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

[spacejulien]

Isn't some of the tank made in Japan for Centaur?  or is that some of the Delta tanks?

Delta IV - 4 m diameter tanks

[vulture4]

If true, HUGELY happy ATK didn't get the award, that's my main statement.

Let's make it happen! The ISS needs this capability

I don't know why anyone would say that. All of them brought something to the table

Yep, Liberty would have had the largest payload for a man rated vehicle but the majority of enthusiasts just can't get past their ATK hate.

I don't hate ATK, in fact I know people who worked on the SRB and they did a great job. But there is a misconception that the SRB system is inexpensive. Development costs are relatively low. But both the assembly and recovery processes for the SRB are very costly. Many of these costs are indirect, reflecting the extreme weight and hazardous nature of the segments. Even the LAS must be much heavier and more costly. The choice of the SRB for Ares I and later SLS didn't properly account for this; it was based on selling the system as "man rated", not on any real accounting for cost. Liberty was predicated on continued support for the SLS, which is unlikely, so it would have committed NASA to indefinite support for the entire SRB logistics process and the current LC-39 launch flow and massive facilities. The long pole in human spaceflight is cost, and Liberty would not move us closer to a solution. 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The systems are supposed to be a commercial service and one of the top evaluation criteria was the business case. If it didn’t close with just NASA doing flights then the proposal would get low grades. ATK had the required low development costs but did not have the low operational costs even compared to that of the CST-100 on Atlas V. ATK’s proposal was a recreation of what happened with Shuttle and the evaluators being from MSFC would be well aware of the Shuttle costs and the choice of doing low development cost on a system that will have a high operational cost.

[spectre9]

ATK should build their own launch vehicles if they want to be a competing space launch contractor.

SpaceX is winning launches and currently sort of maybe is kinda threatening the ULA launch monopoly, not if SLC-40 sits dormant most of the time though 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

A complete system service contract hardware design and operations cannot be manipulated by politics as much as a buy the parts and then contract a separate integration contract (such as SLS), it’s an all or nothing proposition to lawmakers. They can influence through ties with corporations in their state or the total budget for the service but not like they have done on SLS.

In this contracting situation the cheaper operational system will win out because low funding will cause the choosing of the low cost provider. But that being said there has to be multiple competing providers otherwise your back to the current EELV model of part commercial part direct control and the associated high costs.

In a BTW about RL-10 manufacture: the engine regen cooling tubes are hand bent on wooden frames that were made in the sixties (from Gen Shelton’s comments to Congress as reported in an article in the Air Force magazine http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/August%202012/0812Launchers.aspx). Talk about ancient manufacture techniques and the associated costs and possibilities for manufacturing defects is high adding additional costs for manufacture quality assurance. The AF is considering forcing a major engine upgrade  to using modern manufacturing techniques, essentially a new engine with 0 history imperiling the Atlas and Delta upper stage historical base used to show the reliability of the LV’s. ULA is currently considering a totally new engine XCOR’s 20klbf LH2 engine they are developing for the Lynx which would be a man rated engine (not necessarily official NASA or DOD certification just FAA).

[Prober]

A complete system service contract hardware design and operations cannot be manipulated by politics as much as a buy the parts and then contract a separate integration contract (such as SLS), it’s an all or nothing proposition to lawmakers. They can influence through ties with corporations in their state or the total budget for the service but not like they have done on SLS.

In this contracting situation the cheaper operational system will win out because low funding will cause the choosing of the low cost provider. But that being said there has to be multiple competing providers otherwise your back to the current EELV model of part commercial part direct control and the associated high costs.

In a BTW about RL-10 manufacture: the engine regen cooling tubes are hand bent on wooden frames that were made in the sixties (from Gen Shelton’s comments to Congress as reported in an article in the Air Force magazine http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/August%202012/0812Launchers.aspx). Talk about ancient manufacture techniques and the associated costs and possibilities for manufacturing defects is high adding additional costs for manufacture quality assurance. The AF is considering forcing a major engine upgrade  to using modern manufacturing techniques, essentially a new engine with 0 history imperiling the Atlas and Delta upper stage historical base used to show the reliability of the LV’s. ULA is currently considering a totally new engine XCOR’s 20klbf LH2 engine they are developing for the Lynx which would be a man rated engine (not necessarily official NASA or DOD certification just FAA).

Some very good info in that : http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/August%202012/0812launchers.pdf

the purchase of an automated tube bender would fix that.
Remember seeing video in the spaceX threads.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

A complete system service contract hardware design and operations cannot be manipulated by politics as much as a buy the parts and then contract a separate integration contract (such as SLS), it’s an all or nothing proposition to lawmakers. They can influence through ties with corporations in their state or the total budget for the service but not like they have done on SLS.

In this contracting situation the cheaper operational system will win out because low funding will cause the choosing of the low cost provider. But that being said there has to be multiple competing providers otherwise your back to the current EELV model of part commercial part direct control and the associated high costs.

In a BTW about RL-10 manufacture: the engine regen cooling tubes are hand bent on wooden frames that were made in the sixties (from Gen Shelton’s comments to Congress as reported in an article in the Air Force magazine http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/August%202012/0812Launchers.aspx). Talk about ancient manufacture techniques and the associated costs and possibilities for manufacturing defects is high adding additional costs for manufacture quality assurance. The AF is considering forcing a major engine upgrade  to using modern manufacturing techniques, essentially a new engine with 0 history imperiling the Atlas and Delta upper stage historical base used to show the reliability of the LV’s. ULA is currently considering a totally new engine XCOR’s 20klbf LH2 engine they are developing for the Lynx which would be a man rated engine (not necessarily official NASA or DOD certification just FAA).

Some very good info in that : http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/August%202012/0812launchers.pdf

the purchase of an automated tube bender would fix that.
Remember seeing video in the spaceX threads.

Yes, his comments to Congress made it sound as if the major cause of cost growths and the costs in general was due to the RL-10.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

BTW due to ULA's speculative development spending limitation only two things would result in ULA LV and engine manufacturing upgrades and that is if the AF pays for it directly or if the AF certifies the F9 v1.1 and FH for launching just about any DOD payload. Once the second case occurs it would put ULA in a direct cost FFP launch services contract bid war which unless they do something to drasticly reduce costs they would loose most of the DOD launch services contracts.

The situation on ULA costs is also not ULA's fault alone. The AF is so afraid of launch failure that they are spending alot on mission assurance inspection/review tasks. This reminded me of the self imposed stress that I created while doing my MS degree to maintain a 4.0 grade average. As fewer and fewer classes remained the stress to maintain the success increased tremendously. I think the mission assurance cost growth is of the same nature, more success creates a cannot fail mentality. Engineering tells me that no matter how much is spent ther will be failures. From a business case standpoint too much spending on mission assurance is just a wast of money, there is no cost benifit. Gen Shelton commented little on this subject in the AFmag article.

[Robert Thompson]

DOD assured launch is the Third Rail and benefits incognizant civilians. In the special case of highly motivated, thoroughly informed, risk-taking, non-in-expendable pioneers, is ULA bound to that rubric? Can it dial down its custom to the cost of the foreign alternative?

[Jason1701]

A complete system service contract hardware design and operations cannot be manipulated by politics as much as a buy the parts and then contract a separate integration contract (such as SLS), it’s an all or nothing proposition to lawmakers. They can influence through ties with corporations in their state or the total budget for the service but not like they have done on SLS.

In this contracting situation the cheaper operational system will win out because low funding will cause the choosing of the low cost provider. But that being said there has to be multiple competing providers otherwise your back to the current EELV model of part commercial part direct control and the associated high costs.

In a BTW about RL-10 manufacture: the engine regen cooling tubes are hand bent on wooden frames that were made in the sixties (from Gen Shelton’s comments to Congress as reported in an article in the Air Force magazine http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/August%202012/0812Launchers.aspx). Talk about ancient manufacture techniques and the associated costs and possibilities for manufacturing defects is high adding additional costs for manufacture quality assurance. The AF is considering forcing a major engine upgrade  to using modern manufacturing techniques, essentially a new engine with 0 history imperiling the Atlas and Delta upper stage historical base used to show the reliability of the LV’s. ULA is currently considering a totally new engine XCOR’s 20klbf LH2 engine they are developing for the Lynx which would be a man rated engine (not necessarily official NASA or DOD certification just FAA).

Some very good info in that : http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/August%202012/0812launchers.pdf

the purchase of an automated tube bender would fix that.
Remember seeing video in the spaceX threads.

Yes, his comments to Congress made it sound as if the major cause of cost growths and the costs in general was due to the RL-10.

The hydrolox XCOR engine is not the one they're using for Lynx.

[jongoff]

There is only going to be one final winner.

I don't think this is necessarily the case. Especially for systems like Dragon and CST that could also function just fine as cargo delivery vehicles. In a competition for CRS round 2 my guess is that Boeing, SpaceX, and SNC are going to have an advantage over cargo-only OSC.

~Jon

[jongoff]

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.

At a pricepoint a lot higher than having two commercial crew systems, especially if those commercial crew systems end up being the ones that get the commercial cargo for CRS round 2...

~Jon

[yg1968]

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.

At a pricepoint a lot higher than having two commercial crew systems, especially if those commercial crew systems end up being the ones that get the commercial cargo for CRS round 2...

~Jon

If the purpose is merely to have redundant access in a contingency situation, the pricepoint is not necessarily a big drawback as long as the redundant system is put to good use nominally (i.e. BEO).

I was under the impression that making Orion and SLS ISS capable was not being considered at this time as it would require additional work (and 2 years of lead time) that is not really necessary. In any event, the point of having two commercial crew providers is not just for redundancy pruposes, it's also to have competition between the two.

Gerst said that although it is not yet determined how many commercial crew providers there will be, they would prefer having more than one.

[Go4TLI]

In any event, the point of having two commercial crew providers is not just for redundancy pruposes, it's also to have competition between the two.

Competition in what way?  If you have only two and you have requirements for two then competition is a moot point. 

If we fly to ISS twice a year as is in the baseline, then the "winner" maybe gets both flights.  However, the "loser" still gets paid by NASA to keep their workforce, logistics chain, etc current even though they are not used because their capability is required.

[QuantumG]

Competition in what way?  If you have only two and you have requirements for two then competition is a moot point. 

If we fly to ISS twice a year as is in the baseline, then the "winner" maybe gets both flights.  However, the "loser" still gets paid by NASA to keep their workforce, logistics chain, etc current even though they are not used because their capability is required.

It's the pixie dust definition of "competition". You sprinkle it on and all of a sudden you get lower prices, rainbows and ponies.

[dcporter]

pixie dust

Also known as, no one company has a monopoly on the service, which means no one company can call the shots, or fail and cause a service outage... are we really arguing whether it's better to have one provider or two?

[Go4TLI]

pixie dust

Also known as, no one company has a monopoly on the service, which means no one company can call the shots, or fail and cause a service outage... are we really arguing whether it's better to have one provider or two?

If you have two, and require two, then both still have a very tight grip on the supposed industry.  They really can call the shots (if you believe ethics would allow and promote this kind of behavior). 

If one fails or is down for some reason, true that there is the other, but this is not competition because of the reasons I stated above.

[yg1968]

In any event, the point of having two commercial crew providers is not just for redundancy pruposes, it's also to have competition between the two.

Competition in what way?  If you have only two and you have requirements for two then competition is a moot point. 

If we fly to ISS twice a year as is in the baseline, then the "winner" maybe gets both flights.  However, the "loser" still gets paid by NASA to keep their workforce, logistics chain, etc current even though they are not used because their capability is required.

You wouldn't necessarily have a requirement for two. Ideally, you want more than one but if only one proposal is reasonable, you then only go with that one. That is why it's important to keep funding all three commercial crew companies until you award a services contract in 2014 in order to maintain competition as long as possible.

For CRS, NASA could also have opted for only company, for example, if one company's services had been overpriced. Gerst's CRS selection statement mentions that they discussed whether they should have one or two awards and opted for two because they had two very good proposals. The same thing could be done for commercial crew.

[Go4TLI]

In any event, the point of having two commercial crew providers is not just for redundancy pruposes, it's also to have competition between the two.

Competition in what way?  If you have only two and you have requirements for two then competition is a moot point. 

If we fly to ISS twice a year as is in the baseline, then the "winner" maybe gets both flights.  However, the "loser" still gets paid by NASA to keep their workforce, logistics chain, etc current even though they are not used because their capability is required.

You wouldn't necessarily have a requirement for two. Ideally, you want more than one but if only one proposal is reasonable, you then only go with that one. That is why it's important to keep three commercial crew companies until you award a services contract in 2014.

Your argument is strange if I may say so and I just posted off of what you claimed initially.  You seem to be backing away from that now. 

[yg1968]

I am not sure that it is contradictory because I am almost sure that you would get at least 2 or 3 good proposals for commercial crew services in 2014 (or later) like you did for CRS. I would be surprised if that wasn't the case. Having said that, there needs to be synergies with cargo in order to have a business case if there is only one commercial crew flight per year.

P.S. I have edited my post above to make it clearer what I meant.