Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[Downix]

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.

They do have a liquid stage listed as an option FYI.

[Danderman]

My two cents' worth:

The CCDev program should add as a requirement the capability of performing a "gyros and battery" changeout at Hubble; this would allow the CCDev program ultimately to spread the costs of ISS transport a little bit, and, of course, potentially extend the life of Hubble a few years.

[Lurker Steve]

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.

You actually mean that Atlas at LC-37 is not cost-effective or the first choice by the folks at ULA. Given enough NASA funding, it is feasible. It's one of the options presented by ULA.

The crew access towers for both Atlas and Falcon are not going to be cheap, right ? The design and manufacture of the tower and escape system will easily be in the 10's of millions of dollars. Maybe NASA could fund it instead of multiple companies designing and building separate systems.

[clongton]

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.

[edkyle99]

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

[Rik ISS-fan]

In my opinion (but it doesn't really count because  I'm from Europe), I would select the following:

1) Spacex (Because they are the furthest, and will most likely be ready for flights by 2013)
2) Boeing CST-100 (the 80 million CCD2 contract proved it's the CCD favorite. Besides of this, as stated, Boeing has lots of spaceflight experience. They also suffered hard from the termination of the STS program.   
3) Atlas V (This rocket is and has been [together with the Delta's] the rocket of chose by the US military and defense. It's a small cheap modification, and it compensates LM (and Boeing) that were large contractors for the STS.)
Their disadvantage is that they use a Russian RD-180 engine. Maybe someone can explain why ULA prefers man-rating Atlas 5 over Delta lV (I know it's out off topic, sorry)   
4) Liberty [only the rocket], capsule on own expense as future   modification to MPCV. (If NASA is allowed to finish the SLS, Liberty would lower it's launch cost because the SRB get more economical at a higher production rate [I read this some were on this forum]).

I think enough reasons have been posted for bailing out Blue Origin.
Then Dream Chaser, I personally question the escape capability off this system. Beside of that I think it will be the most expansive system to operate. (And maybe it reminds me of Hermes, the reason ESA hasn't got human spaceflight).

With this choice, the US will have 3 launch systems and 3 spacecrafts by 2015 (with Orion/ MPCV included). I think it's even possible to launch a spacecraft on a different rocket.

[rcoppola]

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?

[strangequark]

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.

They do have a liquid stage listed as an option FYI.

Well, there's the BTS (Biprop Third Stage), but that can't replace the Castor second stage. Then, as Antonio mentioned in the dedicated thread, there's been some work done on a liquid second stage, but it's not a marketed option yet.

[Jim]

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

It is still a domestic source.

[Rik ISS-fan]

Yesterday I visited the NASA site and I found a video of the plans for KSC. It looked like NASA wants to launch all manned spacecraft from the LC-39 launch pads. The want to make them flexible so they can be easily adopted for different launchers. I think only Spacex might an exception and launching from their launch platform.  Who knows?

The video is called 'Modifying the VAB

[yg1968]

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.

[yg1968]

Yesterday I visited the NASA site and I found a video of the plans for KSC. It looked like NASA wants to launch all manned spacecraft from the LC-39 launch pads. The want to make them flexible so they can be easily adopted for different launchers. I think only Spacex might an exception and launching from their launch platform.  Who knows?

Except for ATK, for the time being, according to Jim, none of the commercial companies want to launch crew from LC-39.

[rcoppola]

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?

[Downix]

   
3) Atlas V (This rocket is and has been [together with the Delta's] the rocket of chose by the US military and defense. It's a small cheap modification, and it compensates LM (and Boeing) that were large contractors for the STS.)
Their disadvantage is that they use a Russian RD-180 engine. Maybe someone can explain why ULA prefers man-rating Atlas 5 over Delta lV (I know it's out off topic, sorry)   

They can substitute the RD-180 with a domestic engine if absolutely needed, or produce them in the US, so this is a non-issue.  The main reason why man-rating Atlas over Delta comes down to cost, Delta was listed as a ~$1.5 billion dollar program in 2009 for man-rating, compared to $300 million for Atlas. 

[bad_astra]

In my opinion it will boil down to who has the least problems/expense with their LAS. If I wanted to wager on it, I wouldnt put SpaceX first on the list as NASA can keep them on well fed rations with crs while still having an emergency lifeboat vehicle in case something happens with a ccdev provider. Knowing almost nothing about Blue Origin I wont say anything about that company.

1st: CST100 (the same forces that protect the Northern Alabama Space Administration will take care of the rocket factory in Decatur when the time comes, and it's a good design with a proven launcher, anyway).

2nd: Liberty ( similar reasons, different geography, see above. I would say a lot of negative things at this point, but I won't. You can guess.)

3rd: SpaceX

4th/5th: SNC/Blue Origin. (I have no idea of B-O's progress or difficulties, and SNC has chosen a difficult route with much less skin in the game).

[Downix]

Yesterday I visited the NASA site and I found a video of the plans for KSC. It looked like NASA wants to launch all manned spacecraft from the LC-39 launch pads. The want to make them flexible so they can be easily adopted for different launchers. I think only Spacex might an exception and launching from their launch platform.  Who knows?

Except for ATK, for the time being, according to Jim, none of the commercial companies want to launch crew from LC-39.

It would mean loss of direct control, but they have come up with plans for just such a development.

[Downix]

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.

They do have a liquid stage listed as an option FYI.

Well, there's the BTS (Biprop Third Stage), but that can't replace the Castor second stage. Then, as Antonio mentioned in the dedicated thread, there's been some work done on a liquid second stage, but it's not a marketed option yet.

I know, but we're discussing for 2017 launches, which means if the money were there, I suspect Orbital could deliver said liquid stage.

[FinalFrontier]

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?

In all honesty Its looking like its going to be down-selected to one vehicle.

I have a really nasty gut feeling about which vehicle that might be, but I won't speak to that here.


Instead I will simply make the call as if I was forced to choose one purely on engineering merit.

Based on all availble data, if I was forced to place all my eggs in one basket my choice for the contract would be:

SpaceX

Reasoning: Very simple actually. While Boeing/Lockheed do have a proven track record, the accomplishments of SpaceX and the performance of the dragon vehicle on its mission cannot be ignored. If there had been a serious problem during the final CD mission recently, I would have easily gone with CST 100. But there wasn't, the vehicle, which is brand new, flew flawlessly as did the rocket that launches it.


I would thus submit that the furthest along in terms of raw development and "whats flying now" would be SpaceX simply by virtue of the fact that their vehicle has already flown and proven itself.


As far as cost it would be debatable what will ultimately be cheaper (SpaceX Vs CST100) that is, but I think that LAS costs may ultimately keep the dragon cheaper, among other things.




The unfortunate truth is that what I just posted above will never happen. And once again thats because of one word:

Politics.

And that's the same reason why CST 100 may not be selected to fly on an atlas V either, if it gets chosen............

[FinalFrontier]

Yesterday I visited the NASA site and I found a video of the plans for KSC. It looked like NASA wants to launch all manned spacecraft from the LC-39 launch pads. The want to make them flexible so they can be easily adopted for different launchers. I think only Spacex might an exception and launching from their launch platform.  Who knows?

Except for ATK, for the time being, according to Jim, none of the commercial companies want to launch crew from LC-39.

What they want and what the winner is told to do or "no deal" are two different things.

[Nathan]

What are the chances of dragon losing out but being funded in some other manner?
Could cots-d be exercised?
Red dragon style mars edl demo funded?



My actual view is that dragon and Boeing will gain the Bulk of the cash and Sierra Nevada will be funded at lower level.
The downselect to one contender will not occur - dragon was too successful for that. Orbital isn't too far behind.