Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[R.Simko]

I have a few questions for those knowledgeable in such matters.

1.  Is there anyway that NASA can resist the downselect to one at this time?

2.  The President has very much advocated for CCD, does he have any sway as to prevent a downselect to one at this time?

Thanks for any replies.

[clongton]

Some folks are including Atlas-V in their lists and others are referring to NASA funding of Atlas-V HR efforts.

1. NASA is not funding Atlas-V HR efforts. ULA is doing that on its own.**
2. ATLAS-V is not a CCDev choice - it is a rocket that 2 CCDev spacecraft plan to use if they are selected.
3. If CST-100 or DreamChaser is selected, they will partner with ULA to share the funding for Atlas-V human rating.

** I have searched but can't find it. Somewhere on this site there was either a story or a thread about this anouncement out of ULA. Does anyone know where it is? Or am I mis-remembering? That is, of course, always possible.

[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....

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.

I think like a lot of people you are confusing Elon Musk's personal style/vision with SpaceX's business case. They are not one and the same. NASA managers said that SpaceX behaved in a very professional manner and was a good fit. You have most likely not worked for a company or organization where the company was led by a major visionary style leader. Visionaries on the surface seem divorced from certain realities but the underlying management teams can transfer that vision into a realistic way of doing business.

[simonbp]

but they have continuously built a working relationship with NASA which (I would imagine) would give them a unique perspective in CCDev.

That is not a consideration.

Of course it is.

If you actually read the decision justifications for major NASA manned spaceflight contracts going all the way back to Gemini, and including Apollo, Shuttle, and CxP, the "working relationship" with the winning contractor is almost always the decider between the top contenders. Indeed, in Apollo, it meant that NAA got picked over the higher-rated Martin.

In the context of CCDEV, that would seem to favor both SpaceX and Boeing (the lead contractor for both Shuttle and ISS). SNC has a chance to beat out Boeing in a 2-man race, but they are the underdogs.

[Lurker Steve]

Some folks are including Atlas-V in their lists and others are referring to NASA funding of Atlas-V HR efforts.

1. NASA is not funding Atlas-V HR efforts. ULA is doing that on its own.**
2. ATLAS-V is not a CCDev choice - it is a rocket that 2 CCDev spacecraft plan to use if they are selected.
3. If CST-100 or DreamChaser is selected, they will partner with ULA to share the funding for Atlas-V human rating.

** I have searched but can't find it. Somewhere on this site there was either a story or a thread about this anouncement out of ULA. Does anyone know where it is? Or am I mis-remembering? That is, of course, always possible.

ULA had some unfunded SAA tasks in this round related to human-rating the Atlas V. I know they completed several milestones, but don't know how many are remaining.

[Jorge]

I have a few questions for those knowledgeable in such matters.

1.  Is there anyway that NASA can resist the downselect to one at this time?

2.  The President has very much advocated for CCD, does he have any sway as to prevent a downselect to one at this time?

If Congress passes a bill with the restrictive House language, the only thing the president can do is veto it. NASA cannot do anything about it.

If Congress passes a bill with either the House or Senate proposed level of funding for CCP ($500-525M, compared to the PBR of $830M), neither the president nor NASA can spend more than that on CCP. The choices at that point would be either to downselect or stretch.

Most likely outcome, however, is that Congress will not pass appropriation legislation at all prior to the election, and FY2013 will begin on a continuing resolution. If Congress inserts the restrictive House language into the CR, all the president can do is veto it (which would result in a temporary shutdown of the agencies covered under the CR).

[Political Hack Wannabe]

I have a few questions for those knowledgeable in such matters.

1.  Is there anyway that NASA can resist the downselect to one at this time?

2.  The President has very much advocated for CCD, does he have any sway as to prevent a downselect to one at this time?

If Congress passes a bill with the restrictive House language, the only thing the president can do is veto it. NASA cannot do anything about it.

If Congress passes a bill with either the House or Senate proposed level of funding for CCP ($500-525M, compared to the PBR of $830M), neither the president nor NASA can spend more than that on CCP. The choices at that point would be either to downselect or stretch.

Most likely outcome, however, is that Congress will not pass appropriation legislation at all prior to the election, and FY2013 will begin on a continuing resolution. If Congress inserts the restrictive House language into the CR, all the president can do is veto it (which would result in a temporary shutdown of the agencies covered under the CR).

Its more complicated

1)  Among the various bills floating around, there is no language in the bill, that would become law, that would FORCE NASA to downselect. 

2)  What there is is report language.  Every appropriation law that is passed includes a report.  These reports are to provide guidance to federal agencies, on how they can spend their budgets, do operations, etc.  Sometimes report language is not a make or break issue, sometimes its there to serve as a warning, and make certain a federal agency knows when it is getting to a point where Congress may step in and force the agency's hand with a law.  In short, federal agencies can ignore report language, but it can very quickly annoy/frustrate congress, and they may step in with more draconian measures, (like actually passing laws, or withholding funding)

3)  I am not convinced that NASA will be forced to downselect at this point, but I am not certain yet.  And there are things that can be done.  Obviously you can go to the ultimate extreme, and the president can veto the bill, or there can be negotiations that work out things more clearly, etc. 

4)  As was noted, it is not yet clear that Congress will actually pass a budget this year, for NASA.  If they do a CR, which they would then have to do, there would be no language forcing a downselect. 

Don't know how a CR might impact the report language.

[R.Simko]

Thanks Jorge and Political for answering my questions.  I'm hoping that the downselect isn't too severe.

[PahTo]

I thought CST-100 would be launched on an Atlas V 402, but now I see reference to the 412 vehicle.  Can someone direct me to discussions confirming this, and why (I am on L2).

Edit:  and is the DC still looking at a 402?
Thanks!

[Downix]

I thought CST-100 would be launched on an Atlas V 402, but now I see reference to the 412 vehicle.  Can someone direct me to discussions confirming this, and why (I am on L2).

Edit:  and is the DC still looking at a 402?
Thanks!

That has been the baseline vehicle for awhile now if you check the COTS proposals from Boeing.  And yes, DC is still looking at 402.

[Go4TLI]

I have a few questions for those knowledgeable in such matters.

1.  Is there anyway that NASA can resist the downselect to one at this time?

2.  The President has very much advocated for CCD, does he have any sway as to prevent a downselect to one at this time?

If Congress passes a bill with the restrictive House language, the only thing the president can do is veto it. NASA cannot do anything about it.

If Congress passes a bill with either the House or Senate proposed level of funding for CCP ($500-525M, compared to the PBR of $830M), neither the president nor NASA can spend more than that on CCP. The choices at that point would be either to downselect or stretch.

Most likely outcome, however, is that Congress will not pass appropriation legislation at all prior to the election, and FY2013 will begin on a continuing resolution. If Congress inserts the restrictive House language into the CR, all the president can do is veto it (which would result in a temporary shutdown of the agencies covered under the CR).

Its more complicated

1)  Among the various bills floating around, there is no language in the bill, that would become law, that would FORCE NASA to downselect. 

2)  What there is is report language.  Every appropriation law that is passed includes a report.  These reports are to provide guidance to federal agencies, on how they can spend their budgets, do operations, etc.  Sometimes report language is not a make or break issue, sometimes its there to serve as a warning, and make certain a federal agency knows when it is getting to a point where Congress may step in and force the agency's hand with a law.  In short, federal agencies can ignore report language, but it can very quickly annoy/frustrate congress, and they may step in with more draconian measures, (like actually passing laws, or withholding funding)

3)  I am not convinced that NASA will be forced to downselect at this point, but I am not certain yet.  And there are things that can be done.  Obviously you can go to the ultimate extreme, and the president can veto the bill, or there can be negotiations that work out things more clearly, etc. 

4)  As was noted, it is not yet clear that Congress will actually pass a budget this year, for NASA.  If they do a CR, which they would then have to do, there would be no language forcing a downselect. 

Don't know how a CR might impact the report language.

Jorge and PHW are both correct, certainly from a mechanics perspective.

The larger question is why NASA continues to at times to reference what can be mutually exclusive requirements.  Those being fly crews on American vehicles at the earliest possible time and the other being to create a new industry.

These statements applied when it fits the question only reinforces the central confusion and tends to lead to notions that downselect should happen now so all available resources can be focused appropriately.  It does not help that potential providers are not advertising real external clients either (and Bigelow does not count, they have no customers also and likely would fly anything at this point).

[yg1968]

.  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.

One of the reason for NASA to charge for LC-39 use is that it would allow commercial companies to fly non-NASA flights and know exactly how much it would cost them to do so.

[Jim]

"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.

No, it isn't.
Happens all the time.  The Air Force pays ULA to launch spacecraft and the USAF range charges ULA for use of range assets.  The same sort of thing happens at KSC too.

[Go4TLI]

"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.

No, it isn't.
Happens all the time.  The Air Force pays ULA to launch spacecraft and the USAF range charges ULA for use of range assets.  The same sort of thing happens at KSC too.

Another example, ULA is partially owned by Boeing, but Boeing will subcontract to ULA and pay ULA for the rocket and their services.  Ultimately some of the ULA profits will go back to Boeing (and Lockheed)

[yg1968]

I thought CST-100 would be launched on an Atlas V 402, but now I see reference to the 412 vehicle.  Can someone direct me to discussions confirming this, and why (I am on L2).

Edit:  and is the DC still looking at a 402?
Thanks!

See slide 11 of this presentation:

[Prober]

Congress feels the need for the downselect because of the hearings. 

The truth is what you believe in.  One company says in 3 years they can bring people up to the ISS.  Yet, others say commercial won't happen until after 2020.

The official NASA timeline has moved from 2016 to 2017.  Given with a threat about funding.

What to believe in?

[yg1968]

Some folks are including Atlas-V in their lists and others are referring to NASA funding of Atlas-V HR efforts.

1. NASA is not funding Atlas-V HR efforts. ULA is doing that on its own.**
2. ATLAS-V is not a CCDev choice - it is a rocket that 2 CCDev spacecraft plan to use if they are selected.
3. If CST-100 or DreamChaser is selected, they will partner with ULA to share the funding for Atlas-V human rating.

** I have searched but can't find it. Somewhere on this site there was either a story or a thread about this anouncement out of ULA. Does anyone know where it is? Or am I mis-remembering? That is, of course, always possible.

ULA had some unfunded SAA tasks in this round related to human-rating the Atlas V. I know they completed several milestones, but don't know how many are remaining.

There will be some progress made through the CCDev-2 unfunded SAA but the infrastructure costs such as the crew tower will not be paid by ULA out of its own pocket.

[yg1968]

Congress feels the need for the downselect because of the hearings. 

The truth is what you believe in.  One company says in 3 years they can bring people up to the ISS.  Yet, others say commercial won't happen until after 2020.

The official NASA timeline has moved from 2016 to 2017.  Given with a threat about funding.

What to believe in?

The Senators and Representatives that are in favour of a down select were mostly against the idea of commercial crew to begin with.

Nobody said 2020.

[joek]

Some folks are including Atlas-V in their lists and others are referring to NASA funding of Atlas-V HR efforts.

1. NASA is not funding Atlas-V HR efforts. ULA is doing that on its own.**
2. ATLAS-V is not a CCDev choice - it is a rocket that 2 CCDev spacecraft plan to use if they are selected.
3. If CST-100 or DreamChaser is selected, they will partner with ULA to share the funding for Atlas-V human rating.

** I have searched but can't find it. Somewhere on this site there was either a story or a thread about this anouncement out of ULA. Does anyone know where it is? Or am I mis-remembering? That is, of course, always possible.

Thread/article (18-Jul-2011): NASA and ULA agree SAA to complete the human rating of Atlas V
Last milestone update (17-Apr-2012): CCDev 2 Milestone Schedule - NASA
Original ULA SAA here

[Go4TLI]

The Senators and Representatives that are in favour of a down select were mostly against the idea of commercial crew to begin with.

Can you provide a link to that documentation?  Thanks.