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

[mmeijeri]

Heh, silly me, ATK was actually part of the failed Kistler team...

[pippin]

Just to nitpick: Boeing and SNC do NOT use an existing launch vehicle, they use a to-be-developed variant of an existing LV. They may be far ahead of ATK but with SpaceX I wouldn't be so sure anymore, may be level.
SpaceX also now has operational experience with flying their capsule to ISS which not a small achievement and something neither Boeing nor SNC have.
ATK has none of this.

[beancounter]

Heh, silly me, ATK was actually part of the failed Kistler team...

Yes and they missed a funding milestone which resulted in them wiping out.  Seems to me that if ATK had been serious about competing then that was the time to do it.  Not recently with, let's face it, a rather hotch potch of a system.

[mmeijeri]

Yes and they missed a funding milestone which resulted in them wiping out.  Seems to me that if ATK had been serious about competing then that was the time to do it.  Not recently with, let's face it, a rather hotch potch of a system.

They did participate in the PlanetSpace Athena III proposal, after Kistler failed. If that had been their initial proposal...

[beancounter]

Just to nitpick: Boeing and SNC do NOT use an existing launch vehicle, they use a to-be-developed variant of an existing LV. They may be far ahead of ATK but with SpaceX I wouldn't be so sure anymore, may be level.
SpaceX also now has operational experience with flying their capsule to ISS which not a small achievement and something neither Boeing nor SNC have.
ATK has none of this.

Slight nitpick as well.  SpaceX intend to move to F9 v1.1 (Merlin 1D, stretch tanks) which also is a yet to be developed varient on the current F9.  Just so we're clear.

[beancounter]

Yes and they missed a funding milestone which resulted in them wiping out.  Seems to me that if ATK had been serious about competing then that was the time to do it.  Not recently with, let's face it, a rather hotch potch of a system.

They did participate in the PlanetSpace Athena III proposal, after Kistler failed. If that had been their initial proposal...

Ah point, forgotten about that one.

[clongton]

Personally, even though I am a SpaceX fan, I would have preferred to see the awards between SpaceX and Sierra Nevada reversed. SpaceX has the cargo delivery contract and that will be a huge money-maker for them. Couple that with over $200 million to complete the spacecraft transition from cargo to crew and SpaceX would have been just fine. The additional $200 million would have taken Dream Chaser all the way to the ISS.

With an agreeing nod to Chris’s admonition on tone, I concur with Ron’s opinion on ATK. I saw their late entry as a spoiler effort, one depending not on a superior entry but on their DC influence and SLS connection to take an award away from someone else that had actually earned it the hard way. IMO, it was an effort to sway the SLS advanced booster down-select to keep the 5-segment solid on the SLS after the original contract expired (see the investigation threat from Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) on previous page). That's why, IMO, they didn't make the vehicle smaller, using a 4-segment solid, which would have worked just fine. I don’t say that with malice; it was a solid business approach (one which I would have done myself) and their proposal did have enough merit to be taken seriously but to me it was a slot in a different program that they hadn’t earned. The other three had all put their money where their mouth was with no guarantee of any return at all. They had all taken a leap of faith in the commercial crew business; while ATK waited to let them break the ground for them, let them take the risk for them. Like I said, I don’t say that with malice; it’s just the way I saw their entire entry effort. That’s why I am pleased they did not win this round; I don’t think they earned a spot, while all the other three did, with their own blood, sweat and tears. I do wish them luck if they choose to continue development. If all this works, there will be a place for them in the commercial launch and crew business. By then they will have paid their dues and I would be more agreeable to their efforts.

Edit: grammer

[DGH]

I'm still wondering why Boeing (Old Space) is the overall winner.  To my eyes CST-100 is less capable than the other alternatives.  - Ed Kyle

I think NASA is getting the most for the money with the CST-100.
Besides manned capability NASA gets:
1)   CST-100 for cargo delivery
2)   Atlas V man rated.
3)   Duel engine centaur goes into production.
4)   Duel engine centaur gets man rated.
5)   The service module which is nearly a perfect fit for a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module.
6)   The service module can be adapted for Orion.
7)   The service module can be adapted for delivering new station modules.

When just cargo delivery aka COTS is included SpaceX received more then Boeing.

IMO people underestimate the potential of the service module on CST-100
The service module especially Number 6 above could save NASA a lot of money.

[mmeijeri]

3)   Duel engine centaur goes into production.

In the Atlas V User's Guide the SEC is described as having "One Electromechanically Actuated 51-cm Columbium Fixed Nozzle" and the DEC as "Two Hydraulically Actuated 51-cm Columbium Extendible Nozzles" (emphasis added). That sounds as if the plan was to use the old DEC systems, not to upgrade them. Is that still the plan for commercial crew?

[Rocket Science]

Personally, even though I am a SpaceX fan, I would have preferred to see the awards between SpaceX and Sierra Nevada reversed. SpaceX has the cargo delivery contract and that will be a huge money-maker for them. Couple that with over $200 million to complete the spacecraft transition from cargo to crew and SpaceX would have been just fine. The additional $200 million would have taken Dream Chaser all the way to the ISS.

With an agreeing nod to Chris’s admonition on tone, I concur with Ron’s opinion on ATK. I saw their late entry as a spoiler effort, one depending not on a superior entry but on their DC influence and SLS connection to take an award away from someone else that had actually earned it the hard way. IMO, it was an effort to sway the SLS advanced booster down-select to keep the 5-segment solid on the SLS after the original contract expired (see the investigation threat from Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) on previous page). That's why, IMO, they didn't make the vehicle smaller, using a 4-segment solid, which would have worked just fine. I don’t say that with malice; it was a solid business approach (one which I would have done myself) and their proposal did have enough merit to be taken seriously but to me it was a slot in a different program that they hadn’t earned. The other three had all put their money where their mouth was with no guarantee of any return at all. They had all taken a leap of faith in the commercial crew business; while ATK waited to let them break the ground for them, let them take the risk for them. Like I said, I don’t say that with malice; it’s just the way I saw their entire entry effort. That’s why I am pleased they did not win this round; I don’t think they earned a spot, while all the other three did, with their own blood, sweat and tears. I do wish them luck if they choose to continue development. If all this works, there will be a place for them in the commercial launch and crew business. By then they will have paid their dues and I would be more agreeable to their efforts.

Edit: grammer

I agree with you Chuck and that’s how I voted in the poll, but I guess I could live with this. Like I mentioned before, get ready for the fireworks if ATK loses (perhaps there is a business opportunity there for them  Looks like the pre-show is already beginning in Utah with their Reps…

It’s hard to discuss anything space-related without policy implications. With the selections being made and an election a few months away, I am curious if the opposition to the current administration wins, will it impact the selection or overturn it…

Perhaps a good discussion on the Space Policy thread…

[pippin]

Slight nitpick as well.  SpaceX intend to move to F9 v1.1 (Merlin 1D, stretch tanks) which also is a yet to be developed varient on the current F9.  Just so we're clear.

That's why I said "level" and not "ahead". Atlas is more mature overall, F9 1.1 will probably still fly earlier in the configuration to be used.
Probably a draw.

[A_M_Swallow]

Man-rating the Atlas V.  Under CCDev-1 United Launch Alliance (ULA) received $6.7M for an Emergency Detection System (EDS), the funding was provided as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  The XCOR moving to Texas video mentioned Recovery Act money, so politicians will be checking to see what happened.  Fortunately for NASA ULA is putting the EDS into the Atlas V and at least one of the Boeing CCiCap milestones will verify that it is there.

The ECLSS from Paragon (or its technology) may be able to tell a similar good news story.

Press releases and an update to NASA's website would be useful places for this information.

[Jim]

  Fortunately for NASA ULA is putting the EDS into the Atlas V and at least one of the Boeing CCiCap milestones will verify that it is there.

Wrong. 

Don't you read.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29583.msg937574#msg937574
ULA is not working independently.  Boeing and SNC will be paying ULA to finish development of the EDS and to perform testing with spacecraft simulators.  Also, the EDS is not going to be a standard Atlas box, it will only fly when needed.  So when Boeing and SNC buy an Atlas, they will also pay extra for the EDS as an optional service.

[spacejulien]

With an agreeing nod to Chris’s admonition on tone, I concur with Ron’s opinion on ATK. I saw their late entry as a spoiler effort, one depending not on a superior entry but on their DC influence and SLS connection to take an award away from someone else that had actually earned it the hard way. IMO, it was an effort to sway the SLS advanced booster down-select to keep the 5-segment solid on the SLS after the original contract expired (see the investigation threat from Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) on previous page). That's why, IMO, they didn't make the vehicle smaller, using a 4-segment solid, which would have worked just fine. I don’t say that with malice; it was a solid business approach (one which I would have done myself) and their proposal did have enough merit to be taken seriously but to me it was a slot in a different program that they hadn’t earned. The other three had all put their money where their mouth was with no guarantee of any return at all. They had all taken a leap of faith in the commercial crew business; while ATK waited to let them break the ground for them, let them take the risk for them. Like I said, I don’t say that with malice; it’s just the way I saw their entire entry effort. That’s why I am pleased they did not win this round; I don’t think they earned a spot, while all the other three did, with their own blood, sweat and tears. I do wish them luck if they choose to continue development. If all this works, there will be a place for them in the commercial launch and crew business. By then they will have paid their dues and I would be more agreeable to their efforts.

By the insight I have on the European part of the Liberty team I fully second this analysis.

[john smith 19]

The US has rockets (Delta/Atlas/Falcon) we need a spacecraft.

True

But they are not specified/owned/operated by NASA.

They are therefor not the right *kind* of rocket.  

[Lee Jay]

  Fortunately for NASA ULA is putting the EDS into the Atlas V and at least one of the Boeing CCiCap milestones will verify that it is there.

Wrong. 

Don't you read.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29583.msg937574#msg937574
ULA is not working independently.  Boeing and SNC will be paying ULA to finish development of the EDS and to perform testing with spacecraft simulators.

Sure, but isn't NASA paying Boeing and SNC to pay ULA to do that as a sub-tier?

[Prober]

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.

you bring up a very good point.   The Falcon 9 1.1 has never flown so its a whole new rocket.  The Atlas V has a whole new Dual engine Centaur.  Don't think a dual has ever flown?

[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.

you bring up a very good point.   The Falcon 9 1.1 has never flown so its a whole new rocket.  The Atlas V has a whole new Dual engine Centaur.  Don't think a dual has ever flown?

Both stages of the 402 have flown, they just haven't flown together.

[BrightLight]

Slightly off topic-
How well can the service module of the CST-100 fit the requirements for the MPCV? Is it viable?

[Prober]

Heh, silly me, ATK was actually part of the failed Kistler team...

Yes and they missed a funding milestone which resulted in them wiping out.  Seems to me that if ATK had been serious about competing then that was the time to do it.  Not recently with, let's face it, a rather hotch potch of a system.

and the funding milestone is in at least one SSA agreement, so this process will be interesting to watch.