The CCiCAP Award (PRE- and Post-AWARD DISCUSSION) Thread

[Robotbeat]

The idea is to close the gap fastest and with redundant access as the primary goal. The dual award to Boeing and SpaceX does that perfectly. The award to SNC helps the primary goal as well since it is the next best option as far as already built hardware.

I don't understand this idea of giving SpaceX a substandard amount of funding just because they're ahead (as far as I can tell, it was opponents of SpaceX who invented that idea and somehow convinced others that it made sense). The whole point is to close the gap and do so with redundancy and with low cost! A full award to SpaceX and Boeing does that. A half award to SNC reduces the risk further (also uses an existing vehicle like CST-100), while also increasing diversity a bit.

[Lars_J]

Yeah, the whole idea of "giving SpaceX less because they are ahead" just seems so bizarre.

The main point of the commercial crew program is to close the gap and provide domestic access to ISS as soon as possible. Anything else (such as creating a commercial space industry) is secondary and a bonus.

I am very happy with the CCiCAP awards.

[mmeijeri]

The main point of the commercial crew program is to close the gap and provide domestic access to ISS as soon as possible. Anything else (such as creating a commercial space industry) is secondary and a bonus.

Well said.

[yg1968]

Sure, they want to get the most bang for their buck, but do they want to be able to launch?

Why does everyone think Boeing is going to cover all the Atlas HR costs and SNC is going to get a free ride?

Because SNC is only a partial award and NASA and SNC want to get the most bang for their buck. In any event, regardless of what people think, this is essentially what is going to happen for the CCiCap base period, if you look at each company's milestones:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672130main_CCiCap%20Announcement.pdf

Boeing has the dual centaur test, etc.

In any event, DC could also get a free ride from Falcon 9 if they decided to switch.

Gerst explianed that DC's milestones relate mostly to retiring the risks related to its specific design (such as wind tunnel and abort system tests). It is likely that most milestones related to human rating the Atlas V for DC have been pushed to the optional milestones phase. DC needs to prove that it's design is not any riskier than a capsule. But they can only do that if they make progress on their spacecraft.

[rmencos]

The main point of the commercial crew program is to close the gap and provide domestic access to ISS as soon as possible. Anything else (such as creating a commercial space industry) is secondary and a bonus.

Well said.

In the end, SpaceX and Boeing got what they needed.  It's a great day for human spaceflight. 2015 is not too far off in the future.

[yg1968]

The main point of the commercial crew program is to close the gap and provide domestic access to ISS as soon as possible. Anything else (such as creating a commercial space industry) is secondary and a bonus.

Well said.

The agreement with Wolf says quick, safe and affordable access to the ISS. So having competition helps with the affordable part of the equation. It can also help with the timeline as it pushes each competitors to push to be the first ones to succeed. Competition can also help with safety as unsafe spacecrafts are likely to be weeded out by competition. So having competition is more than just a bonus.

[Lobo]

All along I thought as many here did that Being and SpaceX were the front runners. When it was decided that three would be funded, two full and one partial I knew then ATK and Sierra Nevada were going to battle it out for the partial funding. ATK made a valiant run on all fronts. The question remains, will they continue on?

Well, if Block 1B is chosen, sounds like there's a pretty good chance NASA will buy the full 10 pairs of 5-seg boosters from ATK.  Also, I think there's some DoD contract in the works for ATK for their ICBM's.  So perhaps ATK would use the profits form those contracts to proceed with Liberty on their own as they've claimed they would, and compete in the commercial launch market.  Will be interesting to see.  Not sure what would happen to the Liberty capsule though, if there's no need for it to go to the ISS.    Liberty may progress just as a commercial launch system for payloads.

People keep forgetting about Athena III. Combine Liberty and Athena III and you get a full launch system capable of fitting a wide variety of needs.

Good point.

[mmeijeri]

So having competition is more than just a bonus.

Agreed, but having commercially viable manned space launch is a bonus.

[Robotbeat]

So having competition is more than just a bonus.

Agreed, but having commercially viable manned space launch is a bonus.

Sort of, but really it's more than that... If it weren't commercially viable at all, that decreases the chance that multiple options will remain available, since NASA can't really afford to keep more than two full providers to provide service by itself. And with further budget cuts, commercial viability may be an absolute requirement for solution viability.

[Lobo]

A source told me the WSJ has it wrong. Boeing and Sierra Nevada get full funding and SpaceX 1/2.

If true, this would really make more "overall" sense.  SpaceX is already getting the cargo contract, and looks like they will have a good commercial launch business going in the near future.  They'll be "ok" with a 1/2 award, and still put out a viable crew launcher that Elon will then have available for whatever else he wants to start doing with it.

Boeing would probably be ok on a 1/2 award too, but I think SNC really needs the full award to get DC flying and viable.  At elast quickly.

We already know that DC got the partial award.

Yes, but I hadn't got to that part of this huge thread when I wrote this post, obviously...

[yg1968]

So having competition is more than just a bonus.

Agreed, but having commercially viable manned space launch is a bonus.

OK. I agree then. I misunderstood what you meant.

[rcoppola]

These were exactly the correct funding choices.

I am curious however about how SpaceX envisions crew access at pad. To my knowledge, they have never published what such a structure would look like.

I also understand the confusion with regards to SpaceX propulsive landing.
It is listed quite explicitly in their Press Release. The context seems to be that they will go straight to propulsive landings. (With or without parachute assistance isn't clear)

Which makes me wonder if they intend, or if it would be worth it to extend that capability to the cargo version of Dragon. 

[mmeijeri]

Sort of, but really it's more than that... If it weren't commercially viable at all, that decreases the chance that multiple options will remain available, since NASA can't really afford to keep more than two full providers to provide service by itself. And with further budget cuts, commercial viability may be an absolute requirement for solution viability.

Good point, but anything beyond that is a bonus. For me personally that bonus is actually more important, but it is good to realise that no NASA manned spaceflight goals are being compromised for dreams of commercial manned spaceflight.

[Robotbeat]

Sort of, but really it's more than that... If it weren't commercially viable at all, that decreases the chance that multiple options will remain available, since NASA can't really afford to keep more than two full providers to provide service by itself. And with further budget cuts, commercial viability may be an absolute requirement for solution viability.

Good point, but anything beyond that is a bonus. For me personally that bonus is actually more important, but it is good to realise that no NASA manned spaceflight goals are being compromised for dreams of commercial manned spaceflight.

Agreed. To be honest, for those who say SpaceX shouldn't have been picked because they "already were ahead," that can only be justified if timely, redundant, affordable, domestic crewed access to ISS was not the primary goal. And same thing for Boeing, too, actually.

What they picked was a very good choice to minimize what's left of the gap.

[rcoppola]

I wonder what Bigelow thinks about this. I'm thinking this will bring some much needed transparency to his plans as well.

And frankly, this is great news for a number of countries, entities, that can not afford or have the expertise to develop their own capabilities. NASA will not be able to sustain 3 launch providers. But if each provider has the ability to sell these services on the market to whomever can afford them, then this does indeed become a commercial endeavor and should only lead to lowers costs for NASA in the future.

Nobody is anywhere near having multiple commercial providers that are not locked inside a government bureaucracy.

A great day frankly on so very many levels. it's all really going to happen. Just tremendous!

[jongoff]

I wonder what Bigelow thinks about this. I'm thinking this will bring some much needed transparency to his plans as well.

And frankly, this is great news for a number of countries, entities, that can not afford or have the expertise to develop their own capabilities. NASA will not be able to sustain 3 launch providers. But if each provider has the ability to sell these services on the market to whomever can afford them, then this does indeed become a commercial endeavor and should only lead to lowers costs for NASA in the future.

Nobody is anywhere near having multiple commercial providers that are not locked inside a government bureaucracy.

A great day frankly on so very many levels. it's all really going to happen. Just tremendous!

I was thinking about how this announcement would impact Bigelow as well. With the amount of money committed, it'll be interesting to see if Bigelow can ramp up his pace to keep up with SpaceX, Boeing, and SNC.

It'll also be interesting to see if he gets any competition now that the manned access availability story is starting to get clearer. I'd love to see a situation where there starts to be real competition for destinations not just launchers/delivery vehicles.

~Jon

[Lurker Steve]

Why does everyone think Boeing is going to cover all the Atlas HR costs and SNC is going to get a free ride?

Probably because Boeing got enough money to fly first and SNC is using the same launch contractor. The real cost breakdown, though, will be up to ULA.

Both provider's mileposts seem to include integration and testing with the launch vehicle. From a ULA pov it makes a lot of sense to facilitate this with their own money, IMO.

ULA sort of lucks out, here, since they aren't contractually obligated to provide a bunch of "skin in the game" like the other folks. They may still choose to do so, but this should be profitable for them.

Boeing will likely pay more money to ULA simply because Boeing is likely to get further along. ULA may choose to facilitate either or both with their own money, but I think money will change hands, here.

We know that ULA doesn't do anything for free. Boeing needs a Crew Access Tower for Atlas, so they will pay for that development. I suppose it's possible ULA could build a CST-100 specific CAT that won't work for DreamChaser, or they could build a CAT that works with both vehicles, and have both companies pay for the development. How much of the launch infrastructure would NOT be common between the 2 vehicles ?

[david1971]

A great day frankly on so very many levels. it's all really going to happen. Just tremendous!

And tomorrow we have a Mars landing (well, tomorrow for those of us in certain time zones).

Yeah, there's a big smile on my face that hopefully won't go away for a while.

[gladiator1332]

More than happy with the awards. They picked the three with the best chance of getting to the ISS soon.

I do really hope ATK continues their efforts, as we can never have enough options to service the ISS.

[rcoppola]

I wonder what Bigelow thinks about this. I'm thinking this will bring some much needed transparency to his plans as well.

And frankly, this is great news for a number of countries, entities, that can not afford or have the expertise to develop their own capabilities. NASA will not be able to sustain 3 launch providers. But if each provider has the ability to sell these services on the market to whomever can afford them, then this does indeed become a commercial endeavor and should only lead to lowers costs for NASA in the future.

Nobody is anywhere near having multiple commercial providers that are not locked inside a government bureaucracy.

A great day frankly on so very many levels. it's all really going to happen. Just tremendous!

I was thinking about how this announcement would impact Bigelow as well. With the amount of money committed, it'll be interesting to see if Bigelow can ramp up his pace to keep up with SpaceX, Boeing, and SNC.

It'll also be interesting to see if he gets any competition now that the manned access availability story is starting to get clearer. I'd love to see a situation where there starts to be real competition for destinations not just launchers/delivery vehicles.

~Jon

That is such a great point about destinations.