Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[neilh]

Then expect SpaceX, Blue Origin and maybe even SNC to walk.

I don't see why.  The stipulations are the same as COTS and CCDev (AFAICT COTS, CCDev and CCiCAP are identical).  Nothing new or aberrant.

Could you point out where they're specified for COTS and Ccdev? I've been searching and haven't been able to find anything. I'm interested in seeing how the language compares to right of first return or right of first offer.

From the draft SAA in the CCiCAP Announcement:

ARTICLE 27. TITLE AND RIGHTS IN PROPERTY
Company X will have title to property it acquires or develops under this Agreement. In the event of termination of this Agreement for any reason under Article 16, NASA will have the right to purchase any such property. The Parties will negotiate in good faith purchase prices for specific items of property. The negotiated prices will be based on Company X’s actual costs for purchase or development of the specific item(s), or fair market value, whichever is less. This price will then be discounted by a percentage that reflects the ratio of Government funding provided under the Agreement versus the amount of Company X funding used to develop the specific item(s) of property. ($2 of Government funds v. $1 of participant funds = 2/3 = 66.6% discount.).

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/149848-SOL-001-002.doc

Virtually identical wording is included in the Draft SAA for CCDEV-2

ARTICLE 26.  TITLE AND RIGHTS IN PROPERTY
Company X will have title to property acquired or developed under this Agreement, including developed or acquired by Company X for CCDev 2 efforts.  In the event of termination of this Agreement for any reason under Article 16, NASA will have the right to purchase any such property.  The Parties will negotiate in good faith purchase prices for specific items of property.  The negotiated prices will be based on Company X’s actual costs for purchase or development of the specific item(s), or fair market value, whichever is less.  This price will then be discounted by a percentage that reflects the ratio of government funding provided under the Agreement versus the amount of Company X funding used to develop the specific item(s) of property.  ($2 of government funds v. $1 of participant funds = 2/3 = 66.6% discount.).

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/144064-SOL-001-002.docx

Thanks! I don't know if this is a typo or something, though, but it seems odd that while other parts of the document refer to Article 16B (termination for failure to perform), this bit refers to all of article 16. The other sub-articles make sense, but article 16D refers to unilateral termination by NASA for circumstances outside NASA or the company's control like national emergencies, acts of war, or "failure of Congress to appropriate sufficient funding." If Congress cuts funding for the program partway through, does that mean NASA gets any IP or other property related to the contract? That seems peculiar.

[Prober]

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).

"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."
 
NASA advertises Commercial as for LEO so that NASA can do the BEO stuff.   Orion's job.
 
Clearly, the mission plans are chaging once again, and the administration is looking to butt heads with Congress again.
 

[mr. mark]

SpaceX never stated that their intention was to stay in LEO. Yes this contract is for LEO but, this is just a stepping stone in their plans.

[PeterAlt]

Can any of you succeed in making the tough choice of elimination? More importantly, will NASA succeed and choose wisely?

SpaceX Dragon is a strong contender, based on its COTS success.  It will be used for cargo, so cost savings would result from shared use for crew - presuming significant crew-cargo commonality which is not a given.

Boeing's CST-100 is bigger than Dragon, and it's Boeing, so should also be a contender.  CST-100 hasn't flown, but Atlas 5-411 has. 

Liberty is bigger and more capable than CST-100 or Dragon.  It uses Shuttle heritage systems and facilities for its first stage, and an oft-flown second stage.  Liberty capsule is essentially Orion Lite, a Lockheed outfitted ATK shell. 

The others are interesting, but I don't see them competing with the above list.

Only one of these proposals keeps KSC proper alive, sharing infrastructure and people with SLS/Orion.  It happens to be the most capable, in terms of mass delivered, of the three proposals, giving it a shot at cargo work too.  Those facts will win it many friends within NASA. 

 - Ed Kyle

What if ATK drops their Liberty proposal as its currently proposed, keeps th capsule part, drops the LV part and replaces it with a human rated Delta IV-Heavy? There would be less risk and less development time required. This would also make ULA a partner instead of a competitor. Congress would like it too because it give Orion a back-up LV for LEO too.

[Jason1701]

Can any of you succeed in making the tough choice of elimination? More importantly, will NASA succeed and choose wisely?

SpaceX Dragon is a strong contender, based on its COTS success.  It will be used for cargo, so cost savings would result from shared use for crew - presuming significant crew-cargo commonality which is not a given.

Boeing's CST-100 is bigger than Dragon, and it's Boeing, so should also be a contender.  CST-100 hasn't flown, but Atlas 5-411 has. 

Liberty is bigger and more capable than CST-100 or Dragon.  It uses Shuttle heritage systems and facilities for its first stage, and an oft-flown second stage.  Liberty capsule is essentially Orion Lite, a Lockheed outfitted ATK shell. 

The others are interesting, but I don't see them competing with the above list.

Only one of these proposals keeps KSC proper alive, sharing infrastructure and people with SLS/Orion.  It happens to be the most capable, in terms of mass delivered, of the three proposals, giving it a shot at cargo work too.  Those facts will win it many friends within NASA. 

 - Ed Kyle

What if ATK drops their Liberty proposal as its currently proposed, keeps th capsule part, drops the LV part and replaces it with a human rated Delta IV-Heavy? There would be less risk and less development time required. This would also make ULA a partner instead of a competitor. Congress would like it too because it give Orion a back-up LV for LEO too.

I think it might be best for everyone if ATK just drops the pretense about being commercial. All the black-zone and LAS nonsense would go away.

[PeterAlt]

Seems like SpaceX is going to reach the finish line one way or another based on their lead and Dragon's and Falcon 9's performance during the C2+ mission.  Given that, I don't understand why NASA would fund any other very similar craft like CST-100, since they add basically nothing to Dragon's capabilities.

So, I'd fund either Dragon alone (if there is only one to be funded) or Dragon + Dream Chaser if two are to be funded.  Dream Chaser does add capabilities that Dragon doesn't possess (6 hour any-time return, low-g entry to 1st world runway landings giving fast access to a high-level of medical care in an emergency) whereas the other vehicles do not.

Good points!

Another thing, of the candidates, only ATK's Liberty has not flown as the LV. As I mentioned in my previous post, ATK should think about dropping their proposes LV and going with a human rated Delta IV Heavy.

[beancounter]

Seems like SpaceX is going to reach the finish line one way or another based on their lead and Dragon's and Falcon 9's performance during the C2+ mission.  Given that, I don't understand why NASA would fund any other very similar craft like CST-100, since they add basically nothing to Dragon's capabilities.

So, I'd fund either Dragon alone (if there is only one to be funded) or Dragon + Dream Chaser if two are to be funded.  Dream Chaser does add capabilities that Dragon doesn't possess (6 hour any-time return, low-g entry to 1st world runway landings giving fast access to a high-level of medical care in an emergency) whereas the other vehicles do not.

Good points!

Another thing, of the candidates, only ATK's Liberty has not flown as the LV. As I mentioned in my previous post, ATK should think about dropping their proposes LV and going with a human rated Delta IV Heavy.

Orion Lite doesn't even exist yet so the whole lot is basically vapourware.
But Congress is only interested in jobs programs and is being forced to the wall on this one.  The ones who are interested really didn't see COTS actually delivering anything and now they're desperately trying to see a way clear hence the reduced funding which is a pittance compared with the pork programs.

If it is a reasonably logical decision then SpaceX, Boeing are the picks and for the 3rd, one of the remaining CCDev participants more as an R&D project, take a pick.
 

[PeterAlt]

As much as I admire, root for and appreciate SpaceX/Dragon, if NASA down-selects to just SpaceX then that’s the end of the vision of Commercial Crew for the foreseeable future.  All the other competitors need a NASA destination contract (ISS) to be able to continue development. Robert Bigelow cannot provide enough funds to spacecraft development to enable any of the others to survive being cut out by NASA. If SpaceX wins a down-select to 1 then none of the others will be able to afford to continue and will close up shop. There is no way I see a business plan successfully demonstrating profitability without a NASA Destination contract. Therefore, their BOD's will simply pull the plugs.

If NASA down-selects to 2, then it will be Falcon/Dragon and Atlas-V/CST-100, in no particular order. But I would really hope that NASA keeps DC alive by feeding it Technology Demonstration funding in some form.

I don't see Blue Origin or Liberty surviving in any form at all. I outright eliminate both.

Yes I agree this is the most logical outcome. My only concern in this scenario is the costs analysis. (I need some help here) The whole idea of Commercial crew is to lower costs through competition. Otherwise, what is the point if it doesn't free up funding for SLS/BEO?  I can see this playing out with Falcon, Dragon and CST-100, but where does the Atlas V come in on costs? It's a legacy system and as such, how much flexibility on production and operational costs does it have? Can it compete in a "commercial" competition when it currently operates within a non-market sole Govt. contract environment? This is not a rhetorical question. I really don't know the answer.

What happens if Boeing CST on Atlas V comes in at many 10s of millions above Flacon/Dragon? How is that good?

The idea is to have a whole industry started. Commercial crew cannot survive as a sustainable new industry if there is only one customer (NASA). Bigelow and other companies must come through and launch other LEO destinations besides the ISS (or perhaps launch their own private modules to ISS) and become customers to the new industry or all this falls apart - especially with all that competition vying for that one customer!

[PeterAlt]

As much as I admire, root for and appreciate SpaceX/Dragon, if NASA down-selects to just SpaceX then that’s the end of the vision of Commercial Crew for the foreseeable future.  All the other competitors need a NASA destination contract (ISS) to be able to continue development. Robert Bigelow cannot provide enough funds to spacecraft development to enable any of the others to survive being cut out by NASA. If SpaceX wins a down-select to 1 then none of the others will be able to afford to continue and will close up shop. There is no way I see a business plan successfully demonstrating profitability without a NASA Destination contract. Therefore, their BOD's will simply pull the plugs.

If NASA down-selects to 2, then it will be Falcon/Dragon and Atlas-V/CST-100, in no particular order. But I would really hope that NASA keeps DC alive by feeding it Technology Demonstration funding in some form.

I don't see Blue Origin or Liberty surviving in any form at all. I outright eliminate both.

Yes I agree this is the most logical outcome. My only concern in this scenario is the costs analysis. (I need some help here) The whole idea of Commercial crew is to lower costs through competition. Otherwise, what is the point if it doesn't free up funding for SLS/BEO?  I can see this playing out with Falcon, Dragon and CST-100, but where does the Atlas V come in on costs? It's a legacy system and as such, how much flexibility on production and operational costs does it have? Can it compete in a "commercial" competition when it currently operates within a non-market sole Govt. contract environment? This is not a rhetorical question. I really don't know the answer.

What happens if Boeing CST on Atlas V comes in at many 10s of millions above Flacon/Dragon? How is that good?

ULA wouldn't be a partner to commercial crew if it wasn't able to commit to it. The Atlas V 402 is competitive in terms of costs. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been chosen by 3 commercial crew companies. There is always the possibility of DC and the CST-100 switching to the Falcon 9. Although, I don't expect that to happen.

Is it competitive in terms of costs? Do we have the integrated system costs from the CST/Atlas V proposal? Does anybody definitively know what costs per seat they are proposing? I'd just like to see a rate card side by side. Outside of that, who's to say it's competitive?

All of the commercial crew providers have said that they would be competitive or lower than the Russians but that might be assuming 4 flights per year with 7 astronauts or spaceflight participants on board.

Thank God for the Russians, or the would not be price starting point for commercial!

[beancounter]

As much as I admire, root for and appreciate SpaceX/Dragon, if NASA down-selects to just SpaceX then that’s the end of the vision of Commercial Crew for the foreseeable future.  All the other competitors need a NASA destination contract (ISS) to be able to continue development. Robert Bigelow cannot provide enough funds to spacecraft development to enable any of the others to survive being cut out by NASA. If SpaceX wins a down-select to 1 then none of the others will be able to afford to continue and will close up shop. There is no way I see a business plan successfully demonstrating profitability without a NASA Destination contract. Therefore, their BOD's will simply pull the plugs.

If NASA down-selects to 2, then it will be Falcon/Dragon and Atlas-V/CST-100, in no particular order. But I would really hope that NASA keeps DC alive by feeding it Technology Demonstration funding in some form.

I don't see Blue Origin or Liberty surviving in any form at all. I outright eliminate both.

Yes I agree this is the most logical outcome. My only concern in this scenario is the costs analysis. (I need some help here) The whole idea of Commercial crew is to lower costs through competition. Otherwise, what is the point if it doesn't free up funding for SLS/BEO?  I can see this playing out with Falcon, Dragon and CST-100, but where does the Atlas V come in on costs? It's a legacy system and as such, how much flexibility on production and operational costs does it have? Can it compete in a "commercial" competition when it currently operates within a non-market sole Govt. contract environment? This is not a rhetorical question. I really don't know the answer.

What happens if Boeing CST on Atlas V comes in at many 10s of millions above Flacon/Dragon? How is that good?

The idea is to have a whole industry started. Commercial crew cannot survive as a sustainable new industry if there is only one customer (NASA). Bigelow and other companies must come through and launch other LEO destinations besides the ISS (or perhaps launch their own private modules to ISS) and become customers to the new industry or all this falls apart - especially with all that competition vying for that one customer!

Has anyone in politics actually come out and said that this was the reason?  I doubt it but happy to stand corrected.

[MP99]

If it weren't for Liberty, I'd guess Dragon/CST-100 for full awards, and SNC for a half (as per most of the comments above).

But, I suspect Liberty will bump someone out of the above, trading development work done under CxP for lack of paid particpation in earlier rounds.



And I suspect there will have to be a further down-select for later rounds.

I believe crew on Soyuz is currently costing about $400m per year (ISTR $450m mentioned, but also $60m per seat which would be $360m).

Assuming the point is to provide CC services within that budget, three providers would get $133m-ish each per year (in 2012 dollars).

Two would get $200m-ish each per year. Is that enough to sustain their crewed services? Basically, one flight each per year.



This is why I never understood the whole "create a new industry" theme - more than two providers would just be unsustainable without also having a "creating more demand" programme - whoever that would be from.

cheers, Martin

[Jason1701]

"He has zero intention of being happy with just satellite launches"  and my point: NASA would be foolish to give anymore contracts as the management would be impossible to work with.

NASA's dealings with SpaceX so far have been exactly the opposite. They seem to have enjoyed working with the management, and have gotten a great deal for the taxpayer.

[Jim]

The idea is to have a whole industry started. Commercial crew cannot survive as a sustainable new industry if there is only one customer (NASA).

No, it was stated that ISS servicing is the only purpose, not industry stimulation.

[Jim]

What if ATK drops their Liberty proposal as its currently proposed, keeps th capsule part, drops the LV part and replaces it with a human rated Delta IV-Heavy?

Not viable, it would be too expensive to win a contract.

[baldusi]

I still think that, as currently proposed Boeing and SpaceX are the only real choices. In that order.
But since CRS has "started", and assuming Orb-D is successful, the contract will run until 2016 launches, right? I don't quite understand the FAR, but I think that they can't extend the contracts, and they need to go to a full and open competition. Specially if the CCiCAP has advanced at least some competitor to CDR (i.e. CST-100). Couldn't they, after CCiCAP (around 2014), make a competition for Crew AND Cargo? That's should support at least two suppliers with three or four launches/year each, or even three supplies with two to three launches. Obviously it won't be good for OSC, and DC would be restricted to the NDS and sure no unpressurized cargo. But it shouldn't be a problem for SpaceX, might make sense for Boeing to develop a Trunk, and even ATK could get benefited. The timing is right, the scale advantage is all within the ISS program, and since cargo already is commercial (and hopefully successful) it would work as a sort of down select.
For that case, SpaceX would have a clear advantage, Boeing would be a clear second and Orbital would be quite complicated. SNC DC would be complicated by not offering un pressurized, but the other contestants plus the HTV would offer that. In this situation the ATK chances should actually improve, since their huge capsule and mass margin on the LV should allow them for a lot of Cargo, and making space for unpressurized cargo on the SM should be "trivial". So Congress will be happy too. In fact, you could see all the usual suspects winning entries (Boeing, ATK/LM) plus SpaceX. They might even extend the OSC contract one year just to make sure they are not left with any holes in the manifest.

[Lurker Steve]

I still think that, as currently proposed Boeing and SpaceX are the only real choices. In that order.
But since CRS has "started", and assuming Orb-D is successful, the contract will run until 2016 launches, right? I don't quite understand the FAR, but I think that they can't extend the contracts, and they need to go to a full and open competition. Specially if the CCiCAP has advanced at least some competitor to CDR (i.e. CST-100). Couldn't they, after CCiCAP (around 2014), make a competition for Crew AND Cargo? That's should support at least two suppliers with three or four launches/year each, or even three supplies with two to three launches. Obviously it won't be good for OSC, and DC would be restricted to the NDS and sure no unpressurized cargo. But it shouldn't be a problem for SpaceX, might make sense for Boeing to develop a Trunk, and even ATK could get benefited. The timing is right, the scale advantage is all within the ISS program, and since cargo already is commercial (and hopefully successful) it would work as a sort of down select.
For that case, SpaceX would have a clear advantage, Boeing would be a clear second and Orbital would be quite complicated. SNC DC would be complicated by not offering un pressurized, but the other contestants plus the HTV would offer that. In this situation the ATK chances should actually improve, since their huge capsule and mass margin on the LV should allow them for a lot of Cargo, and making space for unpressurized cargo on the SM should be "trivial". So Congress will be happy too. In fact, you could see all the usual suspects winning entries (Boeing, ATK/LM) plus SpaceX. They might even extend the OSC contract one year just to make sure they are not left with any holes in the manifest.

Cygnus is going to be a dedicated cargo-vehicle. I think that's going to be hard to complete against using vehicle primarily designed for crew. First of all, there is the iLIDS vs CBM interface to deal with and well as the fact that the crew vehicles are just heavier, which trades vehicle mass for real cargo up-mass.

No matter what people are saying, ATK has no business being selected in the CiCAP round. They are supposed to pick the vendors that are closest to being able to deliver a solution. I'm not on L2, but from my view, the ATK lego rocket has only progressed from the back of the napkin to the powerpoint stage. Every other company is working with engineering test articles, and have completed, or soon will complete the PDR stage this summer. So Ed, but if Liberty is to live on, it will be ATK/LM funding the entire development.

[baldusi]

If NASA does an integrated contract, they will chose the cheapest solution. SpaceX will pass a price only for cargo, another only for crew, and one for doing both. Ditto for everyone. You might bid just on one. It might happen, for example, that just cargo version of CST-100 would not be competitive with Cygnus, but when you take the cost of the CST-100 only as a crew vehicle, and you add the cost of the Cygnus, you have a more expensive proposition. Let's not forget that at least CST-100 and DC can use their LAS for the last leg of the orbital insertion, so that weight is not so much of a problem, and their LV of choice is a lot more powerful than Antares. Plus, I would expect the CST-100 cargo version to be internally stripped down and have a CBM. In any case, as long as Dragon win a position as cargo, they'll have both HTV and Dragon covering that segment.
The other issue is the actual crew needs. All participants have gone to 7 crew design, while the realistic ISS is closer to two (if four flights). So, it's only logical that crewed launches will carry some cargo.
Dragon gives a very interesting possibility. As it is now, Cargo Dragon is an excellent business with just three launches per year. If they just added one crew launch, they would still have a great business proposition. That would allow another crewed vehicle to have three crew launches, and still allow for Cygnus. But as I said, may be, just may be, the cost of the CST-100 doing five launches per year (three crew, two cargo) will be lower than doing three CST-100 launches plus two Cygnus.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Source selection realities.

Once the RFP is published with how the proposals will be evaluated, politics no longer has any bearing on the source selection process which is a strict legal controlled process to ensure fairness and reduce the possibility of suits and awards being overturned by the courts. When evaluating what little we do know about the proposals and what we do know about the selection criteria, SpaceX is the highest on the totem pole. Then SNC or Boeing is next. Which one of those two is actually in second place is totally dependent on the details of the proposals.

Here is an interesting article stating that for CCiCAP the powers that be “Wolf” has agreed to 2 primary awards and 1 secondary. So there will be no downselect to 1 provider at this time. Wolf must have changed his mind when realized his favorite’s chances of winning in a single selection is near zero but in a multiple his favorite probably has a 50% chance or better of winning second place.

http://www.spacenews.com/policy/120605-wolf-gives-ground-commercial-crew.html

[MP99]

Couldn't they, after CCiCAP (around 2014), make a competition for Crew AND Cargo? That's should support at least two suppliers with three or four launches/year each, or even three supplies with two to three launches.

I think Dragon is the only crew craft currently also targeting cargo.

Would the crew-only proposals have the fully-automated docking processes (eg at no point relies on a human for sense checking or triggering an abort) necessary to support cargo runs?

cheers, Martin

[mr. mark]

Right now what we need is some clarity. They need to get the down select started asap hopefully, sometime this summer.