Poll on CCiCAP Selection Announcement

[jongoff]

Someone suggested this on another thread, but this poll is who you think will be selected by NASA for full or partial CCiCAP awards, not who you think should be selected by NASA. If you want to vote for an option not listed, please provide a post explaining what you think will happen.

I'm curious to see what everyone thinks on this.

Edit: And please, post a comment explaining your vote. I'd like to hear people's logic on this one.

~Jon

[jongoff]

I'll go nearly first (someone beat me to the punch). I'm a pessimist here. I think the "SpaceX already has cargo missions" and "we need credible solid names to maintain funding" and "Liberty has synergies with SLS" type arguments will win out over that whole "who's recently flown a new capsule and launch vehicle" arguments.

If I were to pick who I hope wins, it would likely be: Full - Dragon, CST-100, Half - DC.

~Jon

[kirghizstan]

i'm going to be an optimist here.

Full - Dragon, CST, Half - DC

Only half for DC because they will allow them to decouple the ship from the rocket giving it to rockets to launch on.  I know not allowed but rules can be broken

[FinalFrontier]

Went Full DC, Dragon, Half CST.


Reasoning was that IF liberty were not selected, I believe that Boeing would be considered to have enough capital on their own to do most of the work as compared to the other two, add to that they are often viewed as "old space". So I don't think they would get full funding nor do they need it honestly.


But ofc that would only occur if Liberty were not getting anything, and it probably will.

[Norm Hartnett]

I am following kirghizstan's lead in the optimist field.

Full - Dragon, CST, Half - DC

I would rather see Full - Dragon, DC, Half - CTS or BO but I know that's not likely.

I think they pretty much have to give CTS a full as recognition of past performance and to bow to political pressure for "dependable" competitors. I can't see them not giving Dragon a full because anything else would be wide open to strident criticism.
If they give Liberty anything it would also leave them open to strident criticism for buckling under political pressure although I can't rule it out.
Which pretty much leaves DC with the partial.

[marsavian]

Full - Dragon, because of the obvious. Basic capsule and rocket already working. Also pleases NewSpace crowd which includes the President's advisers.

Full - Liberty, because Ares I clone pleases ASAP due to theoretical safety and synergies of both rocket and capsule to SLS/MPCV appeal to NASA. Also pleases Congressional supporters and OldSpace crowd.

Partial - Dream Chaser as it has the most commercial potential after development, i.e. Space Tourism.

Out of Luck - CST-100 loses out to an Orion derivative again but Boeing don't mind, they have SLS .

[savuporo]

Full - CST, Liberty; Half - DC

why ? cynicism, or realism

[Rocket Science]

Went with a less obvious combo…

Full - CST, DC; Half – Dragon

Two vehicles on a reliable Atlas V and Dragon I/2 ways developed as cargo vehicle on proven (so far Falcon 9)

Sorry ATK you’ve got SLS… (be ready for a fight)

[strangequark]

Full CST, Liberty. Half to DC.

SpaceX has cargo missions, and rumors has been floating around that they were ready to drop out entirely.

ATK has put together a case that NASA finds compelling. Ares I was "their" launch vehicle, the failure modes and LOC numbers look really good on paper (or electron), there is at least the appearance of flight heritage, and Promontory is dying.

Boeing has a detailed, conservative proposal, and NASA has a very comfortable relationship with them from Shuttle and SLS.

Sierra Nevada has shown some really nice progress, and having a full-up flight test article doesn't hurt them. However, they are young, and the design has a lot of novelties (hybrid propulsion, all composite lifting body, no-heritage RCS).

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

One of the primary evaluation criterias was business case and the operational costs (remember this includes the LV costs as well). In this Dragon is number one where DC and BO is next and CST-100 and ATK somewhere vying for last place. I believe ATK would actually be the last place guy in this list.

Then there is technical merit and safety. Here it is the technical safety margins not the historical flight record that is being evaluated for both LV and spacecraft. In safety margins F9 actually beats Atlas V but does not have a long history for which Atlas V's lower margins become acceptable due to its history. Liberty is at the bottom again here and has no history.

Then there is the spacecraft of which only Dragon has any sembelence of flight history put most of it's systems as flight proven but still not all, that makes Dragon the lowest risk for technical, schedule, cost and for safety. Boeing's solid engineering work of the past also puts then a leg up in this category while the remaining would be in order  SNC, ATK and BO. SNC is in its place because of all the successful risk reduction work they have accomplished on the DC. ATK is using the technical of LM's Orion work as well as their own work on the advance composite frame. BO is still an unknown for me to actually rate it as to where it stands relative to the others.

Edit OOPS Full Dragon DC, then Half CST-100

[Lars_J]

I expect/voted the following:

Full award: CST, Dragon
Half award: DC

I think the lack of ATK/Liberty will be the big shock (to many). Why?
 - The Liberty spacecraft is more recent than the others. They have a lot of catch-up to do, since their sub-contractor LM has to "rebuild" Orion around a new pressure vessel of a different material and shape.
 - And this leaves the Liberty LV without any customers, since none of the competitors want to use it.

[strangequark]

One of the primary evaluation criterias was business case and the operational costs (remember this includes the LV costs as well)...I believe ATK would actually be the last place guy in this list.

Then there is technical merit and safety...Liberty is at the bottom again here and has no history.

But...

Liberty is the safest, most reliable, most economical commercial space transportation service ever developed.

It says so right on the website.

[Norm Hartnett]

Hum, fully half of the 30 voters at this time expect ATK/Liberty to get something. That is scary.

[kirghizstan]

One of the primary evaluation criterias was business case and the operational costs (remember this includes the LV costs as well)...I believe ATK would actually be the last place guy in this list.

Then there is technical merit and safety...Liberty is at the bottom again here and has no history.

But...

Liberty is the safest, most reliable, most economical commercial space transportation service ever developed.

It says so right on the website.

i love how the picture on this site just shows the siting in a room.  makes it seem like they have yet to bend any metal yet even though the title on the page is "ATK Completes Final Milestone for Liberty under NASA's Commercial Crew Program"
http://www.libertyspace.us/news.html

[oiorionsbelt]

I voted other, tired of the way things are, so hoping for change.
I'd love to see, DC and Dragon full and Blue Origin 1/2

[edkyle99]

I don't know what to expect.  I think we'll all be surprised.

But I voted Liberty full, because it alone uses KSC and that's bigger than most realize.

NewSpace is going to win something, but I'm not expecting the something to be what everyone thinks it will be. 

When you look at which two companies, or consortiums, appear to have poured the most real effort and money into this, which two have made the most real progress, it seems clear that there are two standouts.

But I never guess right on these things.

 - Ed Kyle

[ugordan]

Full: CST, Liberty
Half: DC

Normally, I'd say full for CST and DC and a half for SpaceX, but the cynic in me says ATK pushes SpaceX out completely and DC to half and award.

Oh, and I also rarely guess right...

[peter-b]

I voted full CST, ATK, half DC, because cynicism.

[mmeijeri]

Normally, I'd say full for CST and DC and a half for SpaceX

Why only half for SpaceX?

[ugordan]

Normally, I'd say full for CST and DC and a half for SpaceX

Why only half for SpaceX?

Mainly because I think it'll be similar to CCDev 2 i.e. they think they can do a comparative amount of work as others for less money. Not that their proposal is inferior with respect to others.