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

[QuantumG]

if those reasons are so good and so great then go and get someone to invest in your idea.  What am I missing???

The only reason both SpaceX and SNC are doing their vehicles is because they don't have significant external investment. As far as the investment community is concerned, they're both acting irrational - there's much easier ways to make money.

No-one knows why Boeing is doing their vehicle.. it's probably justified by being so small compared to the rest of their business and it is a good foot in the door if there really is a revolution in commercial human spaceflight in the future.

[Prober]

if those reasons are so good and so great then go and get someone to invest in your idea.  What am I missing???

No-one knows why Boeing is doing their vehicle.. it's probably justified by being so small compared to the rest of their business and it is a good foot in the door if there really is a revolution in commercial human spaceflight in the future.

Make a guess and say that Boeing had enough design work done when the  Constellation pick was made.   Would be good to look up. 

[Jim]

Let me tell you about the dirty little secret no one in the press is talking about. 

Three nuke power plants went down in Calif. thats one issue.  Many in Calif. and prob washington DC don't want to have all the plants restarted.

Now the news......the US Navy base in San Diego is taking the power hit.

Its my belief the opening back up of the research station in FLA is just the start of some movement by the Navy of some assets to Fla.
 

What does that have anything to do with the topic?

[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.

Elaborate on the ECLSS from Paragon. I'm in the dark here.

Under CCDev-1 Paragon Space Development Corporation received $1.4 million, the money came from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/feb/HQ_C10-004_Commercia_Crew_Dev.html

This was to develop a plug-and-play environmental control and life support system (ECLSS) Air Revitalization System (ARS) Engineering Development Unit.  They completed all their milestones.  Here is a short description of the equipment.
http://www.paragonsdc.com/paragon_projects_09.php

From the list of Paragon customers it may be a successful product or the spacecraft manufacturers may just have had a look at it and made their own.
http://www.paragonsdc.com/paragon_customers_09.php

So, will it be used on the three vehicles being funded?

That is the important question.  These things are subject to change until the final design.

Paragon may have sold to SpaceX - Dragon and Excalibur Almaz.
http://www.excaliburalmaz.com/0005_Alliances.html

[Downix]

As far as knowing what needs to be reingineered it is fairly straight forward as a DEC Centaur has flown in the past but the venders for some of the parts no longer exist and ULA is either having to build them itself or find and qualify a new vender.

Its not going to be that easy (although more so than F9 1.1) The last time dual DEC flew was more than a decade ago on an Atlas IIAS.  Centaur IIIA uses electro-mechanical TVC actuators,software has been modified for a new LV (Atlas V), not to mention personnel who have left and/or been shuffled around when Atlas fell to ULA.  There is a reason it is on Boeing's milestone payments and not something that is left for the contractor/subcontractor to handle.

You are incorrect here. The last DEC flight was on Feb 21, 2002, on an Atlas III launch of Echostar 7. So, yes, more than a decade ago, no, not on Atlas IIAS, on Atlas III.

[Downix]

if those reasons are so good and so great then go and get someone to invest in your idea.  What am I missing???

No-one knows why Boeing is doing their vehicle.. it's probably justified by being so small compared to the rest of their business and it is a good foot in the door if there really is a revolution in commercial human spaceflight in the future.

Make a guess and say that Boeing had enough design work done when the  Constellation pick was made.   Would be good to look up. 

They were one of the two finalists for the CEV before Griffin cancelled Constellation to make his new Constellation program, lead by the ESAS.  The Boeing crew exploration vehicle looked nearly identical to the CST-100, even using the same LAS engines.

[Jim]

it even goes back to OSP

[PeterAlt]

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

I never thought about the SM potential... Jim, if you're listening out there, what do you think of its potential use for Orion? Better than the ESA proposal?

There is no potential for using the CST-100 SM on Orion. It's designed for short LEO missions, is too small for the Orion CM, and lacks the delta-V for burns the Orion SM is required to do.

Maybe I chose my words wrong. Can it be "adapted" for use on Orion, as quoted in point #6 from the above?

[PeterAlt]

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

I never thought about the SM potential... Jim, if you're listening out there, what do you think of its potential use for Orion? Better than the ESA proposal?

There is no potential for using the CST-100 SM on Orion. It's designed for short LEO missions, is too small for the Orion CM, and lacks the delta-V for burns the Orion SM is required to do.

Maybe I chose my words wrong. Can it be "adapted" for use on Orion, as quoted in point #6 from the above?

Sure, just increase the diameter, modify the electrical system to accommodate solar arrays, stretch the tanks, and add a bigger engine to handle ascent aborts for the much heavier Orion CM.

That was sarcasm, by the way. Do all of the above and you've practically redesigned the whole SM. You've basically re-invented... the existing Orion SM.

There's nothing *wrong* with the CST-100 SM... for the mission it was *designed* for.

So, #6 is a moot point.

[Jason1701]

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

I never thought about the SM potential... Jim, if you're listening out there, what do you think of its potential use for Orion? Better than the ESA proposal?

There is no potential for using the CST-100 SM on Orion. It's designed for short LEO missions, is too small for the Orion CM, and lacks the delta-V for burns the Orion SM is required to do.

Maybe I chose my words wrong. Can it be "adapted" for use on Orion, as quoted in point #6 from the above?

Sure, just increase the diameter, modify the electrical system to accommodate solar arrays, stretch the tanks, and add a bigger engine to handle ascent aborts for the much heavier Orion CM.

That was sarcasm, by the way. Do all of the above and you've practically redesigned the whole SM. You've basically re-invented... the existing Orion SM.

There's nothing *wrong* with the CST-100 SM... for the mission it was *designed* for.

So, #6 is a mute point.

I don't think 5, 6, or 7 have any relevance. And it's "dual" not "duel."

[Prober]

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

I never thought about the SM potential... Jim, if you're listening out there, what do you think of its potential use for Orion? Better than the ESA proposal?

There is no potential for using the CST-100 SM on Orion. It's designed for short LEO missions, is too small for the Orion CM, and lacks the delta-V for burns the Orion SM is required to do.

Yes but you forget that a lunar CST-100 SM engineering had to be in pre-design vs LM's design.  With moden CAD the size should be of little issue.

far better than converting an ATV for the job.

[PeterAlt]

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

I never thought about the SM potential... Jim, if you're listening out there, what do you think of its potential use for Orion? Better than the ESA proposal?

There is no potential for using the CST-100 SM on Orion. It's designed for short LEO missions, is too small for the Orion CM, and lacks the delta-V for burns the Orion SM is required to do.

Yes but you forget that a lunar CST-100 SM engineering had to be in pre-design vs LM's design.  With moden CAD the size should be of little issue.

far better than converting an ATV for the job.

What is the official NASA policy and status of the Orion SM? We know, for example, that NASA plans to solicit bids on the advanced SLS boosters. Is it automatically assumed that LM has this? Or, better, is it assumed that the SM is part of Orion; therefore, they already have this contract. If the later is true, is it safe to conclude that NASA has quietly asked them to concentrate the NASA funding on the re-entry capsule, in effect suspending work on the SM. If this true, shouldn't it be official NASA policy to inform the public that Orion SM work has suspended, pending a solicitation for competition on it?

[sdsds]

What is the official NASA policy and status of the Orion SM?

This is the wrong thread for that discussion.

[PahTo]

Been gone for a few days.  Wow!  Great news imho, and can't wait to see people flying in these vehicles.  btw, in a poll way back when, I picked CST-100 on Atlas V (though I thought it was a 402).
Now, time for Mars...

[Chandonn]

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

I never thought about the SM potential... Jim, if you're listening out there, what do you think of its potential use for Orion? Better than the ESA proposal?

There is no potential for using the CST-100 SM on Orion. It's designed for short LEO missions, is too small for the Orion CM, and lacks the delta-V for burns the Orion SM is required to do.

Maybe I chose my words wrong. Can it be "adapted" for use on Orion, as quoted in point #6 from the above?

Sure, just increase the diameter, modify the electrical system to accommodate solar arrays, stretch the tanks, and add a bigger engine to handle ascent aborts for the much heavier Orion CM.

That was sarcasm, by the way. Do all of the above and you've practically redesigned the whole SM. You've basically re-invented... the existing Orion SM.

There's nothing *wrong* with the CST-100 SM... for the mission it was *designed* for.

So, #6 is a mute point.

I don't think 5, 6, or 7 have any relevance. And it's "dual" not "duel."

While we're spell-checking, it's also a "moot" point... 

[PeterAlt]

What is the official NASA policy and status of the Orion SM?

This is the wrong thread for that discussion.

I know. Everything's so interconnected that it's hard to talk about one subject and not talk about another. If anyone has an answer to my question, please post it on the appropriate thread and post here  link to it.

[PeterAlt]

What is the official NASA policy and status of the Orion SM? We know, for example, that NASA plans to solicit bids on the advanced SLS boosters. Is it automatically assumed that LM has this? Or, better, is it assumed that the SM is part of Orion; therefore, they already have this contract.

It's not "assumed"; it's explicitly written into the contract.

So, it would be a breach of contract if NASA gave Boeing or ESA this job...

EDIT: And.... If NASA does intend on breaching their contract with LM, it should be put out for competition. So, that should put point six to rest and bring this conversation back to topic.

[Jim]

[
Yes but you forget that a lunar CST-100 SM engineering had to be in pre-design vs LM's design.  With moden CAD the size should be of little issue.

far better than converting an ATV for the job.

No, this SM is not even the same as proposed for CEV.

[Jim]

What is the official NASA policy and status of the Orion SM? We know, for example, that NASA plans to solicit bids on the advanced SLS boosters. Is it automatically assumed that LM has this? Or, better, is it assumed that the SM is part of Orion; therefore, they already have this contract.

It's not "assumed"; it's explicitly written into the contract.

So, it would be a breach of contract if NASA gave Boeing or ESA this job...

EDIT: And.... If NASA does intend on breaching their contract with LM, it should be put out for competition. So, that should put point six to rest and bring this conversation back to topic.

No, it would not be a breach of contract.  NASA can renegotitate LM's contract and remove the SM.  And they would not do this and give it Boeing.  It was only international relations for the ESA option

[manboy]

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.

Elaborate on the ECLSS from Paragon. I'm in the dark here.

Under CCDev-1 Paragon Space Development Corporation received $1.4 million, the money came from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/feb/HQ_C10-004_Commercia_Crew_Dev.html

This was to develop a plug-and-play environmental control and life support system (ECLSS) Air Revitalization System (ARS) Engineering Development Unit.  They completed all their milestones.  Here is a short description of the equipment.
http://www.paragonsdc.com/paragon_projects_09.php

From the list of Paragon customers it may be a successful product or the spacecraft manufacturers may just have had a look at it and made their own.
http://www.paragonsdc.com/paragon_customers_09.php

So, will it be used on the three vehicles being funded?

Yes for Dragon, maybe for CST-100.

http://www.paragonsdc.com/press_paragon-joins-spacex.php

http://www.paragonsdc.com/paragon_customers_09.php