Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[Jim]

Allocation of relative amount may be the prime contractor's job.  The high level requirements should mention man rating.

It is not "may be", it is the winner's (prime contractor's) job.

Sigh.  What totally unnecessary post.  Might as well add more similarly obvious statements statements such as water is wet and the sun will rise.

[neilh]

Yes. Imagine how COTS would have been different with a half funded competitor..

Indeed. I wonder if Orbital had been a half-competitor from the beginning and then upgraded to full when RPK dropped out, if they may have actually beat SpaceX as first to the ISS.

[Downix]

Yes. Imagine how COTS would have been different with a half funded competitor..

Kistler??

[QuantumG]

Yes. Imagine how COTS would have been different with a half funded competitor..

Kistler??

Context is important..

[sdsds]

The source selection is legally made very narrow with politics and agency hopes and dreams associated with other possible projects being not allowed in the evaluations and rating process.

Thank-you for all of this excellent post! I extracted this one snippet to ask if your SDIO experience involved the AF selecting a single source, or were you like CCiCap selecting a portfolio of sources?

If there is anywhere that NASA has flexibility that perhaps the AF did not, it is in selecting among the fully qualified sources a set that together make up more than the sum of their parts, e.g. by bringing diverse redundancy, or by bringing synergistic commonality, or both.

A portfolio of:
1x Dragon/Falcon
1x CST/Atlas
0.5x DC/Atlas

seems to provide diverse launchers and diverse approaches to re-entry, while still getting some synergy with Atlas. Hypothetically if CST proposed Atlas at its existing pad and DC proposed Atlas at LC-39, all the better....

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The source selection is legally made very narrow with politics and agency hopes and dreams associated with other possible projects being not allowed in the evaluations and rating process.

Thank-you for all of this excellent post! I extracted this one snippet to ask if your SDIO experience involved the AF selecting a single source, or were you like CCiCap selecting a portfolio of sources?

If there is anywhere that NASA has flexibility that perhaps the AF did not, it is in selecting among the fully qualified sources a set that together make up more than the sum of their parts, e.g. by bringing diverse redundancy, or by bringing synergistic commonality, or both.

A portfolio of:
1x Dragon/Falcon
1x CST/Atlas
0.5x DC/Atlas

seems to provide diverse launchers and diverse approaches to re-entry, while still getting some synergy with Atlas. Hypothetically if CST proposed Atlas at its existing pad and DC proposed Atlas at LC-39, all the better....

SDIO was an interesting experience. It was only a single award. But the biggest determent to success with SDIO was that as soon as we got someone on contract Congress would pull funding and change our direction. This happened three times in just over 2 years, and you thought the craziness with CCP and Congress was frustrating. The longest stretch of full funding and no changes was 11 months.

[Prober]

Having "half" of an award just seems like a way of ensuring we throw away more money on yet another program that ultimately produces nothing.

In my view the process as it stands is flawed.  It’s a new program so now is the time to review it and correct the problems.

It’s flawed because the majority of the entrants are unable to use their own launcher.  The launcher must be sub contracted.   Conclusions could be made that the industry isn’t ready for this program.   The point is moot as its “policy”.

Hypothetically, if we could change the rules with all parties signing on the dotted line to fund Atlas V before the awards are announced.   Would like to see all the parties have a so called final pick/fly off say in 18-24 months.  From now on all parties could focus on the capsule side.   Winner gets the contract

[Jim]

It’s flawed because the majority of the entrants are unable to use their own launcher.

That is not a flaw.  Spacecraft builders are not launch vehicle builders.  Spacex is an exception and not the rule.

There is no problem with each proposer funding the same launch vehicle.

[Prober]

Having "half" of an award just seems like a way of ensuring we throw away more money on yet another program that ultimately produces nothing.

So, to pick a hypothetical example of SNC's Dream Chaser, would it be better for it to get no funding rather than half-funding?

see my post above......It would be far better for DC if the funds needed for the launcher would be out of the focus now.   SNC and the others in this program need only focus on making thier transport work.

[Prober]

It’s flawed because the majority of the entrants are unable to use their own launcher.

That is not a flaw.  Spacecraft builders are not launch vehicle builders.  Spacex is an exception and not the rule.

There is no problem with each proposer funding the same launch vehicle.

If the evaluation comes down to “who is closest to making a total pkg operational”.    Those with launchers would top the list.   That puts SpaceX, and Liberty the only two that would become winners. The half might go to Blue Origin as they have a launcher in the works or Boeing as they own half of the launch business.

Edit: adding Boeing

[simonbp]

Spacecraft builders are not launch vehicle builders.  Spacex is an exception and not the rule.

Boeing is not a launch vehicle builder?!?  Are they not supposed to the prime contractor for SLS?

Blue Origin is also building an Atlas-class launch vehicle. So actually, SNC is the only "exception"...

There is no problem with each proposer funding the same launch vehicle.

Yes, there is. The entire point of having more than one is dissimilar systems. There's not way they are only going to fund capsules that launch on Atlas V.

[mmeijeri]

Those with launchers would top the list.   That puts SpaceX, and Liberty the only two that would become winners.

No, those proposing existing launchers would top the list. That means SpaceX, Boeing, and SNC. ATK and Blue Origin would come at the bottom of the list.

[mmeijeri]

Actually Blue Origin would initially also be using Atlas V, putting it ahead of ATK.

[kirghizstan]

I still trying to find out from Jim or someone with similar knowledge if my proposal is even a possibility.

75% DC
75% CST
100% DragonRider

Where dc and CSt were told to cofund the human rating of AV

OR would it have to be where CSt got 100% funding for craft and rocket, while DC is told their 50% is only for the craft not the rocket

[mmeijeri]

There's not way they are only going to fund capsules that launch on Atlas V.

That should be spacecraft, not capsules. Nothing wrong with just capsules on different launchers.

[joek]

I still trying to find out from Jim or someone with similar knowledge if my proposal is even a possibility.

75% DC
75% CST
100% DragonRider

Where dc and CSt were told to cofund the human rating of AV

OR would it have to be where CSt got 100% funding for craft and rocket, while DC is told their 50% is only for the craft not the rocket

The latter.  However, remember that there are required and optional milestones, and SAA's can be (and have been) amended.

[Prober]

There's not way they are only going to fund capsules that launch on Atlas V.

That should be spacecraft, not capsules. Nothing wrong with just capsules on different launchers.

You are right, and a very good point.  Sorry DC.

[mmeijeri]

You are right, and a very good point.  Sorry DC.

DC could still be fine with just 0.5 funding, if it goes after the suborbital market first. I believe SNC have revived contingency plans for that.

[Prober]

Those with launchers would top the list.   That puts SpaceX, and Liberty the only two that would become winners.

No, those proposing existing launchers would top the list. That means SpaceX, Boeing, and SNC. ATK and Blue Origin would come at the bottom of the list.

No, using your Formula SpaceX would be kicked out.  Falcon 1.1 is an untested, new design.    ATK would move up as they could use a solid for the 2nd stage like Orbital does.  Solids are proven.  Blue Origin is using the Atlas V, so that also would be changed?

[baldusi]

I guess they could fully fund CST-100 and Dragon, and only fund the spacecraft development of DC, and all the process of the certification short of the actual launches. That way, they would have two fully redundant systems, and one close to certification if any of the other two fail.