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

[sdsds]

Still, it's a shame that for us spaceplane fans, there's not much to look forward to as it's almost assured one of the capsules will win out over DreamChaser. 

As another spaceplane fan my take on the current situation is almost exactly the reverse. Things look much better for SNC after the CCICAP awards than they looked before!

Admittedly there is no room for SNC to stumble. If they are to have any chance at a NASA CTS contract they must "execute crisply" on their current milestones. But the statement from Gerstenmaier makes clear DreamChaser is being given credit for the diversity it brings to the mix. That's great news!

With due respect to SpaceX, they could stumble in bringing to bear on crewed Dragon the necessary resources to make it fly. (This could happen if e.g. it became necessary to focus those resources on re-qualifying cargo dragon after a mishap.) And with due contempt for Boeing executive leadership, CST-100 could stumble if Boeing continues to show only "white level" commitment to the project.

I'm not suggesting either of these are likely; only that nothing seems "almost assured." A lot can happen between now and then....

[clongton]

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.

You don't honestly think we wouldn't fly because we didn't have a backup system, do you? Awfully glad that attitude didn't exist back in the day. Alan Shepard and John Glenn would never have gotten off the ground. Got guys stuck on the ISS? No backup so we can't come get you . Seriously - give us a break.

[Go4TLI]

Boeing had a strong overall rating but their level of effectiveness for Business information was white which was lower than ATK, DC and SpaceX.

I think that Gerst meant that they could have a second option if something went wrong with the first provider.

Right and Boeing understands this business and how to analyze markets and meet demand. 

ATK has already backed away from the whole integrated Liberty system so explain if the business information was so solid why they did that.

I know what Gerst meant and that is why I said what I said.

[beancounter]

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.

You don't honestly think we wouldn't fly because we didn't have a backup system, do you? Awfully glad that attitude didn't exist back in the day. Alan Shepard and John Glenn would never have gotten off the ground. Got guys stuck on the ISS? No backup so we can't come get you . Seriously - give us a break.

No backup exists now!

[beancounter]

Still, it's a shame that for us spaceplane fans, there's not much to look forward to as it's almost assured one of the capsules will win out over DreamChaser. 

As another spaceplane fan my take on the current situation is almost exactly the reverse. Things look much better for SNC after the CCICAP awards than they looked before!

Admittedly there is no room for SNC to stumble. If they are to have any chance at a NASA CTS contract they must "execute crisply" on their current milestones. But the statement from Gerstenmaier makes clear DreamChaser is being given credit for the diversity it brings to the mix. That's great news!

With due respect to SpaceX, they could stumble in bringing to bear on crewed Dragon the necessary resources to make it fly. (This could happen if e.g. it became necessary to focus those resources on re-qualifying cargo dragon after a mishap.) And with due contempt for Boeing executive leadership, CST-100 could stumble if Boeing continues to show only "white level" commitment to the project.

I'm not suggesting either of these are likely; only that nothing seems "almost assured." A lot can happen between now and then....

I suspect that the biggest risk to the program is funding.  Sequestration aside, the program's been cut before, approximately in half!

[vt_hokie]

In all seriousness, I wish I could do more than just put in my $0.02 from the sidelines.  I'd love to put my efforts toward making something like DreamChaser a reality, as I believe it's something this country really needs.  (For a brief period at the beginning of my career, I thought I might be on such a career track, having been hired out of college to work on the ill-fated X-33 program.)

But to bring it back on-topic, I think the low projected flight rates and lack of any near-term destination beyond ISS make it painfully obvious that the "commercial" vision was premature.

[Jim]

, as I believe it's something this country really needs.

This country does not need a vehicle that only scores high in the cool factor.  A winged vehicle does not necessarily advance the economics or state of art.

[Lurker Steve]

, as I believe it's something this country really needs.

This country does not need a vehicle that only scores high in the cool factor.  A winged vehicle does not necessarily advance the economics or state of art.

Well, we certainly aren't advancing the "state of art" with re-tread capsule designs.

[kirghizstan]

, as I believe it's something this country really needs.

This country does not need a vehicle that only scores high in the cool factor.  A winged vehicle does not necessarily advance the economics or state of art.

Well, we certainly aren't advancing the "state of art" with re-tread capsule designs.

Some might argue that if we can get a capsule that produces a significant reduction in the cost equation over any prior mode of transport to and from space you are advancing the state of art?

Not saying this will happen but if it does it would be a much bigger development than a move towards something other than capsules

[yg1968]

In all seriousness, I wish I could do more than just put in my $0.02 from the sidelines.  I'd love to put my efforts toward making something like DreamChaser a reality, as I believe it's something this country really needs.  (For a brief period at the beginning of my career, I thought I might be on such a career track, having been hired out of college to work on the ill-fated X-33 program.)

But to bring it back on-topic, I think the low projected flight rates and lack of any near-term destination beyond ISS make it painfully obvious that the "commercial" vision was premature.

SNC has invested a lot of money into its spacecraft (almost as much as NASA has according to Sierangelo). So they must think that there is a market for their spacecraft.

[yg1968]

, as I believe it's something this country really needs.

This country does not need a vehicle that only scores high in the cool factor.  A winged vehicle does not necessarily advance the economics or state of art.

DC keeps getting selected because it is a lifting body. I don't think that NASA would have picked more than 2 capsules for CCiCap if ATK had surpassed DC in NASA's technical and business evaluations. If that had happenned, NASA would probably have just given awards to SpaceX and Boeing without having a third provider. 

[Robotbeat]

, as I believe it's something this country really needs.

This country does not need a vehicle that only scores high in the cool factor.  A winged vehicle does not necessarily advance the economics or state of art.

Well, we certainly aren't advancing the "state of art" with re-tread capsule designs.

A deep space craft needs wings like a fish needs a bicycle.

Adding wings* on something doesn't necessarily improve the "state-of-the-art"ness of a design. And can possibly hinder it, especially if you ever want to go beyond LEO.

Anyway, the two capsules left, CST-100 and Dragon, both are going to use relatively novel recovery mechanisms, airbags and vertical landing respectively. That is clearly an advancement of the current state of the art, and is more "new" in spaceflight than a horizontal landing (done by X-37b and Shuttle and Buran and the Soviet lifting bodies).




*blah blah lifting body blah blah

[Jeff Bingham]

, as I believe it's something this country really needs.

This country does not need a vehicle that only scores high in the cool factor.  A winged vehicle does not necessarily advance the economics or state of art.

DC keeps getting selected because it is a lifting body. I don't think that NASA would have picked more than 2 capsules for CCiCap if ATK had surpassed DC in NASA's technical and business evaluations. If that had happenned, NASA would probably have just given awards to SpaceX and Boeing without having a third provider. 

Not that it established a requirement, but the following section of the 2010 Act was intended to reflect a significant level of congressional "interest" in the kind of capability offered by a lifting body...until someone comes up with a soft vertical landing capability with similar payload capacity:

"SEC. 404. REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION CARGO
RETURN CAPABILITY.
Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on potential alternative commercially-developed means for the capability for a soft-landing return on land from the ISS of—
(1) research samples or other derivative materials; and
(2) small to mid-sized (up to 1,000 kilograms) equipment for return and analysis, or for refurbishment and redelivery, to the ISS."

(Note: the 1k is not a reference to the total capacity, just a desire to be able to see a single piece of equipment in that weight class accommodated.)

[Rocket Science]

, as I believe it's something this country really needs.

This country does not need a vehicle that only scores high in the cool factor.  A winged vehicle does not necessarily advance the economics or state of art.

Well, we certainly aren't advancing the "state of art" with re-tread capsule designs.

A deep space craft needs wings like a fish needs a bicycle.

Adding wings* on something doesn't necessarily improve the "state-of-the-art"ness of a design. And can possibly hinder it, especially if you ever want to go beyond LEO.

Anyway, the two capsules left, CST-100 and Dragon, both are going to use relatively novel recovery mechanisms, airbags and vertical landing respectively. That is clearly an advancement of the current state of the art, and is more "new" in spaceflight than a horizontal landing (done by X-37b and Shuttle and Buran and the Soviet lifting bodies).




*blah blah lifting body blah blah

For you robot...

[Robotbeat]

, as I believe it's something this country really needs.

This country does not need a vehicle that only scores high in the cool factor.  A winged vehicle does not necessarily advance the economics or state of art.

DC keeps getting selected because it is a lifting body. I don't think that NASA would have picked more than 2 capsules for CCiCap if ATK had surpassed DC in NASA's technical and business evaluations. If that had happenned, NASA would probably have just given awards to SpaceX and Boeing without having a third provider. 

Not that it established a requirement, but the following section of the 2010 Act was intended to reflect a significant level of congressional "interest" in the kind of capability offered by a lifting body...until someone comes up with a soft vertical landing capability with similar payload capacity:

"SEC. 404. REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION CARGO
RETURN CAPABILITY.
Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on potential alternative commercially-developed means for the capability for a soft-landing return on land from the ISS of—
(1) research samples or other derivative materials; and
(2) small to mid-sized (up to 1,000 kilograms) equipment for return and analysis, or for refurbishment and redelivery, to the ISS."

(Note: the 1k is not a reference to the total capacity, just a desire to be able to see a single piece of equipment in that weight class accommodated.)

Define soft-landing. Does that mean no for splashdown but yes for Dragon's VTVL? Airbags?

[Jeff Bingham]

, as I believe it's something this country really needs.

This country does not need a vehicle that only scores high in the cool factor.  A winged vehicle does not necessarily advance the economics or state of art.

DC keeps getting selected because it is a lifting body. I don't think that NASA would have picked more than 2 capsules for CCiCap if ATK had surpassed DC in NASA's technical and business evaluations. If that had happenned, NASA would probably have just given awards to SpaceX and Boeing without having a third provider. 

Not that it established a requirement, but the following section of the 2010 Act was intended to reflect a significant level of congressional "interest" in the kind of capability offered by a lifting body...until someone comes up with a soft vertical landing capability with similar payload capacity:

"SEC. 404. REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION CARGO
RETURN CAPABILITY.
Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on potential alternative commercially-developed means for the capability for a soft-landing return on land from the ISS of—
(1) research samples or other derivative materials; and
(2) small to mid-sized (up to 1,000 kilograms) equipment for return and analysis, or for refurbishment and redelivery, to the ISS."

(Note: the 1k is not a reference to the total capacity, just a desire to be able to see a single piece of equipment in that weight class accommodated.)

Define soft-landing. Does that mean no for splashdown but yes for Dragon's VTVL? Airbags?

At the time it really contemplated horizontal, winged landing, and as noted included consideration of fairly hefty and high-mass items. The study that NASA provided didn't actually address any of the substantive issues, but said basically "if such a capability is developed, NASA would consider purchasing that sort of service." Talked mostly about COTS-provided (SpaceX) capability against projected user requirements (but didn't address potentially increased non-NASA user demand through expanded research "community" in the Nat-Lab-operated half of the U.S. Segment.) Basically a useless report, which only encourages the Congress to be more specific in the request next time around.)

[Lobo]

Well, we certainly aren't advancing the "state of art" with re-tread capsule designs.

A capsule is geometrically and volumetrically the most efficient design for a spacecraft that is intended to do a ballistic reentry through an atmosphere.  That's why it's been used for every such application since the dawn of spaceflight with the exception of STS and Buran (and Buran was just a copy of the inefficient design of the Shuttle.  Despite advancing the state of the art a few times, The Shuttle was always a victim of it's inefficient design.).  Vostok was a spherical capsule, and was later replaced with the more traditional conical/blunt nose capsule of Soyuz.
There was a reason Mercury was a capsule, when NASA could have designed it to be anything.  Same with GEmini, Apollo, Soyuz, Shenzhou, Huygens, Viking, Pathfinder, MER, MSL. 

Trying to advance the "state-of-the-art" for no obvious and practical benefictial reason just ends up needlessly costing more.  Soyuz was around long before the Shuttle, and will be around long after the Shuttle.  And while it's never done much to advance the state of the art, it was flying through 2 groundings of the Space Shuttle, and now is the only thing flying after the retirement of the Shuttle.  In a way, relyability, dependability, and affordability are their own state of the art. There are more ways to measure it than just technologically.
There is a way a car still looks like a car since the Model T.  Four wheels, front wheel steering, steering wheel, etc.  It's been refined and advanced, but it is still the same basical platform.  It doesn't look like an egg, it doesn't hover or fly, it doesn't have 10 wheels, it doesn't have robotic legs, it doesn't have tracks, it doesn't drive in the water (with a couple of screwy exceptions like the Amphicar, that were horribly inefficient)
Moller has been trying to advance the state of the Art with his flying car for years...After $100 million dollars, it's only ever demonstrated limited teathered hover.  It's technologically state of the art, but not reliably, dependibly, or affordably state of the art. Even if he gets the thing working and can sell it, most people can't afford a multi million dollar car to do something they don't really need, like fly on their commute to work, or to the grocery store.  If people need to travel long distances fast occasionally, they already have a reliable, affordable flying transport...called an "airplane".

The capsule is like a car.  Today's cars are state of the art compared to the model T, but they are the same basic layout and function...because it works! Sometimes you can just already have the most efficient and best design, and don't need to swap it up for something different without a good, necessary reason to do so.

[vt_hokie]

Both capsules and lifting body "spaceplanes" have their respective strengths and weaknesses, and their respective niches to fill, imo.  The point is that this commercial initiative was supposed to allow us to finally have diversity, not continue to be stuck in this either/or situation.

I'll admit, I'm still more excited about the DreamChaser design than I am any of the capsules, and perhaps that's a more emotional than logical response.  And perhaps I'd feel differently if the capsules were going to take humans beyond LEO sometime soon.  But the small reusable shuttle is an idea that's been around for so long (since at least Dyna-Soar) and has never quite been able to get over the hump.  (Remember not only HL20 but Hermes, X-38, etc.)  It'd be nice to see DreamChaser finally buck the trend, rather than becoming yet another name on the long list of cancelled vehicles.

[yg1968]

Both capsules and lifting body "spaceplanes" have their respective strengths and weaknesses, and their respective niches to fill, imo.  The point is that this commercial initiative was supposed to allow us to finally have diversity, not continue to be stuck in this either/or situation.

I'll admit, I'm still more excited about the DreamChaser design than I am any of the capsules, and perhaps that's a more emotional than logical response.  And perhaps I'd feel differently if the capsules were going to take humans beyond LEO sometime soon.  But the small reusable shuttle is an idea that's been around for so long (since at least Dyna-Soar) and has never quite been able to get over the hump.  (Remember not only HL20 but Hermes, X-38, etc.)  It'd be nice to see DreamChaser finally buck the trend, rather than becoming yet another name on the long list of cancelled vehicles.

I think that DC's only hope is if NASA decides to purchase commercial crew for non-ISS LEO missions. DC has various configurations that can be used for non-ISS missions. One of its configurations has a robotic arm which could be useful if NASA decides that it needs a servicing spacecraft. 

[Go4TLI]

A deep space craft needs wings like a fish needs a bicycle.

None of these are "deep space crafts" and DC does not have wings.  It is a lifting body, just as capsules are - just different.