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

[Jim]

Bigelow may wish to think about applying for an unfunded SAA to cover ground testing of his docking port.  If he plays his cards right then NASA can manage the ground docking of the CST-100, Dragon, Dream Chaser and Orion.  The spacecraft would be moved on cables.

Useless test.  The docking systems do not have to be on spacecraft to be tested.  Shuttle and ATV never did such test.  And neither did Dragon and HTV. Berthing or docking, it doesn't matter.

[Jim]

Just a point to everyone.  Just because something doesn't show up as an SAA milestone, doesn't mean it is not happening.  For example, there are no milestones dealing with launch site accommodations.  This doesn't mean that Boeing and/or ULA are not working them.  Boeing has a whole bunch of work to design and eventually set up OPF-3 with mechanical, electrical and prop loading GSE.  That is no where covered in the SAA, same goes for pad items.  That is because this will be a service contract, and NASA doesn't "care" about ancillary systems and non flight hardware.  This is the part where Boeing and maybe it partner ULA will have some skin in the game.

[Lurker Steve]

Bigelow may wish to think about applying for an unfunded SAA to cover ground testing of his docking port.  If he plays his cards right then NASA can manage the ground docking of the CST-100, Dragon, Dream Chaser and Orion.  The spacecraft would be moved on cables.

Useless test.  The docking systems do not have to be on spacecraft to be tested.  Shuttle and ATV never did such test.  And neither did Dragon and HTV. Berthing or docking, it doesn't matter.

At some point, Bigelow will need to make sure it's docking adapters are compatible with the docking adapters on the ISS, or else the same spacecraft will not be able to visit both stations. It's not a NASA problem, but one that needs to be worked out between Bigelow and the spacecraft that plan on visiting his station that may fly sometime in the future.

[Jim]

At some point, Bigelow will need to make sure it's docking adapters are compatible with the docking adapters on the ISS, or else the same spacecraft will not be able to visit both stations. It's not a NASA problem, but one that needs to be worked out between Bigelow and the spacecraft that plan on visiting his station that may fly sometime in the future.

He builds his to the NDS standard.  Simple as that.

[HIP2BSQRE]

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

So if Sierra had the CRS contract what would you want? I like the way things turned out--SpaceX earned it the CRS contract and has performed...what has stopped Sierra from being where SpaceX is now in the front seat???

[erioladastra]

At some point, Bigelow will need to make sure it's docking adapters are compatible with the docking adapters on the ISS, or else the same spacecraft will not be able to visit both stations. It's not a NASA problem, but one that needs to be worked out between Bigelow and the spacecraft that plan on visiting his station that may fly sometime in the future.

He builds his to the NDS standard.  Simple as that.

No it is not.  You still have to do hardware tests - mistakes happen.  However, you don't necessarily need the actual flight hardware.  During development various fidelity simulators will be used for fit and continuity checks.  And if at all possible - you mate the real hardware but that is going to be unlikely.  Not doing those tests would be idiotic.

[edkyle99]

What does that have to do with Boeing? That's what Ed Kyle was asking about. They're using Atlas V.

Does every discussion have to be dragged over to ATK?

Not any more!  But it may take awhile for some people to let it go.

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

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.

For its money, NASA gets all of these CST-100 related things that you mention, which means that the money is wasted unless NASA intends to award the final contract to Boeing.  The same is true of the money awarded SpaceX, unless Dragon wins, and so on.  There is only going to be one final winner.

 - Ed Kyle

[mmeijeri]

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

As there were going to be two full awards, they didn't have to beat SpaceX on price, they merely had to beat ATK and SNC on a combination of price and track record. Had SpaceX bid slightly higher than Boeing, then they could still have won an award, but as it turns out their bid was lower.

[mmeijeri]

There is only going to be one final winner.

At least officially, the plan is still to have two competing suppliers of crew transportation services.

[Jim]

No it is not.  You still have to do hardware tests - mistakes happen.  However, you don't necessarily need the actual flight hardware.  During development various fidelity simulators will be used for fit and continuity checks.  And if at all possible - you mate the real hardware but that is going to be unlikely.  Not doing those tests would be incorrect.

My point is that he doesn't have to develop a new type of interface.  It already exists and if he uses it, then the crew vehicles are compatible with his station.

No need to make an elaborate test both vehicles suspended by cables.  Just the two halves on a bench for a fit check.

[clongton]

"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

One of the reasons I would have preferred reversing the SpaceX & SN awards.

[clongton]

Personally, even though I am a SpaceX fan, I would have preferred to see the awards between SpaceX and Sierra Nevada reversed.

So if Sierra had the CRS contract what would you want? I like the way things turned out--SpaceX earned it the CRS contract and has performed...what has stopped Sierra from being where SpaceX is now in the front seat???

Elon's money

[ugordan]

Elon's money

The $100M or so he actually invested in SpaceX?

[DaveH62]

"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

One of the reasons I would have preferred reversing the SpaceX & SN awards.

I'd like to see DC get to production too, but if the primary goal is to get US crew capabilities up ASAP SpaceX is probably the best bet. In congressional eyes, Boeing is probably the safest bet to deliver on plan.
SNC has put skin in the game and has worked for comm'l from the start, but they are not likely ready to deliver in 2015/2016 even with a full contract.
Just an opinion, but I think this was the best and most practical decision that could have been made. Should be an exciting time.

[mmeijeri]

I'd like to see DC get to production too, but if the primary goal is to get US crew capabilities up ASAP SpaceX is probably the best bet.

In addition, haven't SNC said that they would go down the suborbital route first if they don't get a crew rotation contract?

[sdsds]

ULA [has] 0 experience in building [dual-engine Centaur] (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.

For clarification, is this speculation, or do you have sources for (or direct knowledge of) this? ULA has been offering DEC all along, and the funded Boeing milestones seem to imply there is current knowledge within ULA of what issues need to be worked.

Also, would someone please clarify where the DEC work would/will take place. Is Centaur production now entirely at Decatur? If a ground test were to be conducted, on what test stand would that occur?

[Robotbeat]

There is only going to be one final winner.

At least officially, the plan is still to have two competing suppliers of crew transportation services.

Exactly. It is one of commercial crew's primary purposes to keep redundant access so that American HSF capability need never again have a gap (due either to loss-of-mission or financial reasons because of one of the providers). Shorten the gap and eliminate the future possibility of a gap. If you have just one provider, it's just a matter of time before there's another gap. This is a pretty valuable quality, and commercial crew allows it to happen at a quite low cost, all things considered.

There will be two crew providers, even if that means they each also have to carry cargo as well. Anything else would mean a return of the gap eventually.

[sdsds]

It is one of commercial crew's primary purposes to keep redundant access so that American HSF capability need never again have a gap [...]. If you have just one provider, it's just a matter of time before there's another gap.

Hmm. It may be easy to forget, but there is a plan for a non-commercial system that would provide American HSF capability.

[Jim]

ULA [has] 0 experience in building [dual-engine Centaur] (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.

For clarification, is this speculation, or do you have sources for (or direct knowledge of) this? ULA has been offering DEC all along, and the funded Boeing milestones seem to imply there is current knowledge within ULA of what issues need to be worked.

Also, would someone please clarify where the DEC work would/will take place. Is Centaur production now entirely at Decatur? If a ground test were to be conducted, on what test stand would that occur?

Decatur and no ground test would be required, the configuration is not different