Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[Jim]

I hope the Dream Chaser gets hot fire tests on 2 different makes of launch vehicle.  Cheaper than 2 actual launches but the payload interfaces still get developed.

Not required.  If they are developed for one, they are developed for the others since most launch vehicles EELV SIS so that they can get USAF and NASA contracts.

They can pick between 62 inch standard interface, 66, 47, and 37 inch adapters and 37 and 61 pin connectors.

[Lurker Steve]

I hope the Dream Chaser gets hot fire tests on 2 different makes of launch vehicle.  Cheaper than 2 actual launches but the payload interfaces still get developed.

Not required.  If they are developed for one, they are developed for the others since most launch vehicles EELV SIS so that they can get USAF and NASA contracts.

They can pick between 62 inch standard interface, 66, 47, and 37 inch adapters and 37 and 61 pin connectors.

I doubt either the DreamChaser or CST-100 could launch on a Falcon 9 (not enough launcher) or Liberty (not enough LAS). Only the relatively light-weight Dragon can switch to a ULA LV, but still not Liberty.

Maybe Dreamchaser can look to launch on a F9 v2.0 (not v1.1), but there aren't many domestic human-rated alternatives to the Atlas V 402 / 412.

[baldusi]

I hope the Dream Chaser gets hot fire tests on 2 different makes of launch vehicle.  Cheaper than 2 actual launches but the payload interfaces still get developed.

Not required.  If they are developed for one, they are developed for the others since most launch vehicles EELV SIS so that they can get USAF and NASA contracts.

They can pick between 62 inch standard interface, 66, 47, and 37 inch adapters and 37 and 61 pin connectors.

I doubt either the DreamChaser or CST-100 could launch on a Falcon 9 (not enough launcher) or Liberty (not enough LAS). Only the relatively light-weight Dragon can switch to a ULA LV, but still not Liberty.

Maybe Dreamchaser can look to launch on a F9 v2.0 (not v1.1), but there aren't many domestic human-rated alternatives to the Atlas V 402 / 412.

The NLS II query tool states 15tonnes to a 400km x 51.6deg orbit for a Falcon v1.1. The Atlas V 411 does 10.1tonnes, and I think I heard a 412 does 13tonnes (to LEO, not necessarily ISS). So, how come Falcon is not enough?

[A_M_Swallow]

I hope the Dream Chaser gets hot fire tests on 2 different makes of launch vehicle.  Cheaper than 2 actual launches but the payload interfaces still get developed.

Not required.  If they are developed for one, they are developed for the others since most launch vehicles EELV SIS so that they can get USAF and NASA contracts.

They can pick between 62 inch standard interface, 66, 47, and 37 inch adapters and 37 and 61 pin connectors.

That is good news.

Software modifications to handle the different triggers to the LAS may be needed, unless NASA standardized the data formats.

[Lars_J]

Indeed. v1.1 should be capable enough for DC or CST, in the very unlikely event it would be needed.

[A_M_Swallow]

Indeed. v1.1 should be capable enough for DC or CST, in the very unlikely event it would be needed.

The Falcon 9 v1.1 would have at least 2 uses:
a. to lift the capsule
b. to negotiate a cheaper price for the Atlas 5 LV.  This use has a very high probability.

[Lurker Steve]

How much to develop a spacecraft adapter, wind tunnel testing,  and crew access tower for a launcher you will never use ??

Or will SpaceX provide these services for free, just to win the additional business ?

[Jason1701]

I hope the Dream Chaser gets hot fire tests on 2 different makes of launch vehicle.  Cheaper than 2 actual launches but the payload interfaces still get developed.

Not required.  If they are developed for one, they are developed for the others since most launch vehicles EELV SIS so that they can get USAF and NASA contracts.

They can pick between 62 inch standard interface, 66, 47, and 37 inch adapters and 37 and 61 pin connectors.

I doubt either the DreamChaser or CST-100 could launch on a Falcon 9 (not enough launcher) or Liberty (not enough LAS). Only the relatively light-weight Dragon can switch to a ULA LV, but still not Liberty.

Maybe Dreamchaser can look to launch on a F9 v2.0 (not v1.1), but there aren't many domestic human-rated alternatives to the Atlas V 402 / 412.

F9 v2.0 does not exist as plans.

[baldusi]

How much to develop a spacecraft adapter, wind tunnel testing,  and crew access tower for a launcher you will never use ??

Or will SpaceX provide these services for free, just to win the additional business ?

You specifically stated:

I doubt either the DreamChaser or CST-100 could launch on a Falcon 9 (not enough launcher) ...

...Maybe Dreamchaser can look to launch on a F9 v2.0 (not v1.1), but there aren't many domestic human-rated alternatives to the Atlas V 402 / 412.

Which is factually incorrect. Don't move the postgoals. Of course that doing the integration cost is gonna cost money and, and would only give a certain level of extra security if Dragon is not chosen in the end. But that's not what you stated before.

[A_M_Swallow]

How much to develop a spacecraft adapter, wind tunnel testing,  and crew access tower for a launcher you will never use ??

Or will SpaceX provide these services for free, just to win the additional business ?

Old rule of social security - If you do not ask you do not get.

NASA is currently negotiating the CCiCap milestones.  The worst SpaceX or ATK can do is say is no.

[PeterAlt]

Getting closer to a NASA decision.  I bet on SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada Corp. to come through - - - but wait, here comes ATK flailing its arms and making a case to anyone who will listen (although only a few select NASA individuals are the ones that count).  It's a great competition and I'm glad to be a spectator.  Historic really.

I can't really stress how much more interesting it becomes when you have L2 subscription. I'm sorry I can't go into specifics, but thrust me. It's extremely interesting.

shameless plug:  Yes L2 is worth the investment.

Could ATK stay in if they remain unfunded?

[Go4TLI]

Getting closer to a NASA decision.  I bet on SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada Corp. to come through - - - but wait, here comes ATK flailing its arms and making a case to anyone who will listen (although only a few select NASA individuals are the ones that count).  It's a great competition and I'm glad to be a spectator.  Historic really.

I can't really stress how much more interesting it becomes when you have L2 subscription. I'm sorry I can't go into specifics, but thrust me. It's extremely interesting.

shameless plug:  Yes L2 is worth the investment.

Could ATK stay in if they remain unfunded?

That question has been answered by ATK themselves on multiple occassions

[Robotbeat]

Getting closer to a NASA decision.  I bet on SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada Corp. to come through - - - but wait, here comes ATK flailing its arms and making a case to anyone who will listen (although only a few select NASA individuals are the ones that count).  It's a great competition and I'm glad to be a spectator.  Historic really.

I can't really stress how much more interesting it becomes when you have L2 subscription. I'm sorry I can't go into specifics, but thrust me. It's extremely interesting.

shameless plug:  Yes L2 is worth the investment.

Could ATK stay in if they remain unfunded?

That question has been answered by ATK themselves on multiple occassions

And, of course, if they actually would is another question. And that's true for SpaceX, too, of course.

[Lurker Steve]

I hope the Dream Chaser gets hot fire tests on 2 different makes of launch vehicle.  Cheaper than 2 actual launches but the payload interfaces still get developed.

Not required.  If they are developed for one, they are developed for the others since most launch vehicles EELV SIS so that they can get USAF and NASA contracts.

They can pick between 62 inch standard interface, 66, 47, and 37 inch adapters and 37 and 61 pin connectors.

I doubt either the DreamChaser or CST-100 could launch on a Falcon 9 (not enough launcher) or Liberty (not enough LAS). Only the relatively light-weight Dragon can switch to a ULA LV, but still not Liberty.

Maybe Dreamchaser can look to launch on a F9 v2.0 (not v1.1), but there aren't many domestic human-rated alternatives to the Atlas V 402 / 412.

F9 v2.0 does not exist as plans.

We don't know where SpaceX is going with their numbering schemes. It does seem that SpaceX has a history of retiring one LV after about 5 or 6 launches,and coming out with a new and improved model. Who knows how many dot releases there will be with the F9.

Without going too much farther off topic, let's see what happens when SpaceX starts launching a payload that's not a volume-limited Dragon cargo capsule. Their second stage is not as capable as the dual-engine Centaur that the spacecraft launching on Atlas have baselined.

[ugordan]

Their second stage is not as capable as the dual-engine Centaur that the spacecraft launching on Atlas have baselined.

For purposes of injecting the payload to LEO only, how is it not as capable? Where are your numbers?

There is too much armwaving going on around here.

[Downix]

Their second stage is not as capable as the dual-engine Centaur that the spacecraft launching on Atlas have baselined.

For purposes of injecting the payload to LEO only, how is it not as capable? Where are your numbers?

There is too much armwaving going on around here.

Lower impulse, heavier weight, both make the Falcon upper stage less capable than the Centaur. This is not blasting the Falcon, it is pointing out the comparisons between the two. To compensate for the lower upper stage performance, Falcon has a significant edge in first stage performance. Just a different way to get the same job done.

[ugordan]

Their second stage is not as capable as the dual-engine Centaur that the spacecraft launching on Atlas have baselined.

For purposes of injecting the payload to LEO only, how is it not as capable? Where are your numbers?

There is too much armwaving going on around here.

Lower impulse, heavier weight, both make the Falcon upper stage less capable than the Centaur. This is not blasting the Falcon, it is pointing out the comparisons between the two.

Precisely, so the whole "2nd stage is not as capable" thing is rendered irrelevant. You can't compare upper stages in a vacuum (no pun intended), isolated from the first stage. Falcon 9 upper stage needs to deliver a higher delta V to bring its payload to LEO and I'd almost wager to say that if you put both a Centaur and an F9 US in identical staging conditions, the propellant margin upon insertion to LEO would be quite interesting to compare.

To compensate for the lower upper stage performance, Falcon has a significant edge in first stage performance.

Not really true. F9 first stage (v1.0 at least) delivers a lower delta V than an Atlas first stage. What Falcon has is a much larger propellant load in the upper stage compared to the Centaur to overcome both a lower staging velocity and lower Isp.

[Jim]

Could ATK stay in if they remain unfunded?

Huh?  Silly question.
They can do anything they want.  Nobody on the outside can stop them.

[dcporter]

Huh?  Silly question.
They can do anything they want.  Nobody on the outside can stop them.

I assumed he meant did they have the financial capability?

[rmencos]

Getting closer to a NASA decision.  I bet on SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada Corp. to come through - - - but wait, here comes ATK flailing its arms and making a case to anyone who will listen (although only a few select NASA individuals are the ones that count).  It's a great competition and I'm glad to be a spectator.  Historic really.

I can't really stress how much more interesting it becomes when you have L2 subscription. I'm sorry I can't go into specifics, but thrust me. It's extremely interesting.

shameless plug:  Yes L2 is worth the investment.

Could ATK stay in if they remain unfunded?

I think I'll put some money in my PayPal account and try L2.  Thanks.

Concerning ATK funding.  They've stated that they will continue to fund Liberty even if they do not win a NASA contract.

An underlying question is, what is the extent of ATK's commitment to self-funding?  If I were to invest in ATK, one of my concerns would be the exposure that my investment would receive if the company lost on its proposal.  A good (albeit imperfect) window into ATK's commitment is its current 10K statement, which it filed in May with the SEC (attached and available on the ATK website).  It reveals some interesting facts about its business.  First, Liberty is not mentioned.  What's important to ATK are the cash cow of its space business, which of course are its boosters.  ATK assures its investors that it will provide boosters for two SLS missions and that it will be able to compete in a future competition that will decide what permanent boosters the SLS program will use.  Second, Boeing is not listed as a competitor in Aerospace.  Which is strange given that many on the NSF forums believe that Boeing is the strongest competitor for CCiCAP.  Finally, R&D is mentioned in the context of tax off-sets.

As an investor, I would not be too worried if ATK loses on this current round of CCiCAP.  ATK does not see it as a risk factor, which means it isn't pumping a lot of money into the project.  Instead, it seems to have its eye on the SLS contract.  My conclusion: ATK's Liberty project will allow it to maintain a good relation with NASA, through SAAs, for the big prize - SLS boosters.  In the meantime, tax deductions can off-set its R&D and it maintains its edge during these lean years.  It's win win for ATK and it seems to be a good plan.

That's not to say that ATK is not serious about Liberty.  It seems to be very serious if it presented a proposal to NASA.  It's just not a big enough deal to present a risk and to tell to its investors about it. 

That's a long way of saying - yeah, I think they'll stay if they don't get NASA funding for CCiCAP.