Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[wolfpack]

That is one of the problems, they are burning their people out. 

Having worked at a startup, I can understand that. Heart palpitations on the 3/4 mile walk back to my car were no fun, to say the least! 

[joek]

brings up a point......what stops ULA from the commercial market?

At minimum the legal constraints in the consent decree which allowed the creation of ULA; it prohibits ULA from selling to non-US-government customers.

Actually the only thing keeping ULA from launching commercial comm sats is price. The number one thing that a commercial comm sat operator looks at is the LV price (including all associated integration costs). ULA has priced themselves out of the market.

No; see above.

[yg1968]

At minimum the legal constraints in the consent decree which allowed the creation of ULA; it prohibits ULA from selling to non-government customers.

I thought that ULA could sell their excess capacity (whatever that means) to non-government customers.

[joek]

I thought that ULA could sell their excess capacity (whatever that means) to non-government customers.

Not unless there has been a change to the consent decree.  I'm not aware of such--anyone have newer info?  As written, and as far as I know, it's still ULA can contract only to government customers; commercial must contract through BLS or LMCS.

[QuantumG]

Not unless there has been a change to the consent decree.  I'm not aware of such--anyone have newer info?  As written, and as far as I know, it's still ULA can contract only to government customers; commercial must contract through BLS or LMCS.

Yes, the point is that BLS/LMCS can only sell "excess capacity"... which, btw, is defined as launches the government ordered but later decided they didn't want.

Edit: or excess upmass on government launches.

[joek]

Yes, the point is that BLS/LMCS can only sell "excess capacity"... which, btw, is defined as launches the government ordered but later decided they didn't want.

No; BLS and LMCS may sell whatever the market will buy.

[Downix]

Yes, the point is that BLS/LMCS can only sell "excess capacity"... which, btw, is defined as launches the government ordered but later decided they didn't want.

No; BLS and LMCS may sell whatever the market will buy.

Of course getting through either is a royal PITA. My old boss could not get information from BLS on Delta IV, but could get plenty on Sea Launch when he tried awhile back.

[Jim]

Yes, the point is that BLS/LMCS can only sell "excess capacity"... which, btw, is defined as launches the government ordered but later decided they didn't want.

Huh?  Not even close to true.  Commercial launches are on purpose built vehicles.

[yg1968]

I thought that ULA could sell their excess capacity (whatever that means) to non-government customers.

Not unless there has been a change to the consent decree.  I'm not aware of such--anyone have newer info?  As written, and as far as I know, it's still ULA can contract only to government customers; commercial must contract through BLS or LMCS.

Thanks. That actually makes more sense. Incidentally, here is the consent decree:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0510165/0510165do.pdf

[joek]

To try to bring this back on topic... ULA as a direct commercial provider is out of the picture.  That leaves others as prime in any commercial crew competition.  That doesn't mean ULA won't be involved--if whatever launches is on an Atlas or Delta, ULA will likely be in the mix, as at minimum they'll be the ones doing the work on the LV.  Can we leave it at that?

[QuantumG]

Huh?  Not even close to true.  Commercial launches are on purpose built vehicles.

Yep, you're right.

[joek]

Thanks. That actually makes more sense. Incidentally, here is the consent decree:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0510165/0510165do.pdf

And for related links and some clarifying verbiage see:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26324.msg790606#msg790606

[rmencos]

1.  then blink and make believe that all of those launches have occurred.  Now take a look at the dates.

2.   That's in five years,  I'm not a SpaceX fan boy.  It's just too easy to pick the winner in this case - it's not even a contest.

1.  That is just like watching a bad scifi movie.  It take willful suspension of disbelief, because it is not going to happen that way.  They aren't going to meet their manifest schedule and will lose customers.

2.  you have to be to make such a comment.  Unbiased people would not make such a statement.

1. Okay, no big deal, we disagree.

2. At some point you have to make up your mind about SpaceX and you're either going to like the company or you won't.  Either way you're going to be biased toward your conclusion.  I conclude that SpaceX will succeed, but that doesn't make me a fan.  The only thing that I'm a fan of, aside from the Mets, is NASA and its people.  They're not in it for the profit, they're in it for the mission, so I'm a fan. 

In keeping with Chris's instruction . . .  and so the reason why that's important in the context of the CCiCAP candidate list, is that NASA needs to pick its winners carefully.  Which one of these candidates will accomplish the mission and still not hold NASA back as it redefines itself with human spaceflight?  My bias is for SpaceX because they are aggressive and most likely to succeed commercially, which will lead to innovation.  Boeing lacks commercially but they're a powerhouse. They're like a player that you can trust to play any position - so they make the team.  ATK is  . . . risky for now. So pass.  That leaves SNC, which is a decent concept with limited growth.  But it works nicely as a symbol of NASA's human spaceflight and a continuation of the Space Shuttle.  It's in.  All others, thanks for coming, see you next time.  ULA - stay as long as you're needed (and look behind you). 

[Jim]

I like spacex, but I have some objectivity.   

[spectre9]

Seems to me like SpaceX is struggling to launch while ULA is chomping at the bit looking for more payloads.

That is the perception I'm feeling.

Lots of hardware on the ground, not so much in the air.

How can SpaceX possibly add to that giant unmoving launch manifest?

[joek]

Seems to me like SpaceX is struggling to launch while ULA is chomping at the bit looking for more payloads.

ULA may be chomping at the bit, but they are constrained in the customers they can contact with and must rely--at least for commercial--on Boeing and LM.

How can SpaceX possibly add to that giant unmoving launch manifest?

No comment on  "unmoving", but there's still a couple $B/yr left to scavenge in the commercial market; if SpaceX is competitive and can deliver. they could probably add a few hundred $M/yr.  A relative pittance in the grand scheme of things, but not chump change in the commercial launch market.

In any case, what does any of that have to do with "Narrowing the CCDev candidate list"?  Unless you're suggesting that +2 commercial crew launches for Boeing-LM-ULA over a 5-6 year period would tilt the balance?

[spectre9]

Big ifs.

Just because the market share is there doesn't mean SpaceX is in any way capable of getting it.

Not sure what you are getting at about my ULA comment.

Did I not refer to the right part of the company at the right time? Some are so picky about this. 

Should I refer to it as LM needs payloads for Atlas V?

Should I say that the ULA Human Launch Services organization can provide payloads to Lockheed for ULA?

Or should I say that the ULA Human Launch Services organization can provide payloads for ULA to be launch on Atlas V?

How exactly do you prefer it so you don't nit pick it?

[joek]

Just because the market share is there doesn't mean SpaceX is in any way capable of getting it.

Nor do I assume it; as you say, "Big ifs".  SpaceX has demonstrated an ability to grab market share, but I also have my doubts as to whether they can deliver (and if they don't... we're all in for a world of hurt).

Not sure what you are getting at about my ULA comment.

Nothing.  Simply saying that ULA is constained in what customers they may contract with.  ULA is, in the context of this discussion ("Narrowing the CCDev candidate list") a sub; it's up to Boeing and LM to make the business case and make this fly.

How exactly do you prefer it so you don't nit pick it?

Apologies; not trying to nit-pick, and no particular preference--just expressed in a way that is relevant to this thread: How would or does ULA's actions-manifest-business change the outcome of the CCDev selection vs. the competitors?  As far as I can tell ULA is largely a secondary player--albeit an important one--in the CCDev selection drama.  You seem to think otherwise?

[spectre9]

The way I refer to ULA has been criticised before and I'm sorry I snapped. It's just confusing not knowing what the type.

ULA wants to offer the Atlas V as a man rated rocket. They would obviously have needed permission from higher up as they need to build the thing.

I'm saying those higher ups like it very much because they are desperate for payloads.

The reason they are desperate is simple all the commercial sats are on Proton and Ariane 5.

Doesn't matter if my assessment of "desperate" is wrong to me it looks like they have the ability to launch the extra rockets on time, on budget with no problem at all.

SpaceX to me looks like have much further to go to get to that point where they can ramp up in the same way.

[JohnFornaro]

SpaceX investors currently consist of Elon Musk and his friends.

One doesn't even need to take a googol on this.

SpaceX is a business venture, and the invested money is called capital.

Groups like us have invested and supported him all that we can.

Maybe Steve is a friend and even a fan of Elon's, but it doesn't matter.  He's still a VC.

... why that's important in the context of the CCiCAP candidate list, is that NASA needs to pick its winners carefully. 

Which is why the downselection process generated so many comments.  There needs to be a large enough "field" of contestants.  At least we have two plus a backup.

Interesting discussion.