Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[Go4TLI]

Sorry , but regardless of the spacecraft slight which I corrected, Dragon is still the most flexible vehicle and is the only long duration vehicle.

All of the potential concepts can meet the ISS docked time requirement, not just SpaceX. 

[mgfitter]

Yea, after learning a bunch of new info in the last couple days, I’m starting to lean towards Downix’s assessment now, with Sen. Wolf’s revised approach that it would be narrowed down to 2.5 partners.

I too, agree. Boeing & SNC getting full funding, Space-X getting 0.5 does sound like the best of all worlds. It sounds like the most sensible path forward.

Which is precisely the reason why it is the least likely to actually happen in the real world.

When was the last time you saw any gov. agency do the most sensible thing?

If politics (and lobbyists) have anything to do with it, ATK will probably get 1.0 share, Boeing another 1.0 and ULA the 0.5 share to HR the Atlas. Leaving everyone else out in the cold. That result certainly wouldn't be fair, but a decision like that really wouldn't shock me either.

-MG

[watermod]

I think the US should start considering Elon an asset worth maintaining.     He's a dreamer .. if you force him into a niche that's too boring he won't play your game and will walk away a very upset billionaire.  Try to keep him in LEO and away from Mars and that's what will happen.   

The short sighted accountants that rule most US biz and the empire bureaucrats in gov. would be just happy with that but it would do the nation and the rest of us a disservice while they keep circling entropy.



 

[Go4TLI]

That result certainly wouldn't be fair, but a decision like that really wouldn't shock me either.

-MG

Why wouldn't it be fair? 

NASA still has to judge by the criteria they placed in the RFPs, so everyone is equal in that respect.  If the ATK proposal gets high marks then it is the way it is. 

In addition, this is NASA's money.  They have to consider other things as well and if Liberty/Orion-lite are competitive with everyone else in the established grading criteria but NASA can also reduce costs to Orion and SLS this would seem to make some sense too.   

[Prober]

 

for what it is worth, the 2.5 contracts that Wolf talked about will probably end up like this

CST-100 full contract
Dreamchaser half contract
SpaceX full contract

 

ATk-LM full contract
CST-100 full contract
Atlas V half contract for HR
 
Edit read Reply 35 for full understanding

[Go4TLI]

I think the US should start considering Elon an asset worth maintaining.     He's a dreamer .. if you force him into a niche that's too boring he won't play your game and will walk away a very upset billionaire.  Try to keep him in LEO and away from Mars and that's what will happen.   

The short sighted accountants that rule most US biz and the empire bureaucrats in gov. would be just happy with that but it would do the nation and the rest of us a disservice while they keep circling entropy.

Just my own opinion here but these constant romantic characterizations of Elon about who he is, what he is, what is implied he alone can do, etc are also somewhat boring.  Everyone else is suggested to be "the Man" trying to keep him down. 

[Go4TLI]

 

for what it is worth, the 2.5 contracts that Wolf talked about will probably end up like this

CST-100 full contract
Dreamchaser half contract
SpaceX full contract

 

ATk-LM full contract
CST-100 full contract
Atlas V half contract for HR
 

Doubtful.  Why spend money on the rocket alone when it is a sub to others?  I still maintain that it will be Boeing, SNC and then SpaceX for the half.  Assuming they have good proposals and are competitive this provides the maximum flexibility. 

[mr. mark]

"All of the potential concepts can meet the ISS docked time requirement, not just SpaceX"

That's not what I'm taking about. I'm taking about vehicles that can do multiple flight profiles in a variety of configurations. Only Dragon has that ability. CCDEV by it's very nature is restrictive and confining. Most of the participants have tailored their vehicles to fit the criteria of CCDEV. They can't do LEO as well as long duration, Lunar or BEO destination. My argument is that NASA should chose a vehicle that can meet the most flight profiles possible in order to get the most for their money, not only fulfilling CCDEV but other potential NASA contracts as well. By eliminating some finances from some of the contestants you may cancel their spacecraft programs. Boeing has said they won't continue without NASA funding and I'm sure Sierra Nevada will not either. If you kill off human rated Dragon you have killed off the vehicle with most potential. Remember, for all of SpaceX's talk, there is no guarantee that they can produce a human rated Dragon on their own funds.

[Go4TLI]

I'm taking about vehicles that can do multiple flight profiles in a variety of configurations. Only Dragon has that ability. CCDEV by it's very nature is restrictive and confining. Most of the participants have tailored their vehicles to fit the criteria of CCDEV. They can't do LEO as well as long duration, Lunar or BEO destination.

This is just wrong.  All the vehicles can do different flight profiles.  As a simple amount of evidence to support this, I point to the fact that every single vehicle can fly up to 7 crew.  If it was tailored to only ISS, why would this be the case?

I also do not understand this bitching and moaning.  CCDev is talked on here like it is the pinnacle of all spaceflight developments, but now you characterize it as "limited".  It is clear that some cannot be pleased with anything or see beyond the fact that if it ain't SpaceX, it sucks. 

[Prober]

 

for what it is worth, the 2.5 contracts that Wolf talked about will probably end up like this

CST-100 full contract
Dreamchaser half contract
SpaceX full contract

 

ATk-LM full contract
CST-100 full contract
Atlas V half contract for HR
 

Doubtful.  Why spend money on the rocket alone when it is a sub to others?  I still maintain that it will be Boeing, SNC and then SpaceX for the half.  Assuming they have good proposals and are competitive this provides the maximum flexibility. 

Mine is the insurance move for the .50    This way you might keep some of the players who need the AtlasV in the game.  They can still be in and the funds for HR is covering more players.....think about it, its a wise move.  or
 
ATKLM- full
Atlas 5 Full
DC half 
 
Keep Boeing in with the cash going for HR of Atlas.
 

[peter-b]

Is there any evidence to suggest that SNC are more worthy of full funding than SpaceX? Other than, "It looks like shuttle. I like shuttle," that is.

[Go4TLI]

think about it, its a wise move. 
 

I did, and I don't believe it is.  Your opinion may differ. 

[Go4TLI]

Is there any evidence to suggest that SNC are more worthy of full funding than SpaceX? Other than, "It looks like shuttle. I like shuttle," that is.

A host of things.  It is an entirely different vehicle with a different operating regime that I'm sure you can research.  However, if it is again "I won't be happy or pleased unless SpaceX gets everything" then likely there is no reason to even discuss it. 

[mr. mark]

"This is just wrong.  All the vehicles can do different flight profiles".

I beg to differ. Can tell me where I can find long duration and BEO flight profiles for Dreamchaser, CST-100 and Blue Origin. Please show me, I'm very interested. And please show me where company representatives have verified this.   

[peter-b]

Is there any evidence to suggest that SNC are more worthy of full funding than SpaceX? Other than, "It looks like shuttle. I like shuttle," that is.

A host of things.  It is an entirely different vehicle with a different operating regime that I'm sure you can research.

What, specifically, does that have to do with the price of fish primary objective of enabling US domestic access for crew to the ISS ASAP?

However, if it is again "I won't be happy or pleased unless SpaceX gets everything" then likely there is no reason to even discuss it. 

 

[Go4TLI]

Is there any evidence to suggest that SNC are more worthy of full funding than SpaceX? Other than, "It looks like shuttle. I like shuttle," that is.

A host of things.  It is an entirely different vehicle with a different operating regime that I'm sure you can research.

What, specifically, does that have to do with the price of fish primary objective of enabling US domestic access for crew to the ISS ASAP?

However, if it is again "I won't be happy or pleased unless SpaceX gets everything" then likely there is no reason to even discuss it. 

 

Specifically, look it up yourself. Do some research, don't be afraid to learn, and then discuss the different concept of operations, pros/cons associated with each instead of trying to imply that you think you have others backed into a corner or be spoon fed. 

[Go4TLI]

"This is just wrong.  All the vehicles can do different flight profiles".

I beg to differ. Can tell me where I can find long duration and BEO flight profiles for Dreamchaser, CST-100 and Blue Origin. Please show me, I'm very interested. And please show me where company representatives have verified this.   

Beg all you want.  BEO flight is not required to go to ISS, which is a necessary first step given the predicament we find ourselves in, without adding cost and schedule and complexity to that first step.

Besides LEO is not ISS alone.

Finally, there is more to BEO flight than just saying one's heatshield has been sized for it. 

[mr. mark]

In other words you cant show me those things I requested because, they don't exist. I will keep requesting.... show me what I asked for. This CCDEV program is very limited in it's scope, at least to me, and it's giving me a headache. One dimensional programs with one dimensional products. The future cannot come soon enough.

[Go4TLI]

In other words you cant show me those things I requested because, they don't exist. I will keep requesting.... show me what I asked for.

Quite the contrary actually.  I believe I have made my points.  I'm sorry you did not see them and have not made any yourself, instead demanding hand-hold you through.  I'm done with this back-and-forth now though, thanks. 

[Jim]

Jim, while I understand that, I can't get my head around one dimensional thinking. If I ran my business like that I'd be broke. One vehicle per task? If I did that, I don't know where I'd be. That's why computers rule the day. You have a photo shop, typewriter, recording studio, you name it all in one device. That's the future, that's the way NASA needs to think if they are going to stay relevant or commercial will eventually pass them by. I hope NASA chooses a vehicle not only based on this contract but, a vehicle that can do several flight profiles. Get the most bang for your buck.

NASA can't because it is only funded for ISS crew.  It can't ask for more from the contractors because Congress would say that would add cost and would compete with Orion.  NASA can't grade additional capabilities as a positive in a competition because they are not part of the solicitation.  NASA can only select a winner based on the requirements in the solicitation.  There is no extra credit.