Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[Prober]

The lead companies will provide a spacecraft (with it own LAS) with their choice of launch vehicle.  It is not up to NASA to mix and match.


Contestants are (in random order)

Blue Origin with ULA (their own launch vehicle is too far behind)
Spacex (Dragon and Falcon)
ATK (composite CM with LM support and Liberty LV)
Boeing with ULA
SNC with ULA

tell us how you really feel Jim your pick?

and how about my breakdown reply 35?

[mmeijeri]

Not the same vehicle, SpaceX does not even use the same name.  It has Dragon and Dragonrider, and while they do obviously share systems, they are not one and the same.

Very well, but neither are CST-100 and the test article used for the drop tests. Having flown and returned a closely related system sounds like being ahead of someone who has only done drop tests with a test article. Undoubtedly Boeing are a formidable competitor, and they might be ahead in some areas. Perhaps they are even ahead in total (hard to say from here), but they are not clearly ahead as you contended.

[Prober]

The lead companies will provide a spacecraft (with it own LAS) with their choice of launch vehicle.  It is not up to NASA to mix and match.


Contestants are (in random order)

Blue Origin with ULA (their own launch vehicle is too far behind)
Spacex (Dragon and Falcon)
ATK (composite CM with LM support and Liberty LV)
Boeing with ULA
SNC with ULA

We know that (at least most of us do). But the unknown is what is a "partial" or ".5" award. Could a partial award only includes milestones for the spacecraft and none for the LV?

correct me if im wrong but the unspent 012 & new 013 funds are well over a billion dollars.  So 2.5 could be 400 millon x 2 and one company receives 200 million.

[Prober]

However PWR is up for sale (wish I owned it), and the right person(s) could make some major changes.   Could work.
 

No it wouldn't.

That will have little affect on the cost of RS-68's much less the cost of a DIV Heavy

I take this view is from a NASA contractor point of view?   

I see PWR as a national Gem, of people and technology sitting on the shelf, just needs the right people to polish it.

[yg1968]

The lead companies will provide a spacecraft (with it own LAS) with their choice of launch vehicle.  It is not up to NASA to mix and match.


Contestants are (in random order)

Blue Origin with ULA (their own launch vehicle is too far behind)
Spacex (Dragon and Falcon)
ATK (composite CM with LM support and Liberty LV)
Boeing with ULA
SNC with ULA

We know that (at least most of us do). But the unknown is what is a "partial" or ".5" award. Could a partial award only includes milestones for the spacecraft and none for the LV?

correct me if im wrong but the unspent 012 & new 013 funds are well over a billion dollars.  So 2.5 could be 400 millon x 2 and one company receives 200 million.

The remaining FY 2012 funds is about 75% of the $406M (so about $305M). The proposed $525M would be for FY 2013. So about $830M for FY 2012 and 2013. But I believe that they could also use some of the FY2014 funds if required. Some of this funding must go to the Commercial Crew Office (I am estimating this amount to be around $43M per year based on the CCDev-2 funding ($312M-$269M=$43M).

I am hoping that the partial award will be for $300M and a full award would be for $500M. But I wonder how would the partial winner distribute that $300M. For example, could SNC, if it finishes third, decide that ULA as a subcontractor gets little or no funding because SNC has no money to spare. Will they ask each CCiCap finalists to submit two proposals: one with full funding and one with partial funding. Or will NASA simply negotiate with the third place finisher a partial funding award?

[Jim]

I take this view is from a NASA contractor point of view?   

I see PWR as a national Gem, of people and technology sitting on the shelf, just needs the right people to polish it.

no, as a gov't employee.

 the costs are what they are

[muomega0]

Many great comments on this thread.

Three options for the capsule seem obvious:
- Apollo landing in water
- Apollo landing on land
- winged

By function and progress and programmatics, the selection is quite easy.

1. Dragon has landed in the water.

2. Dream chaser for the winged approach. (land landing reduces ops costs)

3. Partial funding to Blue Origin to examine LAS.

The costs savings are realized in smaller launch vehicles and selecting between Orion and CST-100.

So for the rest:

NASA JSC uses SLS/Orion dollars to evaluate Orion vs CST-100 (lands on land), and sorts out the best LAS.   

NASA MSFC uses SLS/HLV dollars to crew rate the EELV program and trade it against Liberty.

Sorry, but you will have Congressional oversight shuttting down the entire mess if you think SLS/Orion funding plays into this at all. NASA already made a choice between the LM designed Orion and the Boeing designed CST. No need to re-visit the decision.

The ATK's 5-segment booster has it's own competition coming up on SLS, and it doesn't involve spending money to crew-rate the existing EELVs.

i thought i mentioned the assumption of engineering (function and programmatics).  yes politics seems to rule.

von Braun ran parallel developments during Apollo and made selections at the right time.  I believe all had sufficient funding. 

The original selections of one if by land, two if by water, and three by wings seemed like great initial selections.

Progress and funds provided should both be taken into account (per Probers comment)

With this later assumption, CST-100, is way ahead of Orion, TMK, and the cheaper operational cost solution.  With dragon already capable of water landing, it just makes sense to give it the proper funding to apollo land lander and folks can debate the contract method.  Since NASA is making the design choices for its capsule, it can chose anything it wants. (okay not really, lets just pretend)

The historical SRM costs seem to prohibit Liberty from being a contender, but its back after its Constellation demise.

So now congress will shut down its own mess?    Now that was indeed funny. 

[Downix]

Not the same vehicle, SpaceX does not even use the same name.  It has Dragon and Dragonrider, and while they do obviously share systems, they are not one and the same.

Very well, but neither are CST-100 and the test article used for the drop tests. Having flown and returned a closely related system sounds like being ahead of someone who has only done drop tests with a test article. Undoubtedly Boeing are a formidable competitor, and they might be ahead in some areas. Perhaps they are even ahead in total (hard to say from here), but they are not clearly ahead as you contended.

Save DR needs the same form of testing. If SpaceX were doing a water recovery initial unit with minimal changes I would put them in front. But they are changing too many things for me to do so. A moving target is more easily missed.

[PeterAlt]

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.

I agree with you Jim as the industry stands now.   

However PWR is up for sale (wish I owned it), and the right person(s) could make some major changes.   Could work.
 

How's this as a possibility... Liberty LV as Orion LEO backup.... Gets Congressional ATK support

[watermod]

Will the attempt to find money to utilize the nice generous gift from the NRO have a major impact on the funds available for all forms of Human Space?

[MP99]

I am hoping that the partial award will be for $300M and a full award would be for $500M. But I wonder how would the partial winner distribute that $300M. For example, could SNC, if it finishes third, decide that ULA as a subcontractor gets little or no funding because SNC has no money to spare.

Perhaps it depends if a full awardee is already paying for HR of Atlas. They'd still need to pay to integrate with Atlas, though.

cheers, Martin

[Lobo]

Both Boeing and SNC have stated that their spacecrafts will have full autonomous capabilities, and could work as cargo vehicles (with some mods). Who knows, may be they'll just do crew now, and once they know how long the ISS will be extended, then they'll do a crew/cargo competition.
On the other hand, if the next step is an EML2 station, they'll want to have commercial supplies there, too. A Dragon/Falcon Heavy and CST-100/Atlas 551 or Delta IV Heavy could very well be a good solution for them.

Well, an EML2 station is interesting.  Depends on if it would be staffed year around, or only during a mission.  How much cargo that’s needed would depend on that.  Obviously all the crew rotation would be done by Orion on SLS.  SLS would be the only man-rated capsule and LV that could get out there.  And I think NASA would want to keep it that way for obvious reasons of justifying Orion and SLS for BLEO operations. 

Now, SpaceX here is interesting.  If SpaceX gets the commercial crew contract, then F9 and Dragon will be man rated. Which means FH should basically be man-rated by default.  So SpaceX could then possibly offer a commercial crew service to EML2.  NASA might be interested in that as a backup to SLS/Orion, but like I said, I doubt they’d want to have anything but SLS/Orion delivering crews out there, unless there was some problem and SLS/Orion was grounded. 

However, SpaceX with Dragon and FH would be in a very good position to offer cargo support to EML2.  FH could get a loaded cargo Dragon and trunk out there, and probably for a pretty reasonable price.  I understand that Dragon is designed to handle those reentry speeds anyway.  And with the trunk, Dragon can operate for the trip out and trip back.
CST-100 on the other hand would need to be upgraded with a trunk, because I understand it’s only designed for a few hours of battery life.  Just enough to get a crew to the ISS, and then to get them back home.  It’s batteries would die on the way out to EML2 if launched on an Atlass 551 or D4H.  I also don’t know if it’s heat shield could handle BLEO reentry speeds without being upgraded too.
I believe DC is incapable of BLEO reentry speeds, being a space plane (please correct if that’s wrong). 
I don’t know enough about Liberty to know if that LV could get a capsule out to EML2.  I understand it’s an LV more optimized for LEO operations, but I think they are advertising it can sent payloads to GTO, so maybe it could.  Be interesting to know how much cargo it could get out there on top of the CSM, if it could any at all.  So don’t know about them being a player out there.

So, if NASA is interested in any commercial cargo service to an EML2 station, SpaceX would probably be about the only player there.  And they could probably do it pretty cheap compared to NASA using SLS.  ULA could offer service for propellant deliveries if the EML2 gateway was a depot too.   However, NASA may just launch a large MPLM along with Orion to EML2 and have that be the cargo carrier during a crew rotation if indeed the EML2 gateway will be staffed at times other than an active mission.  A reason to get the SLS flight rate up a little more, and not mess around with commercial cargo.

[Lobo]

With the downselect to 2.5 here is my thinking.

Boeing is the clear leader here.  Their system is the furthest along, sorry SpaceX fans but with the revelation that DragonRider won't even share moldlines with the cargo varient I no longer put Dragon as far ahead.

SNC is also far along, but when combined with Boeing allows for faster setup of ULA, which helps both along.  I would put it in the second slot, as by doing so you have both solutions progressing faster than they would apart.

I would put SpaceX third, because regardless of CCDev, they are planning on progression regardless.  By being the half-solution, they would have less of a thumb on them, which would please SpaceX I would imagine, but NASA would still have some link to them which is essential.

ATK put together a wiz bang of a presentation, but it would be effectively starting all over again.  If, however, SpaceX is not pleased with NASA control as being required by the new language, ATK would be a fine substitute for the 0.5 spot.

Blue Origin is trailing, I would imagine it falling.  Excalibur Almaz is further ahead at this point, and it is unfunded.

I did not realize crew Dragon wouldn’t share the same lines as cargo Dragon.  I thought they’d both have the same shell?  If that’s the case, then I’d move SpaceX down some too, and give the #1 slot to Boeing.

I have no idea if this will play into NASA’s decision making (probably not), but if they give a prime crew contract to Boeing, that means it would be available for use with a Bigelow station too.  Which –might- make that a little more likely, as Boeing is partnered with Bigelow, and CST-100 service to it was the plan anyway.  With NASA paying for CST-100 development, that would mean it should be able to operate to a Bigelow module/station cheaper than if it was being developed soley for that purpose.

Edit:  Scratch the last.  I didn’t realize SpaceX was in bed with Bigelow until I just read this:
http://thespaceport.us/forum/topic/37581-spacex-and-bigelow-aerospace-join-forces/

[BrightLight]

While BLEO capability is interesting, I think NASA has made it clear that:
1. CCDev is about LEO taxi services,
2. BLEO is the realm of Orion MPCV.
In the near term, I can't imagine SpaceX, Boeing or SNC working towards the thermal issues of BLEO - they have their hands full.  SpaceX claims that they want to do BLEO as a goal but there track record would suggest they are several years away from any tests - that is the Musk time dilation factor should be accounted for. Thus, it is my opinion (humble!) that BLEO capability is not a relevant issue in the next round of funding.

[Lars_J]

With the downselect to 2.5 here is my thinking.

Boeing is the clear leader here.  Their system is the furthest along, sorry SpaceX fans but with the revelation that DragonRider won't even share moldlines with the cargo varient I no longer put Dragon as far ahead.

I did not realize crew Dragon wouldn’t share the same lines as cargo Dragon.  I thought they’d both have the same shell?  If that’s the case, then I’d move SpaceX down some too, and give the #1 slot to Boeing.

Except this mold line change appears to be unsubstantiated. Downix has offered no proof of his claim.

[Jim]

How's this as a possibility... Liberty LV as Orion LEO backup.... Gets Congressional ATK support

No, not a consideration either. 
And what says it can lift Orion?

[Downix]

With the downselect to 2.5 here is my thinking.

Boeing is the clear leader here.  Their system is the furthest along, sorry SpaceX fans but with the revelation that DragonRider won't even share moldlines with the cargo varient I no longer put Dragon as far ahead.

I did not realize crew Dragon wouldn’t share the same lines as cargo Dragon.  I thought they’d both have the same shell?  If that’s the case, then I’d move SpaceX down some too, and give the #1 slot to Boeing.

Except this mold line change appears to be unsubstantiated. Downix has offered no proof of his claim.

SpaceX's website pictures of the crewed Dragon show that the LAS / Landing thrusters are located in a different place on the capsule than the existing thrusters, external to the existing mold lines in fact.  Having built myself more than one containment vessel in the past, I know that adding such a structure to a lightweight aluminum pressure container, as the Dragon has, is an invitation for disaster unless given the appropriate reinforcement.  That is simple physics.  Having had a car fail once because it had a failure to reinforce its chassis after adding an upper A arm in a conversion from MacPherson strut assembly, I am well aware of what such a chance can do, and the change I underwent was with a far beefier structure than what a space going craft is.

I would further note, I got the same criticism when I pointed out that the LAS thrusters could not fit inside of the existing Dragon, and I had folk going after me saying that obviously I was wrong, Dragon could do it as/is, and lo and behold, in the Dragonrider details, it shows that the thrusters are not within the existing moldlines, occupying space now external to the current exterior in a kind of bulge.  After having my previous assertions regarding Dragon validated, I am more confident in my understanding of where SpaceX is going.

To demonstrate my point I'm including a picture of the Dragonrider mockup, which shows the bulges clearly.  To lift the Dragon away will need a good amount of thrust, and that thrust needs to be supported by the capsule structure in some method.  The existing Cargo unit was not designed to support it, or else it is over weight for its existing use due to carrying the support structure for components it lacks.  What SpaceX is doing is not the solution I would have picked, but it is a good solution, and we should be happy at it.  I am just pointing out the obvious, that there will be differences between the two, due to the path that SpaceX has chosen, which will add further time to the development.  Once that R&D is done, however, Dragon will be a very capable crew system and I have full confidence that SpaceX will deliver, NASA or no.

[PeterAlt]

How's this as a possibility... Liberty LV as Orion LEO backup.... Gets Congressional ATK support

No, not a consideration either. 
And what says it can lift Orion?

1. Liberty capsule has Orion heritage (Orion light?)
2. Liberty LV has Ares I heritage

[Downix]

How's this as a possibility... Liberty LV as Orion LEO backup.... Gets Congressional ATK support

No, not a consideration either. 
And what says it can lift Orion?

1. Liberty capsule has Orion heritage (Orion light?)
2. Liberty LV has Ares I heritage

It cannot lift Orion.  It has a third less LEO performance than Ares I was supposed to, by the numbers.

[PeterAlt]

So, by the looks for NSF's latest article,...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/06/dream-chaser-passes-pdr-integrated-system-testing/

... it appears that the SNC DC is ahead of Boeing's CT-100 as far as completed milestones. I say this with blind folders on because I don't know the pace of Boeing's progress and where they're at in the milestone race for comparison.

Can anyone assess which company is progressing the fastest and which is ahead as far as milestone markers go?