Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[Jim]

ULA the 0.5 share to HR the Atlas.

ULA is ineligible to receive an award.  It is not providing a crew service, it can only be a sub to another company.  It isn't going to get HR money from NASA.  It will have to be funded by a partner who is getting the money from NASA (and company internal also)

How many times do I have to post this?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29077.msg911179#msg911179

NASA isn't dealing with Atlas separately.   The CCP proposer will have to deal with ULA.  Human rating Atlas V is not independent of Boeing or SNC.  Who ever wins will have to pay ULA for human rating Atlas V.

It is
Boeing with subcontractor ULA,
Sierra Nevada with subcontractor ULA
and even Blue Origin with subcontractor ULA.
 Even Liberty is ATK with subcontractor LM.

[mr. mark]

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.

Understood, but, it's completely insane to limit a vehicle to be developed to a single set of criteria. It shows lack of flexibility. This needs to change if NASA is to survive. Better to shoulder up front costs to develop multiple purpose vehicles that can fulfill multiple obligations.

[Lobo]

The reinforcement would need to be above, to the nose of the craft due to the stresses involved.  They could indeed have accounted for this already, but then the work for the LAS makes less sense, as that would need to have been designed and tested already, unless they deliberately made Dragon overweight in order to buy the margin they would later need, which would harm their cargo contract.

I found another graphic of crew Dragon at the ISS, don't know if it's more current or older then the SpaceX Mockup.  It looks like the super dracos are even farther up than on the mockup.  totally above any of hte RCS thrusters. 
So it might be that when they originaly developed Dragon, they had planned to have some sort of tractor tower (I think there was some early art of DRagon with a tower..I think) or a pusher system, but as that was just in concept, they maybe have allowed some margin on Dragon as best they couldn, but needed to proceed with Dragon development for COTS.  As the LAS system got farther along, they may have found it either unfeasible to have as originally envisioned as just a drop-in add to Dragon, or they might have realized that there was a better/safer way to do it, but that would require a redesigned capsule.  Such is the process of development.  The LAS systems were probably just rough concepts back when they were laying down the keel of cargo dragon.  So Musk may have been correct when he said Dragon was developed from the beginning for crew.  It was.  But but they either figured out a better way to do it than it would be if they just added it on to Cargo dragon, or they realized they hadn't allowed the proper mass, structure, and volume margins in cargo Dragon that will be needed for what the LAS system has evolved to be.  SpaceX was leaning as they went. 
Even fairly recent Art and videos showed the superdraco nozzles just above the heat sheild.  Now they are showing them almost mid-line.  So obviously that's evolved, and the original Dragon design might not have had the margins to accomodate the evolved concept.
I would guess the new Dragon Rider design would be adopted for CRS once it was ready since NASA is buying new capsules for every CRS mission, rather than reusing old ones.  So they'd just slide in the new design.  They might have to requalify the new capsule like COTS 2/3 did, but given they’ll have a track record by then, I doubt NASA would balk if they just did that on their next scheduled cargo run.  They may adjust the cargo manifest of that flight so it didn’t have any critical equipment, in case there was a problem.  After the new capsule’s successful berthing and unberthing, SpaceX could test it’s propulsive landing system for the first time (again, making sure no critical downmass was in the first attempt at propulsive landing so it doesn’t go SPLAT)..  And use the CRS missions to build up a track record of the design and propulsive landing, before the first crew ever flies in one.  And all of that testing would basically be paid for via NASA through CRS.   The used cargo Dragon Rider capsules could then be refurbished and used to take crews to a Bigelow module, or perhaps take crews to the ISS under the “0.5” funding, if NASA didn’t require new capsules for crew service.  Essentially, NASA’s CRS program would be paying for a build up inventory of Dragon Rider capsules (would just need the ECLSS, seats, and perhaps a manual control system added to them).
Interesting speculation…

[Go4TLI]

Understood, but, it's completely insane to limit a vehicle to be developed to a single set of criteria. It shows lack of flexibility. This needs to change if NASA is to survive. Better to shoulder up front costs to develop multiple purpose vehicles that can fulfill multiple obligations.

Ok, last one.  Was this not one of the principle arguments against Shuttle and why it needed to be retired?  The fact that it could "do too much" and therefore drove complexity and cost?

Which is it now for the purposes of trying to frame SpaceX in the best possible light above all others?

[Jim]

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.

Wrong.  The Dragon can not, as it is, do anymore than a LEO mission.  It is just as much " One dimensional" as the others.

Just as Dragon is going to modified for other missions, CST-100 and others can be too.

[Jim]

Understood, but, it's completely insane to limit a vehicle to be developed to a single set of criteria. It shows lack of flexibility. This needs to change if NASA is to survive. Better to shoulder up front costs to develop multiple purpose vehicles that can fulfill multiple obligations.

Wrong on all accounts.  NASA is only funded to procure ISS crew support  and no more and more likely less.  Congress isn't going to give it money for more capable vehicles.

[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?

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. 

My original question wasn't even addressed specifically to you. Several people have so far asserted either that SNC will definitely get a full award, or that it would be better to give SNC a full award than to give one to SpaceX, all with (as far as I can tell) no clear reason why. I would be very interested to learn what specific factors led to their opinions, and whether they are, in fact, valid, in light of the priorities mentioned in the most recent documents.

One example of something I've heard on several occasions is "DC is not a capsule, and NASA won't want more than one capsule, so DC is definitely going to be selected." Well, since the primary objective is to provide US domestic HSF access to the ISS ASAP, and capsules have a lot less technical risk than a lifting-body orbiter, surely that consideration is of dubious value?

If you want to assume some sort of ill intent on my part, go right ahead. But if you can't write your posts in civil manner, don't bother writing at all.

By the way, "Go and read some unspecified documents to learn about vaguely defined topics" is, quite frankly, a really lazy non-argument.

[peter-b]

It seems to me that some people are arguing that a vehicle that just meets the requirements would be preferred over a more capable vehicle that costs the same amount.

I'm pretty certain that I must be reading those posts wrong, because that would be insane. Wouldn't it? 

[mr. mark]

My argument is about flight profiles and the fact that contestants are tailoring their vehicles to one set of Criteria meaning CCDEV or LEO limited spaceflight. Vehicles chosen should be more tailored to Orion as the 2004 COTS agreements states an eventual need for at least BEO cargo at the very least. This alone would mean eliminating several of the competitors long term as they have no interest in adapting out their vehicles for that purpose. One dimensional vehicles are just that one dimensional. NASA should be looking for spacecraft that will parallel Orion's flight profiles to have a backup not just for LEO but for BEO as well. This is why I stated the CCDEV contract is flawed. It takes us down a single road.

[peter-b]

NASA should be looking for spacecraft that will parallel Orion's flight profiles to have a backup not just for LEO but for BEO as well. This is why I stated the CCDEV contract is flawed. It takes us down a single road.

I understand your point of view, but Jim's quite right. That's not what Congress authorised, and it's not what's budgeted for, so that's not what's happening. I don't really think it's worth debating this any more, I'm afraid. 

[MP99]

Understood, but, it's completely insane to limit a vehicle to be developed to a single set of criteria. It shows lack of flexibility. This needs to change if NASA is to survive. Better to shoulder up front costs to develop multiple purpose vehicles that can fulfill multiple obligations.

Shuttle was a vehicle that was developed for a large set of requirements without the funding to achieve all those in a truly reusable package.

You are suggesting a repeat of that for these CC vehicles.

Maybe it's not such a bad idea to get something flying ASAP and - importantly - earning a return for the competitors.

Commercial Crew to LEO is a big enough leap to take this time around, and the longer it takes, the more chance Congress or POTUS #45/#46 may cancel it. If you want to add BEO capability, make it a separate programme and put it in the next spiral / mark 2 / enhanced version.

And, NASA is already funding a BEO spacecraft - Orion.

cheers, Martin

Edit: beaten by Go4TLI, Jim & peter-b.

[mr. mark]

It seems to me that some people are arguing that a vehicle that just meets the requirements would be preferred over a more capable vehicle that costs the same amount.

I'm pretty certain that I must be reading those posts wrong, because that would be insane. Wouldn't it? 

exactly.... my argument

[baldusi]

ULA is ineligible to receive an award.  It is not providing a crew service, it can only be a sub to another company.  It isn't going to get HR money from NASA.  It will have to be funded by a partner who is getting the money from NASA (and company internal also)

How many times do I have to post this?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29077.msg911179#msg911179

NASA isn't dealing with Atlas separately.   The CCP proposer will have to deal with ULA.  Human rating Atlas V is not independent of Boeing or SNC.  Who ever wins will have to pay ULA for human rating Atlas V.

It is
Boeing with subcontractor ULA,
Sierra Nevada with subcontractor ULA
and even Blue Origin with subcontractor ULA.
 Even Liberty is ATK with subcontractor LM.

I understand that ULA is ineligible. But let's say that Boeing and SN win an award each, I don't expect ULA to ask the same amount to man rate the Atals V to each as if it only had one client. In fact, I would expect them to coordinate clocking and heights as much as possible to make it possible to use a single crew tower (albeit more expensive than if for a single user), and probably a common EDS interface and such. So the ULA cost for human rating and associated infrastructure for two clients should be something like 1.5 the cost for one.
Of course each would need a couple of certification flights, and that's probably something like 400M just in launches. But they might save some money. In fact, economic theory would say that if more than one winner uses ULA, they should go together and ask for a bulk price. I'm sure that if they needed four cores per year they could get a very nice price.

[Lobo]

 

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. 

I thought Jim said the space ship provider would then pay ULA to man-rate Atlas V (Boeing, SNC, or Blue Origin)?  Not that ULA would get a contract unto themselves to man-rate the Atlas V?  So why would ULA be getting any contract here at all?

If ATK gets a contract, I imagine they'll have to man-rate their rocket themselves, and same with SpaceX.  The rockets wouldn't get the contract.  Why would it be different for ULA, just because the rocket is built by someone else other than the spce ship supplier?

[Jim]

It seems to me that some people are arguing that a vehicle that just meets the requirements would be preferred over a more capable vehicle that costs the same amount.

I'm pretty certain that I must be reading those posts wrong, because that would be insane. Wouldn't it? 

It depends on how well they meet the documented requirements. 

Remember KC-X tanker contract.

http://www.gao.gov/press/press-boeing2008jun18_3.html

"Specifically, GAO sustained the protest for the following reasons:

1. The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements. The agency also did not take into account the fact that Boeing offered to satisfy more non-mandatory technical "requirements" than Northrop Grumman, even though the solicitation expressly requested offerors to satisfy as many of these technical "requirements" as possible.

2. The Air Force's use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation's evaluation provision that "no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives."

3........"

[Jim]

My argument is about flight profiles and the fact that contestants are tailoring their vehicles to one set of Criteria meaning CCDEV or LEO limited spaceflight. Vehicles chosen should be more tailored to Orion as the 2004 COTS agreements states an eventual need for at least BEO cargo at the very least. This alone would mean eliminating several of the competitors long term as they have no interest in adapting out their vehicles for that purpose. One dimensional vehicles are just that one dimensional. NASA should be looking for spacecraft that will parallel Orion's flight profiles to have a backup not just for LEO but for BEO as well. This is why I stated the CCDEV contract is flawed. It takes us down a single road.

It isn't flawed because it is CCDev as it is or nothing.

and please provide the words from COTS.  Nothing of the sort made it in to the CRS contract.

[Jim]

It seems to me that some people are arguing that a vehicle that just meets the requirements would be preferred over a more capable vehicle that costs the same amount.

I'm pretty certain that I must be reading those posts wrong, because that would be insane. Wouldn't it? 

exactly.... my argument

Not a valid argument, the above scenario does not happen in real life, there are enough differences meetings in the basic requirements to be a discriminator, such as one is going to be cheaper than the other.

[Jim]

I understand that ULA is ineligible. But let's say that Boeing and SN win an award each, I don't expect ULA to ask the same amount to man rate the Atals V to each as if it only had one client. In fact, I would expect them to coordinate clocking and heights as much as possible to make it possible to use a single crew tower (albeit more expensive than if for a single user), and probably a common EDS interface and such. So the ULA cost for human rating and associated infrastructure for two clients should be something like 1.5 the cost for one.
Of course each would need a couple of certification flights, and that's probably something like 400M just in launches. But they might save some money. In fact, economic theory would say that if more than one winner uses ULA, they should go together and ask for a bulk price. I'm sure that if they needed four cores per year they could get a very nice price.

that is up to ULA to negotiate.

[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. 

I thought Jim said the space ship provider would then pay ULA to man-rate Atlas V (Boeing, SNC, or Blue Origin)?  Not that ULA would get a contract unto themselves to man-rate the Atlas V?  So why would ULA be getting any contract here at all?

If ATK gets a contract, I imagine they'll have to man-rate their rocket themselves, and same with SpaceX.  The rockets wouldn't get the contract.  Why would it be different for ULA, just because the rocket is built by someone else other than the spce ship supplier?

Jim and I are saying the exact same thing. 

[kirghizstan]

Can we all agree that the most likely outcome is dc, CSt, dragon rider

Ok now that we are past that what about this scenario if we have 2.5 fundings to play with

Dragon rider full funding
CSt 75% funding
Dc 75% funding

Here is the thinking. CSt and dc had to submit a proposal assuming AV human rating being completely funded by them.  If they are both awarded a contract that burden could theoretically be split thus reducing the funding each needs.

Thoughts by the experts?  Let's avoid the whole squabbling about this because I want to know if this would work as I'm envisioning.