development is pretty straight forward.

Based on the CCDev-2 Selection Statement, NASA seemed mainly concerned about DC's LAS. Hopefully, some of these concerns were/are being adressed during CCDev-2.

[Prober]

What i'm saying is that I see SpaceX in a long term NASA support role mainly doing cargo resupply to LEO and BEO destinations. SpaceX would still have a manned option but, eventually by it's own doing.

I understand what you are articulating.  What I am saying is it doesn't actually scratch my itch.  I don't want just one provider that may, at somepoint, have a second provider at some future date, unknown date. 

I want to see Commercial Crew development get to a point where it can have a formal flyoff with more than one vehicle.  I'd really like it to be able to have at a minimum 3 vehicles. 

As for BEO - that is a whole other can of worms I don't want to open in this thread.

That can of worms will have to be opened soon enough. Alan Lindenmoyer already alluded to a BEO role for commercial companies at the SpaceX press conference. A L2 Gateway could use help from commercial companies such as SpaceX. If NASA decides to build a L2 Gateway, it will certainly not be announced prior to the election.

Wasn't Lindenmoyer the guy being "wined and dined" over at SpaceX for a week or so?   

We might have some major conflict of interest issues building.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

It's good in the fact that the more oversight NASA has on SpaceX projects the more likely they are to be chosen by NASA simply because they have that additional oversight feature. NASA can also "Guide" SpaceX toward mutual goals that both have which would be eventual BEO exploration and support. Remember SpaceX views ISS resupply and manned contracts by NASA and others as a stepping stone to BEO. Musk has stated time and again that SpaceX's long term goal is to get supplies and people to Mars and other BEO destinations. ISS is simply part SpaceX's evolutionary path.     

Yea, still having problems. 

SpaceX is not the end all of commercial.  To put it more succently, if NASA had to downselect to a single provider right now, and even if they choose SpaceX, I would be VERY pessimistic about the success of the program.  This isn't about supporting SpaceX.  This is about creating an industry, with multiple providers.  In many respects, bringing as many providers to a demo flight as possible, even if you then downselect drastically, is a very good thing.  Because then you might end up with a situation like we did when the 747 came about as a result of the Cargo plane compeition that ultimately resulted in the C-5 Galaxy.  If companies have developed hardware that has been flight proven, even if they didn't get a buy for crew transport, I believe they'll try and find a way to make that investment pay-off again. 

What you are describing doesn't come anywhere to scratching my itch.  In fact, to me, what you are describing is how to make SpaceX a more compliant NASA contractor, rather than making NASA more about enabling spaceflight.  Having another NASA contractor doesn't do much to advance the cause of space settlement, which is strongly enabled by viable commercial marketplace.  Having a viable commercial transport sector does a LOT. 

[yg1968]

Wasn't Lindenmoyer the guy being "wined and dined" over at SpaceX for a week or so?   

We might have some major conflict of interest issues building.

Lindenmoyer is not involved with commercial crew (only cargo). The selection officer for CCiCap should be Phil McAlister as it was for CCDev 1 and 2. Besides, I expect Lindenmoyer will be very happy about Orbital too (as he should be).

[mr. mark]

"This is about creating an industry, with multiple providers".

Is it really? Or is it really about creating an eventual second level of NASA support infrastructure, a parallel development program .Because, in the long term that's what you'll get whether intended or not. (Orion/ LEO Dragon, Dreamchaser, CST-100 and BEO Dragon) - SLS/Falcon Heavy/Delta 4 Heavy ect.)

[Political Hack Wannabe]

"This is about creating an industry, with multiple providers".

Is it really? Or is it really about creating an eventual second level of NASA support infrastructure. Because in the long term that's what you'll get whether intended or not. (Orion/ LEO Dragon, Dreamchaser, CST-100 and BEO Dragon) - SLS/Falcon Heavy/Delta 4 Heavy ect.)

I don't mind getting a second level of NASA support infrastructure.  I agree that that is going to happen.  But I don't want JUST that.  I want something that doesn't live or die because of NASA decisions. 

To borrow a comment from a business colleague
"NASA's decisions can be a lot like Brownian motions - random.  Sometimes they move in a positive direction, sometimes a negative direction.  But being dependent upon that, for forward direction, exposes us to more risk."

[Political Hack Wannabe]

There will be at least 2 awards, and perhaps 2 and a follower

[mr. mark]

"As part of this understanding, NASA and the committee have affirmed that the primary objective of the commercial crew program is achieving the fastest, safest and most cost-effective means of domestic access to the ISS, not the creation of a commercial crew industry".

"not the creation of a commercial crew industry" - Wolf (meaning parallel development program) as I said above.
 

Interesting, I expect the .5 of 2.5 to represent Dreamchaser. Main awards going to Boeing and SpaceX. The accent on Wolf's letter being quick access to LEO. It seems that SpaceX's COTS 2 success has moved the margins back in commercials favor.

[apace]

Interesting, I expect the .5 of 2.5 to represent Dreamchaser. Main awards going to Boeing and SpaceX. The accent on Wolf's letter being quick access to LEO. It seems that SpaceX's COTS 2 success has moved the margins back in commercials favor.

Boeing and SpaceX fully, DC half will be okey. As Blue Origin will fund their development themself without any problems.

[yg1968]

There will be at least 2 awards, and perhaps 2 and a follower

The letter doesn't say anything about a follower; it says partial funding.