Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[joek]

p.s. That said, if funding pressure continues, I expect at most only one CCiCap2 award is actually authorized.

Legally, NASA is required to give at least 2 awards.  (the selection documents, again).

Right.  However, NASA is not required to give any awards containing optional milestones, or to authorize those optional milestones even if present.  As I stated, "CCiCap2" is simply shorthand for "optional", and "CCiCap1" for required.

Unless someone drops out, there will be at least 3.0 SAA's executed with at least 3.0 awardees with at least 3.0 sets of required milestones which address the goals above.

Not necessarily.  NASA is not required to make 3 awards - they can award as few as 2 awards.  And they may make the calculation that its better to put all on just 2 companies, rather than try and save a 3rd company. 

When speaking of "down-select to 2.5" in practice that is "3.0" awards, as SAA's come in units of 1.0.  (And if we really want to get pedantic, they could make as few as zero awards.)

[yg1968]

They already said that they would have multiple awards. Multiple means at least two.

[PeterAlt]

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.

To consider Liberty flight ready and proven is like saying SLS is flight ready and proven. Both have engines (one shared, ironically) that are flight ready and proven.... Strike that.... Both share an engine that's almost ready and unproven in flight. Both are unproven launch systems with developed and flight proven parts combined with mostly developed and unflown elements.

Falcon 9 v. 1.1, for the most part, is essentially an evolved Falcon 9. Same beast but with tweaks. Tested and flight proven three fold. Liberty and SLS are not evolved Ares or STS. Those rockets are different rockets entirely, with differing aerodynamics, weight, second stage systems, control systems, and so on. The flight experience of STS and the single and partial flight of Ares I can not be counted and confused as flight experience for Liberty.

[Lars_J]

It paraphrases in my memory as this:

When we (NASA) approach SpaceX with a request or a requirement to change something they are doing, we've found that all we need to do is put in the hard work on our side to convince them that it makes sense.  Once the convincing is done they buckle down and make it happen without further ado, and its so nice not to have to deal with endless friction and resistance and heel dragging like we get from other contractors even after this point.

Which is still not completely accurate by any means nor does it reconcile what has been said on these boards at length about SpaceX want to buck NASA and go its own way.

So again, which is it because it can't be both ways.

I thought you would be aware by now that just because someone claims something on an internet forum does not make it true. If not, welcome to the internet!

Second, can you point to a single poster who has expressed those two opposing (in your opinion) viewpoints? Or are all pro-SpaceX posts coming from a single hive mind? 

[mmeijeri]

I've just formulated a new opinion. If the budget situation forces NASA to choose to keep either DC or CST-100, I think the wise choice would be DC.

I disagree, even though I like DC. Having redundant and affordable vehicles to serve the basic mission is what counts, not nice-to-have extra requirements. As Jim said earlier, no bonus points should be given for extra functionality that isn't required. Well, except maybe in the unlikely case that two potential winners serve the basic requirements equally well and with the same price and development risk.

And don't forget, DC is a potentially commercially viable suborbital craft, probably unlike the capsules. It could still do well with just a 0.5 award. It could remain as a backup to the others, and still make it to orbit on corporate funding if it is successful on the the emerging suborbital market.

While Boeing may be further along, at the current pace of progress, SNC would probably make it to the finish line before Boeing does.

Why? It is a more risky design. If Boeing is both ahead and working on a less risky vehicle, how could SNC hope to overtake them?

Besides, DC delivers much more capability that CST-100.

Yes, but that functionality isn't needed for its intended mission. Emotion should not play a role in this. It could play an enormous role on the commercial market (both orbital and suborbital), because in that role it is providing entertainment. You might argue it would be doing that in an ISS role too, but at least that's not its official mission.

I would also reserve a token amount of funds to enlist Boeing to the team in an advisory role, lending its experience and expertise to an otherwise inexperienced SNC.

If it's a token award, what purpose does it accomplish? And would Boeing even be interested in such a role?

The idea behind commercial crew is to have an open competition and to select at least two participants in a way that maximises benefit to the intended mission. The idea is to get crew to and from the ISS safely and quickly, at the best price and lowest risk possible. Capsules are obviously better for that mission than lifting bodies (at least at this stage), the obvious advantages of lifting bodies notwithstanding. Open competition should pick the best solution for the problem at hand. You on the other hand are advocating picking a favourite.

[mmeijeri]

Or are all pro-SpaceX posts coming from a single hive mind? 

Maybe he is worried about one person posting under multiple anonymous accounts. How could he ever get such an idea? 

[MP99]

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.

Could you link that thread up?

cheers, Martin

[MP99]

[...]please explain what a "partial award" means. Nobody [...] seems to know.

Less funding than the other two awards.

Right but given that CCiCap is an end-to end program, how do you make that work? One option that I can see is a spacecraft such as DC that shares an LV with another company (Boeing) may not need as much money as the others. SpaceX and ATK may also need less money because their spacecrafts are further along. 

When speaking of "down-select to 2.5" in practice that is "3.0" awards, as SAA's come in units of 1.0.  (And if we really want to get pedantic, they could make as few as zero awards.)

The way I read it, Wolf's intention is for NASA to pick the two "winners" - those proposals felt most likely to make it through to a certified system with a services contract on time & budget. By limiting it to two, he expects funding to increase such that they can meet Congress' 2016 deadline.

The "half" is to just keep a viable backup programme "ticking over" - making slower forward progress towards a later operational date. If one of the primes is dropped (think "Kistler") then their funding is transfered to bring the backup fully into things, though presumably with a later operational date. Analogous to the way Orbital were brought into COTS, but just ramping up an existing programme.

* If at least one of the primes succeeds, then there will be a commercial crew service around 2016.
* If both primes succeed, there will be redundant access around 2016.
* If a prime and the backup succeed, there will be single-string from 2016 with redundant access later.
* If both primes fail, the backup might still provide a service sometime after 2016.

Seems like a good strategy within the funding constraints.

Should any of NASA’s plans and intentions change from what was agreed to in the exchange of letters, I will reevaluate the situation.  I will continue to follow up with NASA to monitor the implementation of these understandings in fiscal year 2012 – both through committee actions and through appropriate outside oversight – and to ensure that these principles are reflected in any final appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2013.

I guess that "not more than 2.5 (two full and one partial) CCiCAP awards" could also be "one full and two partial", but I believe that would be taken as a lack of commitment to delivering redundant crewed access around 2016. I could see that triggering "reevaluate the situation".

cheers, Martin

[yg1968]

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.

Could you link that thread up?

cheers, Martin

Here is the link:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27265.0

[Jim]

I've just formulated a new opinion. If the budget situation forces NASA to choose to keep either DC or CST-100, I think the wise choice would be DC.
1.  While Boeing may be further along, at the current pace of progress, SNC would probably make it to the finish line before Boeing does. Besides, DC delivers much more capability that CST-100.

2. I would also reserve a token amount of funds to enlist Boeing to the team in an advisory role, lending its experience and expertise to an otherwise inexperienced SNC.

1.  Unsubstantiated.  You have no basis for such a statement

2.  Why would Boeing want to do that?

[Jim]

1.  At least they appear to be moving at a pace a bit faster. I might be wrong, but the progress is fast nonetheless. Most important, they're not missing "beats". For a start up, this is quite impressive and certainly earns my respect. It shows that they're serious, not a "fly by night" company.

Both of these companies are extremely strong candidates and almost equals on the development front. If both are proven to be technically sound, then it boils down to two questions, really:

1. Which is the better product?
2. Which company is the most trustworthy?

2.  DC is the the better product, but Boeing is the most trustworthy (based on their experience and expertise). SNC has earned my trust, however.

1.  you are wrong

2.  You don't know that

[yg1968]

The way I read it, Wolf's intention is for NASA to pick the two "winners" - those proposals felt most likely to make it through to a certified system with a services contract on time & budget. By limiting it to two, he expects funding to increase such that they can meet Congress' 2016 deadline.

The "half" is to just keep a viable backup programme "ticking over" - making slower forward progress towards a later operational date. If one of the primes is dropped (think "Kistler") then their funding is transfered to bring the backup fully into things, though presumably with a later operational date. Analogous to the way Orbital were brought into COTS, but just ramping up an existing programme.

* If at least one of the primes succeeds, then there will be a commercial crew service around 2016.
* If both primes succeed, there will be redundant access around 2016.
* If a prime and the backup succeed, there will be single-string from 2016 with redundant access later.
* If both primes fail, the backup might still provide a service sometime after 2016.

Seems like a good strategy within the funding constraints.

Should any of NASA’s plans and intentions change from what was agreed to in the exchange of letters, I will reevaluate the situation.  I will continue to follow up with NASA to monitor the implementation of these understandings in fiscal year 2012 – both through committee actions and through appropriate outside oversight – and to ensure that these principles are reflected in any final appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2013.

I guess that "not more than 2.5 (two full and one partial) CCiCAP awards" could also be "one full and two partial", but I believe that would be taken as a lack of commitment to delivering redundant crewed access around 2016. I could see that triggering "reevaluate the situation".

cheers, Martin

Given the skin in the game requirement, the only company that would be interested in being a third wheel would be Blue Origin. But I don't think that is what is meant by partial award. I think that partial award simply means that you get less money for the base period but you are still a "full participant".   For example, the partial award participant may only get $300M and the 2 full award participants may get the maximum of $500M for the base period. 

But your idea of one full award and two partial awards is interesting. It could allow NASA to fast track the most promising proposal and keep competition going between the second and third place finishers through the base period.

[Rocket Science]

Holy bananas, how did this get to 29 pages already!

I'm not pulling my "baby orbiter" card here, but Peter's right, DC offers a different capability to the pot. To lose DC this year due to a downselect would have me properly outraged.

Me too.  Hell, I'd move to Colorado in a heartbeat if it gave me a chance to work on the bird.  *hint hint SNC *

Yea, Nate I’d do that too if I get to fly right seat to Steve…

~Robert

[Rocket Science]

Sincere question for Jim… If let’s say:

Boeing gets 1.0

SpaceX gets 1.0

SNC gets 0.5

Could it be viewed as double dipping since Boeing is in a joint venture with LM wrt ULA? You know them lawyers…

~Robert

[Jim]

Could it be viewed as double dipping since Boeing is in a joint venture with LM wrt ULA? You know them lawyers…

That has no bearing on the matter

[MP99]

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.

Could you link that thread up?

cheers, Martin

Here is the link:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27265.0

Great, thanks.

I can see how that would be important input to the design of a composite "Orion Lite" structure, but I don't see the point. If mass of composite & metal structures are similar, why not stick with the metal structure that's making a lot of progress for full Orion.

Also, ISTM there's a huge amount to the s/c other than the shell, and even if that builds from Orion, there would be a huge amount of work to modify / optimise it for LEO. And yet more unnecessary work to integrate it into a composite structure when that work has already been done for a metal structure.

I don't understand why a composite structure would be chosen, unless it either stands up to unique Liberty loads better than Orion, or there is some programmatic or legal reason why this config could be chosen when Orion itself could not be.

Either way, the amount of work required to produce such a unique configuration seems to put this capsule way behind the other CCDev participants.

cheers, Martin

[JohnFornaro]

While Elon has been made out to be soley responsible for everything and surrounded with this ideal and romantic notion, now we have a suggestion that SpaceX essentially yielded everything to NASA and did whatever they wanted and apparently did it with style and grace that brought a tear to everyone's eye and shear joy at the same time

Yet there are other posts claiming "Elon" is ready to walk and won't give into the "NASA way" and will go it alone leading us all to the golden age

Which is it?  How can they both be true?

Neither of those opinions is true.  Therefore there's no need to chose one.  The true statement about SpaceX and NASA would be more nuanced.  As was pointed out, a good relationship is not "yielding everything".

[Rocket Science]

Could it be viewed as double dipping since Boeing is in a joint venture with LM wrt ULA? You know them lawyers…

That has no bearing on the matter

Thanks Jim!

[JohnFornaro]

As I understand "2.5", it means that there will be two winners, and a qualified runner up, in case one of the winners fails.

As to the determination date of August 2012:  It that too soon? Or just about right?

[yg1968]

As I understand "2.5", it means that there will be two winners, and a qualified runner up, in case one of the winners fails.

Each round/competition is independent of the previous one. So the third place finisher could still win a service contract in (or around) 2014. So qualified runner up is not the right way to describe the partial award participant in my opinion.