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

[mmeijeri]

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

Too small. I'm more interested in the reverse possibility, to which the answer must be: not without significant modifications. I'd like to see those modifications.

[mmeijeri]

The Atlas V has a whole new Dual engine Centaur.  Don't think a dual has ever flown?

Many times, just not with electromechanical actuators. But according to the text I quoted from the Atlas V User's Guide at one stage the plan appears to have been to use the old hydraulic design for future DECs.

[Prober]

ATK's launch vehicle has never flown.

coming back down to earth......none of the CCiCAP Award winners has all the "new" pieces tested and flown and the push to fill the gap will make for alot of interesting times.

[Prober]

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

Had the same thoughts...... this might be a good deal.

[Prober]

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.

Kinda had hopes ATK would have put in a few bids with their CC Capsule on a Atlas V or even better on a Delta IV.   Human rating Delta IV would be good for NASA and the country, in this process giving the choice of three launchers.

[marsavian]

Boeing give the reasons why they think they deserved their award ...

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120803-boeing-spacex-sierra-ccicap.html

[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.

Kinda had hopes ATK would have put in a few bids with their CC Capsule on a Atlas V or even better on a Delta IV.   Human rating Delta IV would be good for NASA and the country, in this process giving the choice of three launchers.

ATK is/was trying to sell its LV. It's Liberty capsule was a means to get a complete system in order for NASA to purchase their LV. They were forced to make a capsule themselves (with LM as a contractor) because SNC and the CST-100 did not choose them as their main LV.

[Prober]

but in the end it is about reaching ISS as soon as possible. It has been very enjoyable to watch this all develop on NSF. Haven't had this type of excitement for quite some time.

right, building on that thought........this whole experiment is going to be interesting.   This programs goals are to bring humans at less cost, and in a shorter time than what NASA tried to do with their own design Constellation.    Let’s not loose sight of what this experiment is all about.

[Jim]

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.  

NASA doesn't care anymore that it doesn't own them.  NASA is buying rides and not hardware.  So your point is meaningless.

[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.

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

No, NASA isn't paying Boeing and SNC to pay ULA, it is paying Boeing and SNC to provided a service, and what vehicles and systems they use is up to them.  Boeing and SNC could use ATK or Spacex if they wanted to.

[mr. mark]

"If Boeing and SpaceX meet all of their self-imposed, NASA-approved milestones in the 21-month CCiCap base period, their designs for astronaut taxi systems will undergo a critical design review, the final hurdle to clear before construction can begin. Sierra Nevada’s crew transportation system would not undergo a critical design review at the end of its Space Act Agreement".

I did not realize that Dreamchaser will not under go design review. In other words, if both SpaceX and Boeing succeed they will get the go ahead.

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120803-boeing-spacex-sierra-ccicap.html

[Rocket Science]

"If Boeing and SpaceX meet all of their self-imposed, NASA-approved milestones in the 21-month CCiCap base period, their designs for astronaut taxi systems will undergo a critical design review, the final hurdle to clear before construction can begin. Sierra Nevada’s crew transportation system would not undergo a critical design review at the end of its Space Act Agreement".

I did not realize that Dreamchaser will not under go design review.

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120803-boeing-spacex-sierra-ccicap.html

It's in the article Chris wrote...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/08/nasa-ccicap-funding-spacex-boeing-sncs-crew-vehicles/

[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?

No, NASA isn't paying Boeing and SNC to pay ULA, it is paying Boeing and SNC to provided a service, and what vehicles and systems they use is up to them.  Boeing and SNC could use ATK or Spacex if they wanted to.

But they're not, and the money is coming from NASA and ending up at ULA.  At this time, NASA is the only customer and ULA is the only provider for these two companies' development projects.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Human Rating readiness of the F9 v1.1 and Atlas V 402/412 LV’s:

EDS:
ULA has designed their EDS and has developed most if not all of the associated software and tested it in the sim lab as well as a hardware form, fit and function test article. But this system has not been used on an engine or flight vehicle.

SpaceX has flown their EDS on 3 F9 v1.0 vehicles (they need an EDS to perform engine out functionality). But they have not flown with the newer M1D engines.

Engines and Stages:

ULA has not flown a DEC on and Atlas V and has 0 experience in building such a stage (although there may be some personnel who have possibly built such a stage over 10 years ago there will likely not be many). There will be many new parts (the old ones are not available anymore) and testing will have to be done with design iterations to get to a reliable design.

SpaceX has not flown a M1D on the F9 and also has not flown the much taller F9 v1.1. Some test and design iterations may occur before final design for the 9 engine thrust structure occurs. But by the time that the paperwork reviews for Human Rating occurs the F9 v1.1 will have flown as many as 10 times in a configuration that will ultimately carry humans.

[HIP2BSQRE]

Human Rating readiness of the F9 v1.1 and Atlas V 402/412 LV’s:

EDS:
ULA has designed their EDS and has developed most if not all of the associated software and tested it in the sim lab as well as a hardware form, fit and function test article. But this system has not been used on an engine or flight vehicle.

SpaceX has flown their EDS on 3 F9 v1.0 vehicles (they need an EDS to perform engine out functionality). But they have not flown with the newer M1D engines.

Engines and Stages:

ULA has not flown a DEC on and Atlas V and has 0 experience in building such a stage (although there may be some personnel who have possibly built such a stage over 10 years ago there will likely not be many). There will be many new parts (the old ones are not available anymore) and testing will have to be done with design iterations to get to a reliable design.

SpaceX has not flown a M1D on the F9 and also has not flown the much taller F9 v1.1. Some test and design iterations may occur before final design for the 9 engine thrust structure occurs. But by the time that the paperwork reviews for Human Rating occurs the F9 v1.1 will have flown as many as 10 times in a configuration that will ultimately carry humans.

Reading this --it appears that SpaceX is further along than ULA with their EDS and Engines and Stages.

[HIP2BSQRE]

Does anyone believe that SpaceX can do a pad abort and a inflight abort during CCICAP?  If SpaceX does these aborts during CCICAP and is successful --will these tests put SpaceX in the drivers seat in regarding getting a NASA contract?  Even if SpaceX is not in the drivers seat--who does not believe that they will be a very strong position to get some of the NASA contract?  Unless things change in the next 2 years---both companies will get contracts.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Human Rating readiness of the F9 v1.1 and Atlas V 402/412 LV’s:

EDS:
ULA has designed their EDS and has developed most if not all of the associated software and tested it in the sim lab as well as a hardware form, fit and function test article. But this system has not been used on an engine or flight vehicle.

SpaceX has flown their EDS on 3 F9 v1.0 vehicles (they need an EDS to perform engine out functionality). But they have not flown with the newer M1D engines.

Engines and Stages:

ULA has not flown a DEC on and Atlas V and has 0 experience in building such a stage (although there may be some personnel who have possibly built such a stage over 10 years ago there will likely not be many). There will be many new parts (the old ones are not available anymore) and testing will have to be done with design iterations to get to a reliable design.

SpaceX has not flown a M1D on the F9 and also has not flown the much taller F9 v1.1. Some test and design iterations may occur before final design for the 9 engine thrust structure occurs. But by the time that the paperwork reviews for Human Rating occurs the F9 v1.1 will have flown as many as 10 times in a configuration that will ultimately carry humans.

Reading this --it appears that SpaceX is further along than ULA with their EDS and Engines and Stages.

Maybe. Maybe not. Details are not known.

[Prober]

Human Rating readiness of the F9 v1.1 and Atlas V 402/412 LV’s:

EDS:
ULA has designed their EDS and has developed most if not all of the associated software and tested it in the sim lab as well as a hardware form, fit and function test article. But this system has not been used on an engine or flight vehicle.

SpaceX has flown their EDS on 3 F9 v1.0 vehicles (they need an EDS to perform engine out functionality). But they have not flown with the newer M1D engines.

Engines and Stages:

ULA has not flown a DEC on and Atlas V and has 0 experience in building such a stage (although there may be some personnel who have possibly built such a stage over 10 years ago there will likely not be many). There will be many new parts (the old ones are not available anymore) and testing will have to be done with design iterations to get to a reliable design.

SpaceX has not flown a M1D on the F9 and also has not flown the much taller F9 v1.1. Some test and design iterations may occur before final design for the 9 engine thrust structure occurs. But by the time that the paperwork reviews for Human Rating occurs the F9 v1.1 will have flown as many as 10 times in a configuration that will ultimately carry humans.

Reading this --it appears that SpaceX is further along than ULA with their EDS and Engines and Stages.

Maybe. Maybe not. Details are not known.

"Maybe" NASA gave a very good hit (listen to the audio).  SpaceX hint @ test in 2015 NASA feels this is 2017.

[A_M_Swallow]

  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?

No, NASA isn't paying Boeing and SNC to pay ULA, it is paying Boeing and SNC to provided a service, and what vehicles and systems they use is up to them.  Boeing and SNC could use ATK or Spacex if they wanted to.

But they're not, and the money is coming from NASA and ending up at ULA.  At this time, NASA is the only customer and ULA is the only provider for these two companies' development projects.

Using
"
The Boeing Company Space Act Agreement (NNK12MS01S)
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=632
"

Milestone 14: Emergency Detection System (EDS) Standalone Testing
Description: Boeing shall complete the Initial EDS Testing - Launch
Vehicle Stand-alone.
{redacted}
Success Criteria: Completion of Initial EDS Testing - LV Stand-alone
in accordance with Table G1 (Appendix 2c). Provide NASA with a
copy of the test plan and a quick look summary test briefing to
Document results.

"Amount: $13.8M Date: October/2013"

I suspect that ULA will not allow Boeing to test the Emergency Detection System unless paid.  The same applies to supplying the Centaur for Milestone 8
"Milestone 8: Dual Engine Centaur (DEC) Liquid Oxygen Duct Development Test"

The Atlas V is mentioned at several points in the bid, you will need a lawyer to tell which ones make using it a requirement.

edit : correct problems with copying.

[Jim]

I suspect that ULA will not allow Boeing to test the Emergency Detection System unless paid.  The same applies to supplying the Centaur for Milestone 8

What is this "will not allow"?  There is nothing to "suspect".  Boeing is not going to be working independently of ULA.  Boeing is going to put ULA on contract to do the work.  Anything that says launch vehicle or Atlas needs ULA support. It is simple as that, no lawyers needed.  This is no different than building an unmanned spacecraft and its launch vehicle interfaces, it can not be done independently of the launch vehicle provider.

All the following milestones need ULA support:
Milestone 6: Launch Vehicle Adapter (LVA) Preliminary Design Review (PDR)
Milestone 7: Integrated Stack Force and Moment Wind Tunnel Test
Milestone 8: Dual Engine Centaur (DEC) Liquid Oxygen Duct Development Test
Milestone 13: Launch Vehicle Adapter Critical Design Review
Milestone 14: Emergency Detection System (EDS) Standalone Testing
Milestone 15: Certification Plan Review
Milestone 16: Avionics Software Integration Lab (ASIL) Multi-
String Demonstration Test
Milestone 19: Critical Design Review (CDR) Board

I find milestone sort of peculiar, the rest are generic and could be done with any launch vehicle provider.  I don't know why that had to be called out.  Maybe they just needed another milestone.