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

[HIP2BSQRE]

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.

I bet all the New Space fans amongst the Presidential Advisers are happy too, funnily enough they got exactly the result they wanted too . I wonder though if this is really the end of it, will ATK's fans in Congress now try to engineer a 180 and try to enlarge CCiCAP to also include ATK, all in the interest of maximizing full commercial competition of course . Will the SLS fans there go along with it if they do if it means it comes out of their budget ?  This may not exactly be over yet by any means ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-03/boeing-spacex-win-900-million-in-awards-for-spacecraft-1-.html

George Torres, a spokesman for Alliant Techsystems, said in an e-mail that the company was “disappointed” it wasn’t selected. It teamed up with Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and a unit of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. to develop a rocket called Liberty to compete for U.S. business.

Torres said “it’s too early” to say whether the company will seek to challenge the decision.


p.s. ATK's test flight date matched SpaceX and all their hardware already exists in one form or another so they may have good grounds for complaining here.

complaining is one thing--appealing is another...you not think NASA crossed all those check  boxes for nothing???  I think it will be very hard for them to appeal.....

[Jason1701]

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.

I bet all the New Space fans amongst the Presidential Advisers are happy too, funnily enough they got exactly the result they wanted too . I wonder though if this is really the end of it, will ATK's fans in Congress now try to engineer a 180 and try to enlarge CCiCAP to also include ATK, all in the interest of maximizing full commercial competition of course . Will the SLS fans there go along with it if they do if it means it comes out of their budget ?  This may not exactly be over yet by any means ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-03/boeing-spacex-win-900-million-in-awards-for-spacecraft-1-.html

George Torres, a spokesman for Alliant Techsystems, said in an e-mail that the company was “disappointed” it wasn’t selected. It teamed up with Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and a unit of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. to develop a rocket called Liberty to compete for U.S. business.

Torres said “it’s too early” to say whether the company will seek to challenge the decision.


p.s. ATK's test flight date matched SpaceX and all their hardware already exists in one form or another so they may have good grounds for complaining here.

complaining is one thing--appealing is another...you not think NASA crossed all those check  boxes for nothing???  I think it will be very hard for them to appeal.....

An appeal might backfire by making them seem sore losers, nullifying the effect of their ad blitz.

[pathfinder_01]

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.

I bet all the New Space fans amongst the Presidential Advisers are happy too, funnily enough they got exactly the result they wanted too . I wonder though if this is really the end of it, will ATK's fans in Congress now try to engineer a 180 and try to enlarge CCiCAP to also include ATK, all in the interest of maximizing full commercial competition of course . Will the SLS fans there go along with it if they do if it means it comes out of their budget ?  This may not exactly be over yet by any means ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-03/boeing-spacex-win-900-million-in-awards-for-spacecraft-1-.html

George Torres, a spokesman for Alliant Techsystems, said in an e-mail that the company was “disappointed” it wasn’t selected. It teamed up with Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and a unit of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. to develop a rocket called Liberty to compete for U.S. business.

Torres said “it’s too early” to say whether the company will seek to challenge the decision.


p.s. ATK's test flight date matched SpaceX and all their hardware already exists in one form or another so they may have good grounds for complaining here.

An engine, body, transmission, some seats, a steering column and tires lying on the floor does not make a car.  For instance Dragon, Dream chaser, and CST-100 have tested Abort engines and have selected their TPS.   CST and Dragon their Parachutes   Dreamchaser landings later this month or next. Dragon has flown into space.  Dragon, Dream chaser and CST-100 use an existing rocket. The liberty capsule has none of that going for it.

Liberty is not an existing rocket (in fact that alone adds much risk and not much reward).  ATK has much more risk of slip and much more risk of long slips than any of the three above.   If they sue(which is their right) they will be laughed out of court. 

[Prober]

Also, let's not forget that the money Boeing puts into human rating the Atlas V, will benefit SNC as well, since both use the same LV.

The item that most interested me for Atlas V was the dual engine Centaur test. I looked up the flight history and Atlas V has never flown a dual engined Centaur.

You and me both....this is very interesting.

[rmencos]

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.

I bet all the New Space fans amongst the Presidential Advisers are happy too, funnily enough they got exactly the result they wanted too . I wonder though if this is really the end of it, will ATK's fans in Congress now try to engineer a 180 and try to enlarge CCiCAP to also include ATK, all in the interest of maximizing full commercial competition of course . Will the SLS fans there go along with it if they do if it means it comes out of their budget ?  This may not exactly be over yet by any means ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-03/boeing-spacex-win-900-million-in-awards-for-spacecraft-1-.html

George Torres, a spokesman for Alliant Techsystems, said in an e-mail that the company was “disappointed” it wasn’t selected. It teamed up with Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and a unit of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. to develop a rocket called Liberty to compete for U.S. business.

Torres said “it’s too early” to say whether the company will seek to challenge the decision.


p.s. ATK's test flight date matched SpaceX and all their hardware already exists in one form or another so they may have good grounds for complaining here.

An engine, body, transmission, some seats, a steering column and tires lying on the floor does not make a car.  For instance Dragon, Dream chaser, and CST-100 have tested Abort engines and have selected their TPS.   CST and Dragon their Parachutes   Dreamchaser landings later this month or next. Dragon has flown into space.  Dragon, Dream chaser and CST-100 use an existing rocket. The liberty capsule has none of that going for it.

Liberty is not an existing rocket (in fact that alone adds much risk and not much reward).  ATK has much more risk of slip and much more risk of long slips than any of the three above.   If they sue(which is their right) they will be laughed out of court. 

If ATK files a protest it will have less to do with the merits of their proposal and more to do with the fairness of NASA's review per its solicitation.  They have 10 days . . . a little more if they really want to go all out in a federal court.  Worst case scenario, they manage to get an injunction and CCICAP comes to a screeching halt - at least for a little while.

[marsavian]

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.

I bet all the New Space fans amongst the Presidential Advisers are happy too, funnily enough they got exactly the result they wanted too . I wonder though if this is really the end of it, will ATK's fans in Congress now try to engineer a 180 and try to enlarge CCiCAP to also include ATK, all in the interest of maximizing full commercial competition of course . Will the SLS fans there go along with it if they do if it means it comes out of their budget ?  This may not exactly be over yet by any means ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-03/boeing-spacex-win-900-million-in-awards-for-spacecraft-1-.html

George Torres, a spokesman for Alliant Techsystems, said in an e-mail that the company was “disappointed” it wasn’t selected. It teamed up with Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and a unit of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. to develop a rocket called Liberty to compete for U.S. business.

Torres said “it’s too early” to say whether the company will seek to challenge the decision.


p.s. ATK's test flight date matched SpaceX and all their hardware already exists in one form or another so they may have good grounds for complaining here.

An engine, body, transmission, some seats, a steering column and tires lying on the floor does not make a car.  For instance Dragon, Dream chaser, and CST-100 have tested Abort engines and have selected their TPS.   CST and Dragon their Parachutes   Dreamchaser landings later this month or next. Dragon has flown into space.  Dragon, Dream chaser and CST-100 use an existing rocket. The liberty capsule has none of that going for it.

Liberty is not an existing rocket (in fact that alone adds much risk and not much reward).  ATK has much more risk of slip and much more risk of long slips than any of the three above.   If they sue(which is their right) they will be laughed out of court. 

Liberty has ATK, Lockheed Martin and Astrium behind it all basically integrating and adapting either existing or soon to exist hardware and software, the risks of failure or slippage are low and the rocket concept has already been demonstrated with Ares I-X. NASA was also not that concerned about new rocket risk when it deliberately chose SpaceX and Orbital over lower risk COTS proposals which used existing Atlas/Delta rockets. Seems the rules of the game change on the whims of whoever the current political masters are.

[Jason1701]

Liberty has ATK, Lockheed Martin and Astrium behind it all basically integrating and adapting either existing or soon to exist hardware and software, the risks of failure or slippage are low and the rocket concept has already been demonstrated with Ares I-X. NASA was also not that concerned about new rocket risk when it deliberately chose SpaceX and Orbital over lower risk COTS proposals which used existing Atlas/Delta rockets. Seems the rules of the game change on the whims of whoever the current political masters are.

The other companies you mentioned are not the prime contractor. This will be ATK's first time as a launch vehicle prime (if you don't count ALV). Not so for ULA and SpaceX. Ares 1-X is not relevant as none of the hardware would be the same for Liberty. The Atlas/Delta COTS proposal rejections were partly due to Griffin's not wanting to strengthen EELV with respect to Ares.

[marsavian]

Yes ATK is the nominal prime but you don't think it will listen to say LM/Astrium's greater experience when it has to ? In reality ATK would only be contributing the SRB and the composite capsule, LM and Astrium would be doing the serious work of outfitting the capsule and integrating and controlling the rocket.

[pathfinder_01]

Yes ATK is the nominal prime but you don't think it will listen to say LM/Astrium's greater experience when it has to ? In reality ATK would only be contributing the SRB and the composite capsule, LM and Astrium would be doing the serious work of outfitting the capsule and integrating and controlling the rocket.

Not really. In a Contractor, sub contractor relationship it is the Contractor who generally tells the subs what to do. LM would put whatever ATK wanted in the capsule without regard to how it impacts the whole system (capsule and launcher). They could complain or inform but that would be the limits of it.

It is like the engine, transmission, body, and tires of a car. All are designed to work together. Put the wrong tires on your car and you can damage the transmission or differential.  The engine must fit in the body, ect. Front wheel drive vs. Rear wheel drive makes a huge differece to the body of the car.

In the case of Ares-1X that was a shuttle SRB lifting a structural artifact for second stage and Orion not to mention a control system from Atlas.  The booster for SLS is five segments with a different propellant type. While it has been ground tested and should work in flights it still has not.  The second stage would need some reentering as well(i.e. frankly I am not sure if they had a second stage as all I had heard is they planned to use the Vulcain engine(which actually is a first stage engine…sounds familiar). You really can’t mitch and match parts, the system must work as a whole.  ULA and Space X have systems that work as a whole. ATK would be attempting to get to that stage.

[simonbp]

Although MMOD density *is* a function of altitude (more at higher altitudes), I was actually referring to attitude, not altitude. i.e. whether X-37 was flying tail-forward to minimize cross-sectional area exposed to the velocity vector. We don't have (at least publicly) data on the attitudes that X-37 flew.

The PR images for DC show it docked tail-first on the same port as Shuttle used, which would make it tail-prograde, right? (And shielded by the mass of the station).

[marsavian]

On a more higher level I think that the Administration got it right by attempting to originally fund all four viable proposals fully as whoever missed out would have felt unhappy and will probably cause some sort of trouble down the line. Congress was shortsighted with the 2.5 down select. All 4 proposals should be fully funded until they either succeed or fail.

SpaceX obviously deserved theirs for their fine COTS performance and future commercial plans. Boeing's vehicle will be solid and have LV agnostic flexibility. Dream Chaser has the potential to open up the Orbital Tourism market. Liberty is probably the safest (with a sufficiently powerful enough MLAS to cope for any SRB mishap) and has the most payload capability. All four if developed to fruition would have found markets in combination with NASA crew functions to survive and eventually thrive.

SLS is going to be a multi-generational inspirational exploratory system whose success or failure won't live or die whether CCiCAP gets a few hundred million more now especially as SLS and its payloads will cost hundreds of billions over this coming century. It is important though to give the nascent commercial space industry the best possible impetus and start in life before NASA fully turns its attention to BEO as ultimately this is the industry that will advance mankind beyond Earth not NASA who will just blaze the trail open for them.

Congress should think again and find the money to give SNC an extra ~$200m and ATK ~$400m and take it out of SLS's hide if necessary, it will still live on in all its future glory regardless. We have waited this long for Saturn/Apollo's successor we can wait a little longer to help a more immediate great cause as long as we know SLS is coming eventually.

[Rocket Science]

Someone mentioned DC's long term exposure of thermal protection system as being a constraint on a life boat role. No orbiter was lost to TPS damage from 2 weeks max? exposure sustained in space. Are there ""cheap"" ways to shield the DC TPS so that it can qualify without caveat for this role?

The X-37 stayed up for 15 months and the TPS performed fine as far as we know...

Since X-37 is a free-flyer, it can fly in attitudes that minimize exposure to MMOD. DC won't have control over its attitude once docked to ISS.

Interesting point Jorge… Do we have any data on the periods spent on respective orbits for both X-37 test flights so far?

Although MMOD density *is* a function of altitude (more at higher altitudes), I was actually referring to attitude, not altitude. i.e. whether X-37 was flying tail-forward to minimize cross-sectional area exposed to the velocity vector. We don't have (at least publicly) data on the attitudes that X-37 flew.

Thanks Jorge, this is where the CST-100 and Dragon have an advantage with their protected heat shields with their trunks or service modules.
 
Nose forward belly-up would not be an ideal location for long stays at station. Like you mentioned to Simon, relocation would need to be considered. Perhaps some of the ops that were reviewed for the X-38/CRV are in order then as a lifeboat function.

[Prober]

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.

I bet all the New Space fans amongst the Presidential Advisers are happy too, funnily enough they got exactly the result they wanted too . I wonder though if this is really the end of it, will ATK's fans in Congress now try to engineer a 180 and try to enlarge CCiCAP to also include ATK, all in the interest of maximizing full commercial competition of course . Will the SLS fans there go along with it if they do if it means it comes out of their budget ?  This may not exactly be over yet by any means ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-03/boeing-spacex-win-900-million-in-awards-for-spacecraft-1-.html

George Torres, a spokesman for Alliant Techsystems, said in an e-mail that the company was “disappointed” it wasn’t selected. It teamed up with Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and a unit of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. to develop a rocket called Liberty to compete for U.S. business.

Torres said “it’s too early” to say whether the company will seek to challenge the decision.


p.s. ATK's test flight date matched SpaceX and all their hardware already exists in one form or another so they may have good grounds for complaining here.

Huh?  ATK would be foolish to put a lawsuit out unless they have some decent facts to deal with.

They could have a case to make if Gerstenmaier selected them, (and ATK could prove it) and for Political reasons it was over ridden.  That might even be breaking the "spirit of the law" written by congress.

[ugordan]

I expect to see videos of actual Dragon hardware landing on a pad in Texas sometime in the next 24 months.

Once again, they are not proposing precision landings on a pad solely using SuperDracos. Page 36 of their SAA: "Eight abort engines provide redundancy and are intended to work in concert with parachutes to allow soft ground landings"

Had they have proposed a solely propulsive landing for CCiCAP, their proposal would have been laughed off at NASA and SpaceX knows it.

[Jim]

All 4 proposals should be fully funded until they either succeed or fail.


Congress should think again and find the money to give SNC an extra ~$200m and ATK ~$400m and take it out of SLS's hide if necessary, it will still live on in all its future glory regardless. We have waited this long for Saturn/Apollo's successor we can wait a little longer to help a more immediate great cause as long as we know SLS is coming eventually.

No.
a.  there is no need to waste money on 4th and especially ATK's proposal
b.  SLS still may go away

[jongoff]

An engine, body, transmission, some seats, a steering column and tires lying on the floor does not make a car.  For instance Dragon, Dream chaser, and CST-100 have tested Abort engines and have selected their TPS.   CST and Dragon their Parachutes   Dreamchaser landings later this month or next. Dragon has flown into space.  Dragon, Dream chaser and CST-100 use an existing rocket. The liberty capsule has none of that going for it.

Liberty is not an existing rocket (in fact that alone adds much risk and not much reward).  ATK has much more risk of slip and much more risk of long slips than any of the three above.   If they sue(which is their right) they will be laughed out of court. 

As I had mentioned before, I think that if they had had as good of a story put together for CCDEV-2, they might have stood a chance. But making yet another launcher as well as a capsule probably put them at a disadvantage. Even without getting to your point about the difference between some disparate parts and a functioning car.

~Jon

[jongoff]

Liberty has ATK, Lockheed Martin and Astrium behind it all basically integrating and adapting either existing or soon to exist hardware and software, the risks of failure or slippage are low and the rocket concept has already been demonstrated with Ares I-X. NASA was also not that concerned about new rocket risk when it deliberately chose SpaceX and Orbital over lower risk COTS proposals which used existing Atlas/Delta rockets. Seems the rules of the game change on the whims of whoever the current political masters are.

Whew that was a good one marsavian, I need a good laugh in the mor....oh crap you were actually serious? Even in the best of cases adapting hardware from completely different systems for roles they were not originally meant to play has a lot more schedule and cost risk than the proponent is willing to admit to up front...

And yes, SpaceX and OSC were selected for COTS instead of vehicles flying on existing LVs such as Atlas/Delta. As many pointed out at the time, this was likely Mike Griffin's thumbs on the scales to prevent something flying on Atlas making Ares-I look bad, while also to simultaneously find a replacement for the then-soon-to-be-retired Delta II. I actually think that they took on more risk than they should've by funding both SpaceX and OSC to build new launchers plus new capsules, and would've been better off picking at most one of the "first we build a new rocket" crowd, and then using the savings from not funding a rocket to fund two other COTS teams. My guess is COTS would be all the way done by now if they had done so.

~Jon

[HIP2BSQRE]

Liberty has ATK, Lockheed Martin and Astrium behind it all basically integrating and adapting either existing or soon to exist hardware and software, the risks of failure or slippage are low and the rocket concept has already been demonstrated with Ares I-X. NASA was also not that concerned about new rocket risk when it deliberately chose SpaceX and Orbital over lower risk COTS proposals which used existing Atlas/Delta rockets. Seems the rules of the game change on the whims of whoever the current political masters are.

Whew that was a good one marsavian, I need a good laugh in the mor....oh crap you were actually serious? Even in the best of cases adapting hardware from completely different systems for roles they were not originally meant to play has a lot more schedule and cost risk than the proponent is willing to admit to up front...

And yes, SpaceX and OSC were selected for COTS instead of vehicles flying on existing LVs such as Atlas/Delta. As many pointed out at the time, this was likely Mike Griffin's thumbs on the scales to prevent something flying on Atlas making Ares-I look bad, while also to simultaneously find a replacement for the then-soon-to-be-retired Delta II. I actually think that they took on more risk than they should've by funding both SpaceX and OSC to build new launchers plus new capsules, and would've been better off picking at most one of the "first we build a new rocket" crowd, and then using the savings from not funding a rocket to fund two other COTS teams. My guess is COTS would be all the way done by now if they had done so.

~Jon

I have to agree with Jon....with Atlas/Delta flying cargo and billion dollar satellites ofr DOD/NRO, etc--why build Ares I?  There would be very little need for it.  Remember the Orion test is flying on a Delta Heavy.  If the spacecraft can fly on an existing launcher why would you need to build another rocket?  I do remember for COTS there were alot of proposals using existing rockets-and we know what happened to all those proposals.  The US has rockets (Delta/Atlas/Falcon) we need a spacecraft.

[HIP2BSQRE]

All 4 proposals should be fully funded until they either succeed or fail.


Congress should think again and find the money to give SNC an extra ~$200m and ATK ~$400m and take it out of SLS's hide if necessary, it will still live on in all its future glory regardless. We have waited this long for Saturn/Apollo's successor we can wait a little longer to help a more immediate great cause as long as we know SLS is coming eventually.

No.
a.  there is no need to waste money on 4th and especially ATK's proposal
b.  SLS still may go away

If NASA had another $200-$400 million extra dollars I think NASA should use the money to try and push the schedule more to the left and do some of the optional milestones from Boeing and SpaceX.  There is only so much time that money can buy back.

[Star One]

Most destination discussion for these 3 has been ISS, some commercial destination (Bigelow etc..) and other later possible NASA destinations.

I can't help feeling that after "progress" the Air Force will be very interested in these craft.   When one considers their little X-demo craft flitting about SNC's craft might interest them more. 

If the Air Force is interested one could well imagine more funds available for development than the NASA awards imply.  Some of these funds might well be black and therefore lead to surprise development achievements not expected when one looks at the published funding.

After their history with the X37 & picking that up off of NASA you raise an interesting point that maybe they would be interested in putting up the extra money for DC.