Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[Prober]

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.

Just to be clear, who said anything about 5 segments?  I'm not trying to defend and promote liberty, just correct your post.
 
Based on proven shuttle SRB's a 3 or 4 segment first stage followed by a second with solids used for years.   The integrated unit hasn't flown, but the parts of the whole are proven.
 
In contrast the Falcon 9 has flown 1.0.   Falcon 9 1.1 is brand new engines, engine layout, tanks etc.  Nothing ever flown.
 
 

[mmeijeri]

So now you are imagining ATK has an edge because they could switch to your fantasy rocket that nobody but you is proposing???

[Prober]

So now you are imagining ATK has an edge because they could switch to your fantasy rocket that nobody but you is proposing???

Huh???

Where are you coming from?   Blue Orgin changed from their own launcher to the Atlas V.

What's the difference if Liberty takes a proven Solid engine for the 2nd stage?

[Prober]

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.

Thought Orion lite was more a LM project.  If you look at the paper on it (I bumped the thread on it), the number of ATK employees that designed it shocked me. Last few pages.

[Lurker Steve]

We are supposed to be funding companies that will be able to provide commerical crew service to the ISS the quickest. ATKs lego rocket and capsule doesn't qualify.

[mmeijeri]

What's the difference if Liberty takes a proven Solid engine for the 2nd stage?

If they did, that would be fine. I don't think they could get a meaningful payload out of a two stage solid propellant vehicle, but fine if they do. The point is that they are proposing no such thing.

[Prober]

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

Huh?

My thinking REPOST.....
Quote from: edkyle99 on 06/04/2012 09:29 AMQuote from: PeterAlt on 06/03/2012 11:26 PMCan 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.

QuoteBoeing'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 ? +/-


QuoteLiberty 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 Aries and of Challenger -, Funded +,  might be more usefull in supply of ISS.


Quote
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

[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).

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.

I believe the best way to think about this is as CCiCap-1 and CCiCap-2.  Don't assume a CCiCap-1 award automatically leads to a CCiCap-2 award.  The "fixed/optimal funding" option profile also appears to underscore that clear warning.  Beyond that, hard to tell if third place would choose to drop out early; too many factors.  In any case, if a company is not confident in their ability to compete and win, the sooner they leave the game the better.

[peter-b]

Just to be clear, who said anything about 5 segments?  I'm not trying to defend and promote liberty, just correct your post.
 
Based on proven shuttle SRB's a 3 or 4 segment first stage followed by a second with solids used for years.   The integrated unit hasn't flown, but the parts of the whole are proven.
 
In contrast the Falcon 9 has flown 1.0.   Falcon 9 1.1 is brand new engines, engine layout, tanks etc.  Nothing ever flown.

I'm confused. ATK are proposing a launcher (Liberty) based on evolution of proven technology (STS SRB / Ariane), but for which none of the final hardware has ever actually flown. SpaceX are proposing a launcher (Falcon 9 1.1) based on evolution of proven technology (Falcon 9), but for which none of the final hardware has ever actually flown. How does this give an advantage to ATK? From that (pointlessly narrow) point of view, SpaceX and ATK look neck and neck.

[mmeijeri]

From that (pointlessly narrow) point of view, SpaceX and ATK look neck and neck.

I'd say SpaceX is clearly ahead. Having designed and flown a launcher must count for something.

[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.

I believe the best way to think about this is as CCiCap-1 and CCiCap-2.  Don't assume a CCiCap-1 award automatically leads to a CCiCap-2 award.  The "fixed funding" option profile also appears to underscore that clear warning.  Beyond that, hard to tell if third place would choose to drop out early; too many factors.  In any case, if a company is not confident in their ability to compete and win, the sooner they leave the game the better.

That's not what I meant. I meant that if NASA fully funded for example two CCicap base period awards at $500 million each and the third one at $200 million. NASA could be sending the wrong message to the third place finisher which might feel like a junior parter. This may be OK for Blue Origin because they intend to fund their project with or without NASA funds but I am not sure how another company would react to it (e.g. Boeing).

For this reason, I think that you are better off fully funding 3 providers during the CCiCap base period and then downselect to 2 during the optional phase. Furthermore, NASA will probably award the crew services contract in 2014. So it's the perfect time for a down selection to 2 providers.

[joek]

We are in violent agreement (edit: one caveat/clarification, "fully fund" does not and never has meant everyone gets the same amount of money.)

[baldusi]

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.

Just to be clear, who said anything about 5 segments?  I'm not trying to defend and promote liberty, just correct your post.
 
Based on proven shuttle SRB's a 3 or 4 segment first stage followed by a second with solids used for years.   The integrated unit hasn't flown, but the parts of the whole are proven.
 
In contrast the Falcon 9 has flown 1.0.   Falcon 9 1.1 is brand new engines, engine layout, tanks etc.  Nothing ever flown.

To state that the Space Shuttle SRB prove that Liberty but that Falcon v1.0 doesn't prove v1.1 is so outrageous that I'm starting to wonder if you don't have a hidden agenda.

[yg1968]

one caveat/clarification, "fully fund" does not and never has meant everyone gets the same amount of money.)

Yes I know. It was just an example.

[neilh]

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.

[citation needed]

[LegendCJS]

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.

Prober just stop.

NASA is routinely praising SpaceX as being the most agreeable and easiest group to work with that they have ever had, in fact going so far as to tacitly insult some of the more established contractor names in a recent live press conference when comparing the ease of being able to work together.  When you hear NASA officials griping about friction with contractors, they say SpaceX is like a breath of fresh air in that department.

Edit: The ruckus about the flight termination charge was between SpaceX and the FAA iirc.  NASA had nothing to do with it.  And it was just a repeat of the slosh baffles issue- something they didn't think they had to do, but they learned otherwise and fixed it and moved on.

[JBF]

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.

Prober just stop.

NASA is routinely praising SpaceX as being the most agreeable and easiest group to work with that they have ever had, in fact going so far as to tacitly insult some of the more established contractor names in a recent live press conference when comparing the ease of being able to work together.  When you hear NASA officials griping about friction with contractors, they say SpaceX is like a breath of fresh air in that department.

There is a difference between easy to work with on technical matters and difficult to work with on financial matters.  I have no doubt that SpaceX negotiated for the best range fees it could get.

[Jim]

NASA is routinely praising SpaceX as being the most agreeable and easiest group to work with that they have ever had, in fact going so far as to tacitly insult some of the more established contractor names in a recent live press conference when comparing the ease of being able to work together.  When you hear NASA officials griping about friction with contractors, they say SpaceX is like a breath of fresh air in that department.

Now you swung the pendulum too far in the other direction. They never said Spacex was better, just good as

[yg1968]

For this reason, I think that you are better off fully funding 3 providers during the CCiCap base period and then downselect to 2 during the optional phase. Furthermore, NASA will probably award the crew services contract in 2014. So it's the perfect time for a down selection to 2 providers.

Re-reading Wolf's letter and press release, it is now obvious to me that Wolf expects the down selection to 2.5 providers to occur in August 2012 and not in 2014. Here is what his press release says:

Additionally, NASA has stated that it will reduce the number of awards anticipated to be made this summer from the 4 awards made under commercial crew development round 2 to not more than 2.5 (two full and one partial) CCiCAP awards.  This downselect will reduce taxpayer exposure by concentrating funds on those participants who are most likely to be chosen to eventually provide service to ISS.

[QuantumG]

Yes he did.. I'm not sure how anyone could have thought otherwise.