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

[vt_hokie]

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120904-nasa-dropped-atk-comm-crew.html

A design by Alliant Techsystems (ATK) was dropped from NASA’s shortlist of potential space station crew taxis .....

What concerns me is that DreamChaser is not surprisingly identified as higher complexity/higher risk than Dragon or CST-100, and yet its likely need for additional funding is the very thing that has it slated to receive the least amount of funding.

Unfortunately, the likely outcome to me seems to be that we throw more money down the drain on yet another viable mini-shuttle design that just doesn't quite get over the hump and make it to completion.

[Jimmy_C]

If, God forbid, a Soyutz explodes or disintegrates, and is retired for an extended period of time, then NASA would be boned right now. They wouldn't have any means to send or retrieve astronauts to the ISS. Even if they get one of the new commercial systems up and running, they need a backup. But they are new and could fail too. Although there would still be work to do, I suspect it would take less time and money to restart Dream Chaser development than building another system from scratch. Think of it as insurance.

[DigitalMan]

At the moment there are 2 1/2 commercial systems in work.  So there is a backup, and a backup to the backup.  Not that anyone notices.

[kch]

At the moment there are 2 1/2 commercial systems in work.  So there is a backup, and a backup to the backup.  Not that anyone notices.

Some of us do. 

[HIP2BSQRE]

At the moment there are 2 1/2 commercial systems in work.  So there is a backup, and a backup to the backup.  Not that anyone notices.

Some of us do. 

And my question is so what if there are multiple backups??  Please keep in preservative the cost.  We had Ares I and no backup and what did that cost us in dollars in time?  Commercial crew may at the end have 2 systems for 1/2 the price of Ares and you are complaining???

[FinalFrontier]

I still fail to see why we needed to "down-select" anything instead of simply having multiple providers like we do for everything else.

[Jeff Bingham]

I still fail to see why we needed to "down-select" anything instead of simply having multiple providers like we do for everything else.

And how do you plan to pay for that?

[FinalFrontier]

Did I say that ATK's system was fully operational, NO

I said we know how the DC would land after an abort.

You see in my evaluation I give higher priority to the basics like “abort” and not if the company will make it the commercial market selling seats.

You said ATK had a tested design, which it does not.

We also know how CST-100 and Dragon will land, so what is your point?

Your "evaluation"?     The actual evaluation is based on meeting the requirements in the solicitation.  Not somebody's own personal wants

“You said ATK had a tested design, which it does not.”
What are you talking about?  I’ve watched the video of the system ATK planned on using.

"We also know how CST-100 and Dragon will land, so what is your point?
My point is that a winged spacecraft has the advantage of landing on a runway."

"Your "evaluation"?     The actual evaluation is based on meeting the requirements in the solicitation.  Not somebody's own personal wants"

Yes, my “evaluation” and I have done many in my lifetime, and they are respected.  My clients this time are the US taxpayer.

I can spot a flubbed up evaluation like the CCiCap with very little effort.  If the criteria were based on “Commercial market” it’s flawed. Jim as you enjoy saying “Unknown”, that just what the “Commercial market” is.    It was being factored so heavily into this process skews the outcome.  Maybe the same people that said the high launch rates of the EELV did this one, sigh. 

1. Videos are not tested Designs.

2. Liberty was anything but tested and large questions about whether it could even have flown safely still remain unanswered and un-resolved on the part of ATK, because they never got far enough and appear to be discontinuing the system.

3. Winged spacecraft also have the disadvantage of costing more and having wings which can easily be damaged both in flight and prior to flight, increasing LOC/LOV figures compared to capsule based vehicles, which mind you, we have seen can be scaled to quite large sizes.

4. What evaluations have you done? What are you even talking about? Thus far all you have provided is words I have yet to see you provide one shred of verifiable anything and you of all people should know by now design process is  not done based on any one person's "evaluations" no matter how respected they are. You are no exception, you are not involved directly with any of these projects, so you have no factual ground on which to speak from.

5.

I can spot a flubbed up evaluation like the CCiCap with very little effort.  If the criteria were based on “Commercial market” it’s flawed. Jim as you enjoy saying “Unknown”, that just what the “Commercial market” is.    It was being factored so heavily into this process skews the outcome.  Maybe the same people that said the high launch rates of the EELV did this one, sigh.

I don't even know, in all honestly, what I am looking at here. It looks like the ranting of an angry child. You can't provide any facts to base your argument upon, you are called out on it, you make up things and then upon being called out on that, you simply resort to childish name calling, essentially.

And no, your last point is total FUD if I have ever seen it you clearly don't know what your talking about. The criteria were very obviously not based on the "commercial" market when it came to CCICAP they were based on what NASA, acting as a customer just like anyone else would needed for their specific mission. Dragon was not built exclusively to be a NASA vehicle it was built to be a multipurpose spacecraft from the ground up to be used by a multitude of customers more of whom are even now coming out of the woodwork now that something like this exists, because in the past it hasn't, not at these costs.

The commercial spaceflight market is very much not a set in stone quantity but there is little doubt now that it is coming into existence and is not simply a government subsidy.


If anyone's "evaluation" was flubbed it was yours. I suggest you reconsider some of your statements because they have literally no basis in reality, as yet, as you have provided no evidence for some pretty far out claims.

[Jeff Bingham]

At the moment there are 2 1/2 commercial systems in work.  So there is a backup, and a backup to the backup.  Not that anyone notices.

They'll likely notice more when one or more of those "backups" are actually operational.

[FinalFrontier]

I still fail to see why we needed to "down-select" anything instead of simply having multiple providers like we do for everything else.

And how do you plan to pay for that?

Fair point. I still don't like it, but that has to do more with what I feel are insanely low amounts of money being spent on space exploration, at a point at which it is on the verge of possibly becoming a private sector venture (which is generally exactly when you want to give it a boost).

In any event, fair point there is no will for additional funding.

[Robotbeat]

I still fail to see why we needed to "down-select" anything instead of simply having multiple providers like we do for everything else.

And how do you plan to pay for that?

And it'd be so much cheaper the other way? It's penny wise, pound foolish to down select to a single provider.

[yg1968]

I still fail to see why we needed to "down-select" anything instead of simply having multiple providers like we do for everything else.

And how do you plan to pay for that?

By funding commercial crew at the President's requested level. As mentionned by Gerst at the House Hearing NASA intends to certify 2 commercial crew providers but should eventually have only one CTS provider. However, I suspect that there would be enough room for 2 CTS providers if NASA decided to combine crew (CTS) and cargo (CRS2).

[peter-b]

I still fail to see why we needed to "down-select" anything instead of simply having multiple providers like we do for everything else.

And how do you plan to pay for that?

By funding commercial crew at the President's requested level. As mentionned by Gerst at the House Hearing NASA intends to certify 2 commercial crew providers but should eventually have only one CTS provider. However, I suspect that there would be enough room for 2 CTS providers if NASA decided to combine crew (CTS) and cargo (CRS2).

How does the $1.9 bn cut to NASA next year due to Congress' refusal to pass a budget impact the outlook for CTS?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I still fail to see why we needed to "down-select" anything instead of simply having multiple providers like we do for everything else.

And how do you plan to pay for that?

By funding commercial crew at the President's requested level. As mentionned by Gerst at the House Hearing NASA intends to certify 2 commercial crew providers but should eventually have only one CTS provider. However, I suspect that there would be enough room for 2 CTS providers if NASA decided to combine crew (CTS) and cargo (CRS2).

How does the $1.9 bn cut to NASA next year due to Congress' refusal to pass a budget impact the outlook for CTS?

From the standpoint of SpaceX without sequestration they would be receiving ~$160M in milestone payments in FY2013 at the talked about FY2013 congressional budget that has yet to pass. The sequestration hit would be a reduction in available milestone payments of ~$16M. NASA by law cannot reduce it's manpower therefore the contracts take a larger hit ~10% vs the average of 8.3% to the topline NASA budget.

[Jeff Bingham]

I still fail to see why we needed to "down-select" anything instead of simply having multiple providers like we do for everything else.

And how do you plan to pay for that?

And it'd be so much cheaper the other way? It's penny wise, pound foolish to down select to a single provider.

Believe me, I'd personally love to see two U.S. providers, including one with horizontal landing capability for enhanced down-mass purposes. It's just not about what makes the most sense or is the most desirable when dealing with the present fiscal circumstances.

[Jeff Bingham]

I still fail to see why we needed to "down-select" anything instead of simply having multiple providers like we do for everything else.

And how do you plan to pay for that?

By funding commercial crew at the President's requested level. As mentionned by Gerst at the House Hearing NASA intends to certify 2 commercial crew providers but should eventually have only one CTS provider. However, I suspect that there would be enough room for 2 CTS providers if NASA decided to combine crew (CTS) and cargo (CRS2).

Silly me...should've thought of that. Must be the environment I work in, where "the best laid plans" just don't always get implemented due to real world constraints.

[yg1968]

I still fail to see why we needed to "down-select" anything instead of simply having multiple providers like we do for everything else.

And how do you plan to pay for that?

By funding commercial crew at the President's requested level. As mentionned by Gerst at the House Hearing NASA intends to certify 2 commercial crew providers but should eventually have only one CTS provider. However, I suspect that there would be enough room for 2 CTS providers if NASA decided to combine crew (CTS) and cargo (CRS2).

Silly me...should've thought of that. Must be the environment I work in, where "the best laid plans" just don't always get implemented due to real world constraints.

I am not suggesting that you had not thought of it. But there seems to be a difference of opinion between a number of Republicans (Representative Wolf and Senator Hutchison among others) and the Administration (and Senator Nelson) on the need to downselect early. I was kind of hoping that you would answer something more specific like "combining cargo and crew" wouldn't save NASA enough to fit within a budget of $500 million for commercial crew operations in 2017 (which is the predicted budget for commercial crew operations according to Gerst). Nobody has explained the logic of down selecting to only one CTS provider. If it is know for sure that maintaining 2 commercial crew providers would cost NASA twice as much, i.e., $1B per year (even if it is combined with cargo), this fact would help me and others understand the reasoning behind the decision to downselect to only one CTS provider. 

P.S. Edit in bold.

[Prober]

At the moment there are 2 1/2 commercial systems in work.  So there is a backup, and a backup to the backup.  Not that anyone notices.

They'll likely notice more when one or more of those "backups" are actually operational.

more like "If" .......sorry but I watched the house committee and management is bent on getting 830 million for CCrew, out of Congress for FY 2014.

Lot's of meaty info in that meeting.

[Go4TLI]

If maintaining 2 commercial crew providers will cost NASA twice as much, i.e., $1B per year (even if it is combined with cargo), it would help me and others understand the reasoning behind the decision. 

It's been explained time and time again.  And just one is likely to cost about 1 billion per year. 

You just don't like the answer or the rationale. 

[yg1968]

If maintaining 2 commercial crew providers will cost NASA twice as much, i.e., $1B per year (even if it is combined with cargo), it would help me and others understand the reasoning behind the decision. 

It's been explained time and time again.  And just one is likely to cost about 1 billion per year. 

You just don't like the answer or the rationale. 

Sorry but your back of the envelope calculations aren't very convicing. I am not sure where you get a price of $1B per year either. Gerst made it clear that NASA intends to spend the same amount on commercial crew operations that it pays Russia for ISS transportation which is about $500 million (8 seats x $63M).