Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[yg1968]

Yesterday I visited the NASA site and I found a video of the plans for KSC. It looked like NASA wants to launch all manned spacecraft from the LC-39 launch pads. The want to make them flexible so they can be easily adopted for different launchers. I think only Spacex might an exception and launching from their launch platform.  Who knows?

Except for ATK, for the time being, according to Jim, none of the commercial companies want to launch crew from LC-39.

What they want and what the winner is told to do or "no deal" are two different things.

I suppose that this is true but if the funding for the crew tower, etc. comes from the CCiCap optional milestones, the commercial crew companies have a say in it. There is not much funding in the 21st century complex for FY2013.   

[yg1968]

What are the chances of dragon losing out but being funded in some other manner?
Could cots-d be exercised?

Somebody asked the question about COTS-D at a press conference a while ago and the answer was that COTS-D had been superseded by CCDev/CCiCap and thus will not be exercised by NASA. 

[Downix]

Yesterday I visited the NASA site and I found a video of the plans for KSC. It looked like NASA wants to launch all manned spacecraft from the LC-39 launch pads. The want to make them flexible so they can be easily adopted for different launchers. I think only Spacex might an exception and launching from their launch platform.  Who knows?

Except for ATK, for the time being, according to Jim, none of the commercial companies want to launch crew from LC-39.

What they want and what the winner is told to do or "no deal" are two different things.

I suppose that this is true but if the funding for the crew tower, etc. comes from the CCiCap optional milestones, the commercial crew companies have a say in it. There is not much funding in the 21st century complex for FY2013.   

Thankfully it would not be needed until FY2014, based on previous work at KSC to demonstrate.

[yg1968]

As much as I admire, root for and appreciate SpaceX/Dragon, if NASA down-selects to just SpaceX then that’s the end of the vision of Commercial Crew for the foreseeable future.  All the other competitors need a NASA destination contract (ISS) to be able to continue development. Robert Bigelow cannot provide enough funds to spacecraft development to enable any of the others to survive being cut out by NASA. If SpaceX wins a down-select to 1 then none of the others will be able to afford to continue and will close up shop. There is no way I see a business plan successfully demonstrating profitability without a NASA Destination contract. Therefore, their BOD's will simply pull the plugs.

If NASA down-selects to 2, then it will be Falcon/Dragon and Atlas-V/CST-100, in no particular order. But I would really hope that NASA keeps DC alive by feeding it Technology Demonstration funding in some form.

I don't see Blue Origin or Liberty surviving in any form at all. I outright eliminate both.

Yes I agree this is the most logical outcome. My only concern in this scenario is the costs analysis. (I need some help here) The whole idea of Commercial crew is to lower costs through competition. Otherwise, what is the point if it doesn't free up funding for SLS/BEO?  I can see this playing out with Falcon, Dragon and CST-100, but where does the Atlas V come in on costs? It's a legacy system and as such, how much flexibility on production and operational costs does it have? Can it compete in a "commercial" competition when it currently operates within a non-market sole Govt. contract environment? This is not a rhetorical question. I really don't know the answer.

What happens if Boeing CST on Atlas V comes in at many 10s of millions above Flacon/Dragon? How is that good?

ULA wouldn't be a partner to commercial crew if it wasn't able to commit to it. The Atlas V 402 is competitive in terms of costs. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been chosen by 3 commercial crew companies. There is always the possibility of DC and the CST-100 switching to the Falcon 9. Although, I don't expect that to happen.

Is it competitive in terms of costs? Do we have the integrated system costs from the CST/Atlas V proposal? Does anybody definitively know what costs per seat they are proposing? I'd just like to see a rate card side by side. Outside of that, who's to say it's competitive?

All of the commercial crew providers have said that they would be competitive or lower than the Russians but that might be assuming 4 flights per year with 7 astronauts or spaceflight participants on board.

[yg1968]

Yesterday I visited the NASA site and I found a video of the plans for KSC. It looked like NASA wants to launch all manned spacecraft from the LC-39 launch pads. The want to make them flexible so they can be easily adopted for different launchers. I think only Spacex might an exception and launching from their launch platform.  Who knows?

Except for ATK, for the time being, according to Jim, none of the commercial companies want to launch crew from LC-39.

It would mean loss of direct control, but they have come up with plans for just such a development.

Can you expand on that?

If I were one of these commercial crew companies, my greatest concern would be to have to share infrastructure costs with SLS/MPCV. I suppose that one option might be to use Pad 39A for commercial companies and Pad 39B for SLS/MPCV. 

[Political Hack Wannabe]

What are the chances of dragon losing out but being funded in some other manner?
Could cots-d be exercised?
Red dragon style mars edl demo funded?



My actual view is that dragon and Boeing will gain the Bulk of the cash and Sierra Nevada will be funded at lower level.
The downselect to one contender will not occur - dragon was too successful for that. Orbital isn't too far behind.

COTS-D is dead.  Certainly they could try and do a Red Dragon, but whether that gets what is needed for manned Dragon, I don't know

That said, there is another dynamic to consider.  Whether deservedly or not, SpaceX is identified with Obama.  Them getting funding outside of CCiCap may ring alarm bells for some in Congress. 

[Downix]

Yesterday I visited the NASA site and I found a video of the plans for KSC. It looked like NASA wants to launch all manned spacecraft from the LC-39 launch pads. The want to make them flexible so they can be easily adopted for different launchers. I think only Spacex might an exception and launching from their launch platform.  Who knows?

Except for ATK, for the time being, according to Jim, none of the commercial companies want to launch crew from LC-39.

It would mean loss of direct control, but they have come up with plans for just such a development.

Can you expand on that?

If I were one of these commercial crew companies, my greatest concern would be to have to share infrastructure costs with SLS/MPCV. I suppose that one option might be to use Pad 39A for commercial companies and Pad 39B for SLS/MPCV. 

LC-39 is not that limited, they can be flexible, able to adapt with only the ML different between launchers.  And if done right, there would be no sharing of costs, the launch complex would be its own line in the budget, as it is now.  This would be appealing to the EELV operators, which currently have to share costs with their commercial operators and the USAF. 

[Political Hack Wannabe]

2 things

1st - I'd like to ask why we are limiting our options to just these 5.  There are at least 3 other possibilities that could get funded under CCiCap.  They are....

Excalibur Almaz - They have a SAA for CCDev 2. 

Orbital's Prometheus - I know they said they were going to drop this unless there was funding, but the program is likely to have funding, which may raise their interest

Stratolauncher - Ok, this is just a wild guess, and I have no data, but they at least fall into the category of *possible*

Now, I am not suggesting they are likely winners, but is there any reason we shouldn't consider them as possible bidders for CCiCap? 

Regarding the choice of launch pads....

I suspect that all bidders don't have a problem moving to a different pad should the need arise.  The problem/issue is who is paying for the pad modifications?  If its coming out of the companies bid/bottom line, then I suspect LC-39 is likely to be ruled out.  If NASA is paying for the mods from another fund, then its more likely they would move. 

[Lars_J]

2 things

1st - I'd like to ask why we are limiting our options to just these 5.  There are at least 3 other possibilities that could get funded under CCiCap.  They are....

Excalibur Almaz - They have a SAA for CCDev 2. 

Ain't gonna happen. Plus they have officially given up on LEO (they see where the wind is blowing regarding commercial crew) - AND their components are virtually all foreign. (Russian or UK) Again - Ain't gonna happen.

And they will never fly anything. (my prediction) It takes more to do spaceflight than to collect old space hardware.

Orbital's Prometheus - I know they said they were going to drop this unless there was funding, but the program is likely to have funding, which may raise their interest

When Prometheus was not selected for CCDev2, it was essentially shut down. With Dream Chaser further ahead, it has no chance of being resurrected. IMO.

[Jim]

.  And if done right, there would be no sharing of costs, the launch complex would be its own line in the budget, as it is now.  This would be appealing to the EELV operators,   

That is exactly why it isn't appealing.  They would have no control.
And NASA would still ask for money

[Jim]

Stratolauncher - Ok, this is just a wild guess, and I have no data, but they at least fall into the category of *possible*

Not possible.    When will it be ready? and what spacecraft?

[Prober]

I don't see Blue Origin or Liberty surviving in any form at all. I outright eliminate both.

crossing my fingers that Blue Origin has made real progress behind closed doors.   Would enjoy seeing a new concept.   Further, the company can be funded, a very important point.

[sdsds]

Only one of these proposals keeps KSC proper alive, sharing infrastructure and people with SLS/Orion.

Are the details of the CCiCap proposals that were submitted in response to the solicitation known at this point? Can we be certain only one shares KSC infrastructure with SLS/Orion?

[Political Hack Wannabe]

Only one of these proposals keeps KSC proper alive, sharing infrastructure and people with SLS/Orion.

Are the details of the CCiCap proposals that were submitted in response to the solicitation known at this point? Can we be certain only one shares KSC infrastructure with SLS/Orion?

The formal details have not been released (and legally the Government could not release it at this point).  Companies have been and are free to release whatever data they want about their bids (provided they aren't violating ITAR or similar issues). 

As to your second question - don't know

[Lee Jay]

Seems like SpaceX is going to reach the finish line one way or another based on their lead and Dragon's and Falcon 9's performance during the C2+ mission.  Given that, I don't understand why NASA would fund any other very similar craft like CST-100, since they add basically nothing to Dragon's capabilities.

So, I'd fund either Dragon alone (if there is only one to be funded) or Dragon + Dream Chaser if two are to be funded.  Dream Chaser does add capabilities that Dragon doesn't possess (6 hour any-time return, low-g entry to 1st world runway landings giving fast access to a high-level of medical care in an emergency) whereas the other vehicles do not.

[Prober]

Can any of you succeed in making the tough choice of elimination? More importantly, will NASA succeed and choose wisely?

SpaceX Dragon is a strong contender, based on its COTS success.  It will be used for cargo, so cost savings would result from shared use for crew - presuming significant crew-cargo commonality which is not a given.

My view differs, Talk is a brand new Dragon is needed so back to square one.  Experience matters, and the experiences NASA has had in dealing with SpaceX should be a warning sign for future contracts.  As an example they fought tooth and nail about a charge on the F9 for the range.  IMHO, NASA would be foolish to give anymore contracts as the management would be impossiple to work with.

Let SpaceX focus on Sat launches.  Its a good market and could bring some real jobs back.

Boeing's CST-100 is bigger than Dragon, and it's Boeing, so should also be a contender.  CST-100 hasn't flown, but Atlas 5-411 has. 

Boeing is funded +, the CST-100 is a modernized Apollo +/-, Atlas proven +, Boeing experience and management +,  Cost ? +/-

Liberty is bigger and more capable than CST-100 or Dragon.  It uses Shuttle heritage systems and facilities for its first stage, and an oft-flown second stage.  Liberty capsule is essentially Orion Lite, a Lockheed outfitted ATK shell. 

Liberty proven experience +,  Solids haunted by the ghosts Ares and of Challenger -, Funded +,  might be more usefull in supply of ISS.

The others are interesting, but I don't see them competing with the above list.

Only one of these proposals keeps KSC proper alive, sharing infrastructure and people with SLS/Orion.  It happens to be the most capable, in terms of mass delivered, of the three proposals, giving it a shot at cargo work too.  Those facts will win it many friends within NASA. 

 - Ed Kyle

Winner:  Orion Lite ( if they can make it work)
            on any launcher  (other than Liberty) see above

Issues Congress has with Commerical Crew will melt away with Orion Lite. It's a win, win.

edit: small fixes

[mr. mark]

Prober, you clearly do not understand Elon Musk or SpaceX. Elon is using (not in a bad way) NASA and commercial satellite launches as a means to an end. That is to get to deep space most likely Mars ASAP. He has zero intention of being happy with just satellite launches. SpaceX is not running like ULA, they have a visionary statement similar to Apple computers. SpaceX will not behave in the way old space companies do. You can already see it with verticle integration ect....

[Prober]

problem with the whole progam has been the lack of different launchers.  It's too bad Orbital's launcher isn't operational, would make this program more interesting.

Antares is underpowered for the CCDev spacecraft, and its solid upper stage might be a no-no.

They do have a liquid stage listed as an option FYI.

Well, there's the BTS (Biprop Third Stage), but that can't replace the Castor second stage. Then, as Antonio mentioned in the dedicated thread, there's been some work done on a liquid second stage, but it's not a marketed option yet.

I know, but we're discussing for 2017 launches, which means if the money were there, I suspect Orbital could deliver said liquid stage.

Yes, some 1st tank stretch if needed.   If Liberty is allowed to use their 2nd stage parts, then I know of some real decent 2nd stage engines avai.  Winks @ Downix.

[Prober]

Prober, you clearly do not understand Elon Musk or SpaceX. Elon is using (not in a bad way) NASA and commercial satellite launches as a means to an end. That is to get to deep space most likely Mars ASAP. He has zero intention of being happy with just satellite launches. SpaceX is not running like ULA, they have a visionary statement similar to Apple computers. SpaceX will not behave in the way old space companies do. You can already see it with verticle integration ect....

No, the problem is that I do understand Elon Musk.  He is not a visionay like Steve Jobs, and remember Jobs had many faults.    Musk is more like another very sad figure in US history.   Leave it at that for now.

Edit: btw thx for confirming my point,
"He has zero intention of being happy with just satellite launches"  and my point: NASA would be foolish to give anymore contracts as the management would be impossible to work with.

[Downix]

.  And if done right, there would be no sharing of costs, the launch complex would be its own line in the budget, as it is now.  This would be appealing to the EELV operators,   

That is exactly why it isn't appealing.  They would have no control.
And NASA would still ask for money

"Ok, so we're paying you $$$,, and then you pay us back $$?  That is dumb.

Saddest part is, I know there are folk who would jump at it.