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

[Jim]

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

No, not really.  X-37 was an afterthought

[BrightLight]

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

No, not really.  X-37 was an afterthought

There are a number of cost levels which trigger various levels of oversight.  Experiments under $1 million are not too difficult to get funded by DOD if there is a compelling reason to do the work. That being said, man-in-the-loop is not popular because of cost, Xcor has made a good argument for manned control of experiments with total costs under $5 million, these are doable if the Lynx-2 flies and there is some interest in fast turn-around short duration studies that might be precursors to orbital missions.  Anything over $50 million and you got major oversight, SNC would have to have a really good system for a DOD program - but why put men in orbit when you could build and launch an unmanned satellite for less.  I have seen no interest in manned missions for quite some time - remember to launch the DC will require well over $100 million, this would become a major program with the joint chiefs and congress and all the rest.

[Brian Copp]

Did anyone see this tweet from ATK? It's a photo of the "entire team" standing next to a Liberty rocket. It looks like they have a grand total of 15 people working on this thing. Or am I misinterpreting the tweet?

https://twitter.com/LibertyLaunch/status/231134819789193216/photo/1/large

[vulture4]

I cannot see DOD being interested in a manned system, but they are very interested in reusables. X-37 was originally a joint NASA-DOD program, and DOD is now investing in a reusable booster stage. NASA involvement could help DOD by adding HSF support and would do wonders for NASA by reducing cost.

But as long as SLS/Orion is absorbing all available NASA dollars and then some, NASA can't do anything; even CCCP is limping along.

[Lee Jay]

There are a number of cost levels which trigger various levels of oversight.  Experiments under $1 million are not too difficult to get funded by DOD if there is a compelling reason to do the work. That being said, man-in-the-loop is not popular because of cost, Xcor has made a good argument for manned control of experiments with total costs under $5 million, these are doable if the Lynx-2 flies and there is some interest in fast turn-around short duration studies that might be precursors to orbital missions.  Anything over $50 million and you got major oversight, SNC would have to have a really good system for a DOD program - but why put men in orbit when you could build and launch an unmanned satellite for less.  I have seen no interest in manned missions for quite some time - remember to launch the DC will require well over $100 million, this would become a major program with the joint chiefs and congress and all the rest.

Remember, DC can fly fully autonomously.

[joek]

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.

Some of this is fairly heavily front-loaded (see chart below).  E.g., according to plan, by this time next year Boeing will have consumed >70% of their total base period SAA payout.  That presumably allows some schedule acceleration if more money becomes avialable in outyears the future.

[Lurker Steve]

This is a 21 months program. Assuming the milestones are evenly distributed, I would expect more funding to be expended in the first 12 months than the last 9 months. But that's just simple math.

[joek]

This is a 21 months program. Assuming the milestones are evenly distributed, I would expect more funding to be expended in the first 12 months than the last 9 months. But that's just simple math.

True, but as the plot shows, it's significantly more (at least in the case of Boeing, and to a lesser extent SNC) than a flat funding/spending profile would suggest.

[joek]

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

Unlikely they would do so directly, at least now.  More likely by proxy in the near future.  Via  Space Politcs, Warm reactions (mostly) from politicians to CCiCap awards, statement from Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), Disappointed by Latest NASA Contract Decision:

I am disappointed and disheartened by the news that NASA has excluded ATK from the companies that were awarded the contract for the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative. ATK is a proven leader and their track record is beyond exemplary. It was my understanding that ATK’s Liberty proposal ranked very high in technical merit, and was the lowest-risk option. [...]  I will be joining with Senator Hatch, Senator Lee as well as the rest of the delegation to further investigate every detail of how NASA arrived at today’s disappointing decision.

Sigh.  Stay tuned.  In any case, probably best discussed in Space Politics, not in this thread.

[edkyle99]

It seems to me that ATK/EADS/Lockheed Martin lost this round for the same reason Liberty lost the first round.  Liberty is a good concept for a very capable rocket, and it hit political marks by using KSC and Orion "Lite", but it is too much rocket for NASA's application.  More rocket equals more money that NASA doesn't have.  ATK would have served NASA better by proposing fewer segments on its first stage, and a smaller upper stage.

I'm still wondering why Boeing (Old Space) is the overall winner.  To my eyes CST-100 is less capable than the other alternatives.  In addition, Boeing has stolen away with most of the SLS contract billions while not having yet delivered much of anything, really.  This company is seriously pulling some strings, and it has all happened quietly.

 - Ed Kyle

[simonbp]

I'm still wondering why Boeing (Old Space) is the overall winner.

Because SpaceX objectively should have been the absolute winner (the only vehicle that's actually flown for goodness sakes!), but that rubs a lot people at NASA the wrong way. And so, the Shuttle & ISS contractor gets a low-risk contract for a low-innovation vehicle. Plus, SNC is thrown a bone because of the ex-Shuttle lobby. IMHO, if Boeing had proposed a winged vehicle (e.g. X-37C), SNC would not have gotten a cent in either this round or the last.

[Lee Jay]

I'm still wondering why Boeing (Old Space) is the overall winner.

Because SpaceX objectively should have been the absolute winner (the only vehicle that's actually flown for goodness sakes!), but that rubs a lot people at NASA the wrong way.

The version of Dragon that SpaceX is proposing for carrying humans is different from the version that went to station, and the version of Falcon 9 that's proposed to carrying it is a different size, has different tanks and different engines than the version that transported cargo Dragon to orbit.  The version of Atlas V that Boeing plans to use has already flown.

[pathfinder_01]

I'm still wondering why Boeing (Old Space) is the overall winner.

Because SpaceX objectively should have been the absolute winner (the only vehicle that's actually flown for goodness sakes!), but that rubs a lot people at NASA the wrong way.

The version of Dragon that SpaceX is proposing for carrying humans is different from the version that went to station, and the version of Falcon 9 that's proposed to carrying it is a different size, has different tanks and different engines than the version that transported cargo Dragon to orbit.  The version of Atlas V that Boeing plans to use has already flown.

Compared to ATK that is a small change and they plan to use the new version of Falcon 9 before launching crew on it.  Falcicon 9 has COTS flights and commercail flights to test any changes.

[Go4TLI]

Maybe Boeing just had the best proposal. What I personally find annoying is everyone automatically assumes SpaceX is the golden child with everything while bashing ATK at every chance. And if it is anything other than that then there are accusations of "Old Space" being favored due to NASA politics and Congressional meddling

[SpaceRock]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I'm curious about the funds for manrating the Atlas... Since Boeing got the full award, are they going to be required to use those funds to help man-rate Atlas 5? If so, does this give an advantage to Sierra Nevada since they plan to use the Atlas also for dreamcatcher? (that would make a lot of sense since NASA had to compromise on the number of proposals they could fully fund... seems like an elegant solution in a way.)

[yg1968]

It seems to me that ATK/EADS/Lockheed Martin lost this round for the same reason Liberty lost the first round.  Liberty is a good concept for a very capable rocket, and it hit political marks by using KSC and Orion "Lite", but it is too much rocket for NASA's application.  More rocket equals more money that NASA doesn't have.  ATK would have served NASA better by proposing fewer segments on its first stage, and a smaller upper stage.

I'm still wondering why Boeing (Old Space) is the overall winner.  To my eyes CST-100 is less capable than the other alternatives.  In addition, Boeing has stolen away with most of the SLS contract billions while not having yet delivered much of anything, really.  This company is seriously pulling some strings, and it has all happened quietly.

 - Ed Kyle

For what it's worth, I personally prefer Boeing's proposal over ATK's because Boeing's proposal uses the Atlas V and their spacecraft is not related to the MPCV. I have nothing against Orion but I prefer a commercial proposal that does not depend on the continuing existence of governmental programs such as SLS, MPCV and Ariane.

Having said that I prefer DC over the CST-100. But I also realize that a lifting body has more risks than a capsule and that Boeing has more experience with spacecrafts than anybody else. Boeing's claim that their spacecraft is LV agnostic is marketing spin as the CST is unlikely to be used with anything other than the Atlas V.

[yg1968]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I'm curious about the funds for manrating the Atlas... Since Boeing got the full award, are they going to be required to use those funds to help man-rate Atlas 5? If so, does this give an advantage to Sierra Nevada since they plan to use the Atlas also for dreamcatcher? (that would make a lot of sense since NASA had to compromise on the number of proposals they could fully fund... seems like an elegant solution in a way.)

ULA envisions the man-rating capability as a kit with some common parts and some that are vehicle-specific. So Boeing's award would go toward the common parts and the CST-100-specific parts. SNC would still have to fund the DC-specific parts.

Just to add to what Jorge said. If you look at Boeing's milestones: there is a test of the dual engine centaur and a test of the EDS system. Those two tests should also benefit SNC.

[Robotbeat]

Boeing and SNC have the most proven launch vehicle. Between Boeing and SNC, Boeing has the less ambitious and more conventional (and thus less risky) technical approach while also having a lot more human spaceflight experience.

SpaceX doesn't have a launch vehicle that is quite as mature as SNC or Boeing, but as others have noted, they've already flown their basic stack quite recently under a similar program, which gives a very excellent idea of the institutional and technical risk level for this next step. They're also using a cheaper launch vehicle, which means they don't actually need as much money per launch. They will be flying an even more similar stack with another program, which further reduces the risk.

Really, I'm not sure NASA had much choice... I mean, the Boeing and SpaceX proposals were just so much ahead of the other ones as far as the major objective. DreamChaser is technically more risky (hybrids have never been used in this sort of application, and the lifting body aerodynamics are more complicated for both launch and reentry, along with the more complicated analysis to make sure the reusable TPS will survive in all conditions... but all these things can be overcome with hard work and good engineering...), with less institutional human spaceflight experience. But they have made significant progress and are using a pretty well proven launch vehicle, too.

ATK's launch vehicle has never flown. Neither has its capsule. Neither has ATK ever been the prime for an orbital rocket and neither has its sounding rocket done very well. ATK doesn't have much institutional human spaceflight experience except at the component level (compared to Boeing's extensive history in HSF and SpaceX's recent work with COTS and integrating with ISS). It was a hail mary proposal. Which is fine, and I hope them all the luck in their continued work with their new launch vehicle (whatever it's called) and their Ultraflex solar arrays are pretty awesome.

[GClark]

...Neither has ATK ever been the prime for an orbital rocket...

To me, this is the key part of it.  It's worth remembering that PlanetSpace lost the competition for unused COTS funds to Orbital (even though their proposal received a higher evaluation) precisely because they had never beeen a prime contractor.

That said, IMNSHO if ATKs' CCDEV2 proposal had contained a capsule from the start they would have been much more competitive/harder to shoot down in this round.  YMMV.

[mmeijeri]

ATK's launch vehicle has never flown. Neither has its capsule. Neither has ATK ever been the prime for an orbital rocket and neither has its sounding rocket done very well.

I think ATK could have been a very serious contender in the early days of COTS. Of course I think it was a serious mistake NASA didn't choose at least one EELV-based option. Falcon was a good choice in retrospect, since it has increased competition, but maybe ATK could have come up with something good too, especially if it had been based on the 4 seg Shuttle SRBs. Liquids would have been more attractive than ATK's solids, but at the time there was no way to know that SpaceX would succeed, while ATK had a lot of experience, so that might still have tipped the scales in their favour.

I'm glad things turned out the way they did, but I think there are plausible scenarios under which ATK would have been successful and useful. And even now I'm not sure Athena would be a bad thing if it came to that.