Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[mr. mark]

Actually, the Liberty five segment solid booster is not flight proven. Also the ATK solid second stage booster is not flight proven in the Orbital Antares configuration. None of Liberty's systems are flight proven in the configuration that Liberty is to use. Also Liberty's liquid second stage has never been air started in flight.  NASA already has a launch services contract with the Falcon 9v1.1. Just clarifying.

[mmeijeri]

No, using your Formula SpaceX would be kicked out.  Falcon 1.1 is an untested, new design.   

An upgrade of an existing design. Much more proven than Liberty, less proven than the existing F9, which in turn is much less proven than Atlas V.

ATK would move up as they could use a solid for the 2nd stage like Orbital does.  Solids are proven.

No, ATK comes at the bottom of the list with its unproven launch vehicle. That's the untested, new design. Solids may be proven, but so are liquids. Falcon 9 is proven, Liberty is not.
 

Blue Origin is using the Atlas V, so that also would be changed?

They would be using a proven launch vehicle instead of the paper rocket that is Liberty.

[mmeijeri]

To spell it out once more: the launch vehicle in the ATK proposal, which is in fact the heart of that proposal, is its weakest point, and it is a very weak point.

[neilh]

To spell it out once more: the launch vehicle in the ATK proposal, which is in fact the heart of that proposal, is its weakest point, and it is a very weak point.

I agree, although keep in mind that for whatever reason ATK still managed to get a "high/high" rating in the prior CCDev round, despite not even having a spacecraft at the time.

[mmeijeri]

I agree, although keep in mind that for whatever reason ATK still managed to get a "high/high" rating in the prior CCDev round, despite not even having a spacecraft at the time.

I found that puzzling too. It does remain true that ATK is a proven first stage designer / manufacturer.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

To spell it out once more: the launch vehicle in the ATK proposal, which is in fact the heart of that proposal, is its weakest point, and it is a very weak point.

I agree, although keep in mind that for whatever reason ATK still managed to get a "high/high" rating in the prior CCDev round, despite not even having a spacecraft at the time.

I can't speak to why they got a high/high rating.

However, not having a spacecraft didn't necessarily factor into the decision.  CCDev 2 didn't require wholly integrated systems.  I know there were companies going after suit funding and life-support funding that bid as primes for CCDev 2.

[yg1968]

To spell it out once more: the launch vehicle in the ATK proposal, which is in fact the heart of that proposal, is its weakest point, and it is a very weak point.

I agree, although keep in mind that for whatever reason ATK still managed to get a "high/high" rating in the prior CCDev round, despite not even having a spacecraft at the time.

I can't speak to why they got a high/high rating.

However, not having a spacecraft didn't necessarily factor into the decision.  CCDev 2 didn't require wholly integrated systems.  I know there were companies going after suit funding and life-support funding that bid as primes for CCDev 2.

It did factor in. NASA ranked ATK higher than DC. But NASA decided that a spacecraft was more important than another LV. See page 16:

http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/SelectionStatement-Final_Signed.pdf

[joek]

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.

A nit, but an important one: CCiCap doesn't include certification (that comes later); crewed test flights are nominally included (edit: to clarify per NASA's outline, uncrewed in required milestones, crewed in optional milestones).

[yg1968]

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.

A nit, but an important one: CCiCap doesn't include certification (that comes later); crewed test flights are nominally included (edit: to clarify per NASA's outline, uncrewed in required milestones, crewed in optional milestones).

Actually, the uncrewed flight test during the base period was only a suggestion by NASA, it is not a requirement. Boeing said that they could only achieve an uncrewed flight test during the CCiCap optional milestones period and I suspect that this will also be the case for others.

[joek]

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.

A nit, but an important one: CCiCap doesn't include certification (that comes later); crewed test flights are nominally included (edit: to clarify per NASA's outline, uncrewed in required milestones, crewed in optional milestones).

Actually, the uncrewed flight test during the base period was only a suggestion by NASA, it is not a requirement. Boeing said that they could only achieve an uncrewed flight test during the optional milestones period and I suspect that this will also be the case for others.

Right; better might be said that NASA has strong suggestsions.  However, the solicitation is specific about the ultimate scope:

Proposal must include optional milestones beyond the base period culminating in an orbital crewed demonstration flight.

[yg1968]

I still have some doubts about the exact meaning of a partial award. I was wondering if NASA could give 3 full awards during the CCiCap base period and then give only a partial award during the CCiCap optional base period by only accepting the company's optional milestones that lead to an uncrewed flight test but stop development after that milestone is reached. The advantage of this option is that the third place finisher could still compete for CRS-2. Although I imagine that this spacecraft would have to go through a "COTS 2+ equivalency test" either before or as part of CRS-2.

[Lobo]

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

I would think 2.5 funding means two full contracts and one half contract.  Not sure you coudl do 1 full and 2 3/4 contracts.  Otherwise, why not do 3 X .833 contracts?

[joek]

I still have some doubts about the exact meaning of a partial award. I was wondering if NASA could give 3 full awards during the CCiCap base period and then give only a partial award during the CCiCap optional base period by only accepting the company's optional milestones that lead to an uncrewed flight test but stop development after that milestone is reached. The advantage of this option is that the third place finisher could still compete for CRS-2. Although I imagine that this spacecraft would have to go through a "COTS 2+ equivalency test" either before or as part of CRS-2.

Yes; or pretty much anywhere NASA wants to:

Optional milestones extending beyond the base period culminating in an orbital crewed demonstration flight must be proposed and may be included in a Participant’s awarded CCiCap SAA.  NASA authorization to execute SAA content beyond the base period through funding of optional milestones will be determined after SAA awards and will be at the discretion of NASA.

[yg1968]

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

I would think 2.5 funding means two full contracts and one half contract.  Not sure you coudl do 1 full and 2 3/4 contracts.  Otherwise, why not do 3 X .833 contracts?

By 2.5, they mean 2 full and one partial award. Partial doesn't necessarely mean 50%. 

[yg1968]

I still have some doubts about the exact meaning of a partial award. I was wondering if NASA could give 3 full awards during the CCiCap base period and then give only a partial award during the CCiCap optional base period by only accepting the company's optional milestones that lead to an uncrewed flight test but stop development after that milestone is reached. The advantage of this option is that the third place finisher could still compete for CRS-2. Although I imagine that this spacecraft would have to go through a "COTS 2+ equivalency test" either before or as part of CRS-2.

Yes; or pretty much anywhere NASA wants to:

Optional milestones extending beyond the base period culminating in an orbital crewed demonstration flight must be proposed and may be included in a Participant’s awarded CCiCap SAA.  NASA authorization to execute SAA content beyond the base period through funding of optional milestones will be determined after SAA awards and will be at the discretion of NASA.

Right. But I am wondering if starting off with 3 full awards during the base period and droping one of the companies during the optional milestones period meets the intent of the agreement between Wolf and Bolden. It's probably the solution that makes the most sense but politics and logic do not always go hand and hand.

[joek]

Yes. But I am wondering if starting off with 3 full awards during the base period and droping one of the companies during the optional milestones period meets the intent of the agreement. It's probably the solution that makes the most sense but politics and logic do not always go hand and hand.

I don't think it violates anything and it makes sense, and I believe it is structured specifically to provide such flexibility.  The optional parts are just that.  They will remain options until/if NASA authorizes them.  Same as happened with CCDev; NASA picked some and didn't pick others (edit: and in some cases added/authorized optional milestones that weren't in the original SAA).

[mr. mark]

A lot of us are taking sides on vehicle designs or choosing companies on this one but something to consider, there are already two "canister" type automated cargo vehicles (HTV, ATV) two capsule cargo vehicles (Dragon, Progress), two manned capsules from Russia and China and a shuttle type winged reentry vehicle (X37B). So we already have multiple types of spacecraft flying of different configurations. The argument over capsules versus lifting bodies is most likely mute as several are already flying right now. It's not a one versus another scenario.

[yg1968]

Yes. But I am wondering if starting off with 3 full awards during the base period and droping one of the companies during the optional milestones period meets the intent of the agreement. It's probably the solution that makes the most sense but politics and logic do not always go hand and hand.

I don't think it violates anything and it makes sense, and I believe it is structured specifically to provide such flexibility.  The optional parts are just that.  They will remain options until/if NASA authorizes them.  Same as happened with CCDev; NASA picked some and didn't pick others (edit: and in some cases added/authorized optional milestones that weren't in the original SAA).

If this is what NASA decides to do, we won't know until FY 2014 which company gets the partial award. It would be logical that the decision to down select to two only be made in FY 2014 towards the end of the CCiCap base period (but prior to the beginning of CCiCap optional period). Otherwise, the third place finisher would likely simply drop out in 2012 knowing in advance that the odds are against them.

[Prober]

To spell it out once more: the launch vehicle in the ATK proposal, which is in fact the heart of that proposal, is its weakest point, and it is a very weak point.

I agree 100% and if you read my post 59 its been explained.  That said, you and everyone else underestimate ATK's Orion lite.   I looked up the file and it shocked me.
 

[mmeijeri]

I agree 100% and if you read my post 35 its been explained.

Huh?

That said, you and everyone else underestimate ATK's Orion lite.   I looked up the file and it shocked me.

What specifically shocked you? And I do and did think the Orion Lite would be a strong contender if it were decoupled from Liberty.