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

[Go4TLI]

If you think of the future gap as something that will and can never happen (and discount all the other aspects of competition and bargaining power, etc), then sure, maybe just go for a single provider. But reality is that we will have a future gap if we don't select at least two. We apparently have enough cargo for two cargo providers, so I fail to see how we will not have enough cargo AND crew for two providers!

I don't see a human space flight "gap" as a big problem.  The U.S. has endured multiple "gaps" over the years, but NASA still exists, and U.S. astronauts continue to orbit the Earth.  If a system has a problem, the best way to deal with it is to fix it and fly it promptly.  Even if it funds only one commercial crew system, NASA will also have MPCV/Orion, which means that it will possess twice as many systems as any other country. 

 - Ed Kyle

Except of course "interests" are trying their best to cancel Orion and SLS.  At the same time they claimed there was a "market" for all these vehicles if government would only fund their development. 

Note how the latter argument has quited considerably while the former has only picked up steam or at most has advocated bare minimum funding to drag out the schedule and increase risk of eventual cancellation. 

Incorrect.

1. If the "interests" you refer to are Bolden, Holdren, and Obama, their latest funding request gives 28% as much funding to the multiple commercial providers as to SLS and MPCV. Is that what you call "bare minimum funding?"

2. Bigelow Aerospace, to name one possible alternate market, has built a new factory and is rapidly increasing its workforce after downsizing when commercial crew seemed to be less certain.

Actually it is quite correct.  However....

1.  I wasn't refering to just them but let's use the numbers you provided.  Nearly a third as much funding from the government for a program that has significantly less capabilities, uses the proven rockets so many talk about around here and something that the government does not even own in the end.  And that point is just to serve as calibration since undoubtedly you will again for some unexplained reason try to twist my words as me somehow being "against commercial".

2.  I think if Bigelow is all you have to hang your hat on, you're likely to be disappointed.  "Rapidly increasing his workforce" takes him to what 150 employees?  Why don't you read some of the posts from a person on here who used to work for them as another source of calibration. 

[Prober]

Thanks Jim for the calcification.    That makes this workable.  Also makes Orion or Composite Orion very doable outside of the politics.

?

ATK didn't plan to use Atlas or Delta and other than ATK no company has any interest in composite Orion.

Orion on the other hand would have been lifted by Delta, not Atlas (if you went with the EELV instead of SLS). CCDEV just does not help much there since they are using Atlas. Only Atlas Heavy would be able to lift Orion but I think there were some other issues (Orion’s mass too close to some structural limit or something) for Atlas. ULA recommended Delta for Orion.

was just thinking out loud about composite Orion and a few years out.

[HIP2BSQRE]

Just a brief reminder about the schedule of *all* CCiCAP vehicles.

All bidders were asked to give milestones for future years based on 2 funding profiles

1)$400m a year (which I guess is what NASA reckon they can get the Legislature to agree to).
2) Optimal, with the bidders *desired* level of funding available *when* they need it.

The optimal levels for *all* bidders were deemed proprietary and AFAIK all bidders earliest crewed flight dates are based on the *optimum* funding profiles.

So how likely they are to meet that date depends on how close their profile is to $400m (and of course that the Legislature meets even that funding level), neither of which is known.

Something to keep in mind when you read (for example) that Spacex could be doing crewed launch to ISS by 2015, and any similar claims by the other bidders.

None of them are behind schedule. It's that the funding does not match the schedule based on optimal funding.

I like the fact that all bidders have both a "worst case" and an optimal schedule mapped out in case things do turn out better than NASA presumably expects. They are ready to take advantage if there is advantage to be taken.

But that funding can only be fixed by lobbying your local representatives at the appropriate time on the calendar.

[I suppose what I'm trying to say is that people should keep their enthusiasm under control. Or lobby their Congressman/Senator harder if they want more progress]

Just something to keep in mind.

Please state where you got that $400 million a year?  I may be mistaken it was for an award of $400-$500 million during the CCICIP period.

[WulfTheSaxon]

Orion due to its mass would be forced to [use Delta rather than Atlas.]

Well, that or Atlas V Heavy.
/me ducks

[pathfinder_01]

Orion due to its mass would be forced to [use Delta rather than Atlas.]

Well, that or Atlas V Heavy.
/me ducks

I think it would be wonderful if Orion did, but I think there was some concern about Atlas ability to handle Orion's mass structurally(too close to certain limits I hear) and the EDS ULA developed was for single stick configurations of Atlas and Delta. I am also not sure as to ability of the pad to handle Atlas V heavy(i.e. can it now or does it need upgrades).

[Jim]

was just thinking out loud about composite Orion and a few years out.

There is no such thing

[john smith 19]

Please state where you got that $400 million a year?  I may be mistaken it was for an award of $400-$500 million during the CCICIP period.

Bottom of slide 9 on the pre-award meeting charts. I found it a bit difficult to read.

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=579

I'll note the same page ( http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=38 ) lists the winners SAA and you can work out how many optional milestones each of the winners has by counting the number of redacted pages with a box on the top RHS where a datae and cost area goes. It's 12 for Spacex and probably a similar number for the others.

[HIP2BSQRE]

Please state where you got that $400 million a year?  I may be mistaken it was for an award of $400-$500 million during the CCICIP period.

Bottom of slide 9 on the pre-award meeting charts. I found it a bit difficult to read.


http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=579

I'll note the same page ( http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=38 ) lists the winners SAA and you can work out how many optional milestones each of the winners has by counting the number of redacted pages with a box on the top RHS where a datae and cost area goes. It's 12 for Spacex and probably a similar number for the others.

It says $400 million per year during the optional milestone period not during the base CCICAP period.  Please also look at silder 12.  Spacex during the teleconference mentioned a test flight in 2015, if i not mistaken during the optional period and Boeing mentioned a test flight in 2016 again in optional period.

[erioladastra]

Please state where you got that $400 million a year?  I may be mistaken it was for an award of $400-$500 million during the CCICIP period.

Bottom of slide 9 on the pre-award meeting charts. I found it a bit difficult to read.

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=579

I'll note the same page ( http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=38 ) lists the winners SAA and you can work out how many optional milestones each of the winners has by counting the number of redacted pages with a box on the top RHS where a datae and cost area goes. It's 12 for Spacex and probably a similar number for the others.

What is missing ont he slide is: * subject to funding levels, your mileage may vary.

[yg1968]

Please state where you got that $400 million a year?  I may be mistaken it was for an award of $400-$500 million during the CCICIP period.

Bottom of slide 9 on the pre-award meeting charts. I found it a bit difficult to read.

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=579

I'll note the same page ( http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=38 ) lists the winners SAA and you can work out how many optional milestones each of the winners has by counting the number of redacted pages with a box on the top RHS where a datae and cost area goes. It's 12 for Spacex and probably a similar number for the others.

There was two sets of optional milestones: one was the fixed ones for $400 million per year; the second one was the optimal ones. The optimal ones did not have a stated amount. The optimal ones obviously had to be at least $400M per year but they are likely much more than that (possibly as much as the entire amount requested by the President of about $830M per year). Based on the summaries in the SAAs, I believe that only the optimal ones ended up in the SAAs.

[Lurker Steve]

Please state where you got that $400 million a year?  I may be mistaken it was for an award of $400-$500 million during the CCICIP period.

Bottom of slide 9 on the pre-award meeting charts. I found it a bit difficult to read.

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=579

I'll note the same page ( http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=38 ) lists the winners SAA and you can work out how many optional milestones each of the winners has by counting the number of redacted pages with a box on the top RHS where a datae and cost area goes. It's 12 for Spacex and probably a similar number for the others.

There was two sets of optional milestones: one was the fixed ones for $400 million per year; the second one was the optimal ones. The optimal ones did not have a stated amount. The optimal ones obviously had to be at least $400M per year but they are likely much more than that (possibly as much as the entire amount requested by the President of about $830M per year). Based on the summaries in the SAAs, I believe that only the optimal ones ended up in the SAAs.

Don't trust any budget numbers published by Ed Mango, especially one's that were published before the agreement with Congressman Wolf on the program funding levels and the number of participants. That power point was based on purely fantasy budget numbers that were never ever going to happen.

[FinalFrontier]

Please state where you got that $400 million a year?  I may be mistaken it was for an award of $400-$500 million during the CCICIP period.

Bottom of slide 9 on the pre-award meeting charts. I found it a bit difficult to read.


http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=579

I'll note the same page ( http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=38 ) lists the winners SAA and you can work out how many optional milestones each of the winners has by counting the number of redacted pages with a box on the top RHS where a datae and cost area goes. It's 12 for Spacex and probably a similar number for the others.

It says $400 million per year during the optional milestone period not during the base CCICAP period.  Please also look at silder 12.  Spacex during the teleconference mentioned a test flight in 2015, if i not mistaken during the optional period and Boeing mentioned a test flight in 2016 again in optional period.

Those numbers are a joke. Forget it. Wait until the FY budgets are actually written into law and then see how much they end up getting.

[john smith 19]

It says $400 million per year during the optional milestone period not during the base CCICAP period.  Please also look at silder 12.  Spacex during the teleconference mentioned a test flight in 2015, if i not mistaken during the optional period and Boeing mentioned a test flight in 2016 again in optional period.

Correct. I was pointing out that any expectation people have that Spacex can have a crewed Dragon in orbit by Dec 2015 (about the only data that was not redacted from the optional milestones/optimal funding information) *must* be read with those facts in mind.

The same applies to Boeing saying they can be in orbit by 2016.

*provided* they get the optimal funding profiles they need (and only they know how far above $400m that is).

$400m seems to be a figure Ed Mango and his team estimate NASA have a realistic chance of getting out of the Legislature on an annual basis, per successful bidder. Obviously this pre-dates the 2 1/2 bidders deal that has been mandated by Congress, but I'd trust Mango's experience as a NASA veteran in this area*.

<rant>
Funding is a *political* issues and the only way those figures would rise (and worst case even *reach* the notional $400m) is if US citizens contact their members of *both* houses and explain that this is what they want and why it would be a good idea (for US "assured crew access to space", the USG and US companies) to fund to the optimal level. The word "assured" is what gets ULA $1Bn a year even if they don't launch a single EELV so it seems pretty effective.
</rant>

*IOW "Mango straight." 

As an old Blazing Saddles fan I've been waiting years to use that line.

ON topic commentary will now resume.

[erioladastra]

It says $400 million per year during the optional milestone period not during the base CCICAP period.  Please also look at silder 12.  Spacex during the teleconference mentioned a test flight in 2015, if i not mistaken during the optional period and Boeing mentioned a test flight in 2016 again in optional period.

Correct. I was pointing out that any expectation people have that Spacex can have a crewed Dragon in orbit by Dec 2015 (about the only data that was not redacted from the optional milestones/optimal funding information) *must* be read with those facts in mind.

The same applies to Boeing saying they can be in orbit by 2016.

*provided* they get the optimal funding profiles they need (and only they know how far above $400m that is).

$400m seems to be a figure Ed Mango and his team estimate NASA have a realistic chance of getting out of the Legislature on an annual basis, per successful bidder. Obviously this pre-dates the 2 1/2 bidders deal that has been mandated by Congress, but I'd trust Mango's experience as a NASA veteran in this area*.

<rant>
Funding is a *political* issues and the only way those figures would rise (and worst case even *reach* the notional $400m) is if US citizens contact their members of *both* houses and explain that this is what they want and why it would be a good idea (for US "assured crew access to space", the USG and US companies) to fund to the optimal level. The word "assured" is what gets ULA $1Bn a year even if they don't launch a single EELV so it seems pretty effective.
</rant>

*IOW "Mango straight." 

As an old Blazing Saddles fan I've been waiting years to use that line.

ON topic commentary will now resume.

You are correct that this is very heavy on funding and why I have repeateedly stated that almost certainly we will go to one company at the end of these 21 months.  If NASA doesn't, it will only shift things to later.

[Prober]

It says $400 million per year during the optional milestone period not during the base CCICAP period.  Please also look at silder 12.  Spacex during the teleconference mentioned a test flight in 2015, if i not mistaken during the optional period and Boeing mentioned a test flight in 2016 again in optional period.

$400m seems to be a figure Ed Mango and his team estimate NASA have a realistic chance of getting out of the Legislature on an annual basis, per successful bidder. Obviously this pre-dates the 2 1/2 bidders deal that has been mandated by Congress, but I'd trust Mango's experience as a NASA veteran in this area*.

Right, the 2.5 is cut out of an annual $500 million. 

[HIP2BSQRE]

It says $400 million per year during the optional milestone period not during the base CCICAP period.  Please also look at silder 12.  Spacex during the teleconference mentioned a test flight in 2015, if i not mistaken during the optional period and Boeing mentioned a test flight in 2016 again in optional period.

Correct. I was pointing out that any expectation people have that Spacex can have a crewed Dragon in orbit by Dec 2015 (about the only data that was not redacted from the optional milestones/optimal funding information) *must* be read with those facts in mind.

The same applies to Boeing saying they can be in orbit by 2016.

*provided* they get the optimal funding profiles they need (and only they know how far above $400m that is).

$400m seems to be a figure Ed Mango and his team estimate NASA have a realistic chance of getting out of the Legislature on an annual basis, per successful bidder. Obviously this pre-dates the 2 1/2 bidders deal that has been mandated by Congress, but I'd trust Mango's experience as a NASA veteran in this area*.

<rant>
Funding is a *political* issues and the only way those figures would rise (and worst case even *reach* the notional $400m) is if US citizens contact their members of *both* houses and explain that this is what they want and why it would be a good idea (for US "assured crew access to space", the USG and US companies) to fund to the optimal level. The word "assured" is what gets ULA $1Bn a year even if they don't launch a single EELV so it seems pretty effective.
</rant>

*IOW "Mango straight." 

As an old Blazing Saddles fan I've been waiting years to use that line.

ON topic commentary will now resume.

The way I think of it--for $2b you get two launchers and spacecraft...in 4 - 5 years.  Constellation spent how much and what did we get?   I think we spent over $8b  over the program.  What politicans forget is that NASA spent over $400m just for the first test flight of Ares I --which did not have that much in common with the final form of Ares.  How soon we forget...

[vulture4]

Constellation did not end. Except for Ares I it is still going strong and spending $3B+ plus about .5B on ground support every year. As long as Frank Wolf (R-VA) controls NASA funding I see little hope of Dragon and CST getting adequate support to put the US back into human launch.

[john smith 19]

The way I think of it--for $2b you get two launchers and spacecraft...in 4 - 5 years.  Constellation spent how much and what did we get?   I think we spent over $8b  over the program.  What politicans forget is that NASA spent over $400m just for the first test flight of Ares I --which did not have that much in common with the final form of Ares.  How soon we forget...

I think the figure for CxP IE Orion/Ares was about $11Bn in total. That got (after how many years?) the A1x flight of a 4seg SRB with a dummy 5th seg and a dummy 2nd stage.

So far Commercial Crew and and it's sister programme Commercial Cargo have proved out 1 LV and cargo capsule with a 2nd (Athena/Cygnus) closing in on a 1st launch *despite* it starting 18months behind after RpK tanked. Meanwhile its moved Blue Origin, Dragon, CTS100 and Dream Chaser significantly forward with a near certainty that crewed Dragon will fly (SPacex already have a cargo transport contract for ISS, as do OSC).

All for somewhere South of $4Bn.

I believe that makes CRS, CCiCAP and its predecessors one of the best investments in future space projects since the GPS programme.

This can all still be strangled if NASA insists on its FAR 25 level of control for the final stage (unless some less intrusive, more flexible form can be worked out) but it's made a lot of progress across a lot of systems for a *relatively* small investment.

[FinalFrontier]

I bet all the New Space fans amongst the Presidential Advisers are happy too, funnily enough they got exactly the result they wanted too . I wonder though if this is really the end of it, will ATK's fans in Congress now try to engineer a 180 and try to enlarge CCiCAP to also include ATK, all in the interest of maximizing full commercial competition of course . Will the SLS fans there go along with it if they do if it means it comes out of their budget ?  This may not exactly be over yet by any means ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-03/boeing-spacex-win-900-million-in-awards-for-spacecraft-1-.html

George Torres, a spokesman for Alliant Techsystems, said in an e-mail that the company was “disappointed” it wasn’t selected. It teamed up with Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and a unit of European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. to develop a rocket called Liberty to compete for U.S. business.

Torres said “it’s too early” to say whether the company will seek to challenge the decision.


p.s. ATK's test flight date matched SpaceX and all their hardware already exists in one form or another so they may have good grounds for complaining here.

Seek to challenge? Pff. All that does is re-enforce the idea that they should never have even been considered in the first place in lieu of the Ares debacle.


I wonder who they think they are exactly.

[joek]

The way I think of it--for $2b you get two launchers and spacecraft...in 4 - 5 years.  Constellation spent how much and what did we get?   I think we spent over $8b  over the program.  What politicans forget is that NASA spent over $400m just for the first test flight of Ares I --which did not have that much in common with the final form of Ares.  How soon we forget...

So far Commercial Crew and and it's sister programme Commercial Cargo have proved out 1 LV and cargo capsule with a 2nd (Athena/Cygnus) closing in on a 1st launch *despite* it starting 18months behind after RpK tanked. Meanwhile its moved Blue Origin, Dragon, CTS100 and Dream Chaser significantly forward [...] All for somewhere South of $4Bn.

While I agree COTS, CCDev, CCiCap, et. al. seem to be a pretty good deal (time will tell), not sure where the "South of $4Bn" comes from (seems a much less than that)? ...