NASA's Commercial Crew Twitter is posting: CCiCap awards go to Boeing ($460 million), SpaceX ($440 million), Sierra Nevada Corp. ($212.5 million).
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2012 01:11 pmNASA's Commercial Crew Twitter is posting: CCiCap awards go to Boeing ($460 million), SpaceX ($440 million), Sierra Nevada Corp. ($212.5 million). Still no NASA presser. 10 mins late. A bit rediculous.2/5, 2/5 & 1/5. Same ratio as 1, 1 & 1/2
NASA's Commercial Crew Twitter is posting: CCiCap awards go to Boeing ($460 million), SpaceX ($440 million), Sierra Nevada Corp. ($212.5 million). Still no NASA presser. 10 mins late. A bit rediculous.
CCiCap partners are:-- Sierra Nevada Corporation, Louisville, Colo., $212.5 million-- Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), Hawthorne, Calif., $440 million -- The Boeing Company, Houston, $460 million
Quote from: Jim on 08/03/2012 01:13 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2012 01:11 pmNASA's Commercial Crew Twitter is posting: CCiCap awards go to Boeing ($460 million), SpaceX ($440 million), Sierra Nevada Corp. ($212.5 million). Still no NASA presser. 10 mins late. A bit rediculous.2/5, 2/5 & 1/5. Same ratio as 1, 1 & 1/2Give or take 15 million dollars.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 08/03/2012 01:16 pmQuote from: Jim on 08/03/2012 01:13 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2012 01:11 pmNASA's Commercial Crew Twitter is posting: CCiCap awards go to Boeing ($460 million), SpaceX ($440 million), Sierra Nevada Corp. ($212.5 million). Still no NASA presser. 10 mins late. A bit rediculous.2/5, 2/5 & 1/5. Same ratio as 1, 1 & 1/2Give or take 15 million dollars.Interesting. Congress hasn't signed the budget yet right? so, the values may be quite different at the end of the day?
Gerst: Ed Mango SpaceX "We like the way they think"
All the tough questions are getting non responses "ask in the teleconference".
Any idea if we'll be able to listen to that on NASA audio?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2012 02:16 pmAll the tough questions are getting non responses "ask in the teleconference".Any idea if we'll be able to listen to that on NASA audio?
I don't understand what the purpose of this particular press conference was when all the meaty stuff will be talked about at the 10:45 telecon.
Quote from: QuantumG on 08/03/2012 02:18 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2012 02:16 pmAll the tough questions are getting non responses "ask in the teleconference".Any idea if we'll be able to listen to that on NASA audio?Yes sir! Audio of the 10:45 a.m. teleconference will be streamed live at:http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio
So it sounds like Blue Origin didn't even "bid" on CCiCAP. Did I hear that correctly?
Boeing late 2016 crewed test flight.
Presentation: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672130main_CCiCap%20Announcement.pdf
I get the ISS on the web's NASA TV. I'm looking at Del Potro-Federer, anyways, but I'm wondering what's the url.
SpaceX:NASA SELECTS SPACEX TO RETURN AMERICANS TO SPACE(Hawthorne, CA) – Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) today won a $440 million contract with NASA to develop the successor to the Space Shuttle and transport American astronauts into space.
SNC:SIERRA NEVADA CORPORATION'S DREAM CHASER SPACE SYSTEM AWARDED MAJOR NASA ORBITAL TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT SPARKS, Nev., – Aug., 3, 2012 – Eren Ozmen, President of Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC), is pleased to announce that the company's Dream Chaser® Space System has been awarded $212.5 million as part of NASA's Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) Program. The 21 month contract will begin in August of 2012. <snip> We are very pleased to have been awarded this amount of funding as part of NASA's ongoing effort to create a commercial human transportation system to low Earth orbit. This award will allow our Program to continue to make great strides in the development of the Dream Chaser Space System.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2012 03:00 pmSpaceX:NASA SELECTS SPACEX TO RETURN AMERICANS TO SPACEQuote from: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2012 02:29 pmSNC:SIERRA NEVADA CORPORATION'S DREAM CHASER SPACE SYSTEM AWARDED MAJOR NASA ORBITAL TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT I love the contrast.
SpaceX:NASA SELECTS SPACEX TO RETURN AMERICANS TO SPACE
SNC:SIERRA NEVADA CORPORATION'S DREAM CHASER SPACE SYSTEM AWARDED MAJOR NASA ORBITAL TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
Telecon audio attached...volume level is a little high to me, so be aware of that.
Quote from: block51 on 08/03/2012 02:52 pmSo it sounds like Blue Origin didn't even "bid" on CCiCAP. Did I hear that correctly?I don't recall hearing Blue Origin either in the group of 7 companies that submitted a proposal.
And the baseline article for this annoumcement.Lots of specific articles to come.http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/08/nasa-ccicap-funding-spacex-boeing-sncs-crew-vehicles/
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2012 04:48 pmAnd the baseline article for this annoumcement.Lots of specific articles to come.http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/08/nasa-ccicap-funding-spacex-boeing-sncs-crew-vehicles/I don't know how you throw those together so fast, and so well. Great baseline.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2012 04:48 pmAnd the baseline article for this annoumcement.Lots of specific articles to come.http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/08/nasa-ccicap-funding-spacex-boeing-sncs-crew-vehicles/Nice article!I do find one thing curious, though - Why is 'Liberty' the first image in the article, even though it was not selected?
Quote from: Lee Jay on 08/03/2012 04:56 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2012 04:48 pmAnd the baseline article for this annoumcement.Lots of specific articles to come.http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/08/nasa-ccicap-funding-spacex-boeing-sncs-crew-vehicles/I don't know how you throw those together so fast, and so well. Great baseline.Thanks! Would have been a lot faster if my PC hadn't slowed down to a snail to get that massive Dream Chaser video on L2!
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2012 05:20 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 08/03/2012 04:56 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2012 04:48 pmAnd the baseline article for this annoumcement.Lots of specific articles to come.http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/08/nasa-ccicap-funding-spacex-boeing-sncs-crew-vehicles/I don't know how you throw those together so fast, and so well. Great baseline.Thanks! Would have been a lot faster if my PC hadn't slowed down to a snail to get that massive Dream Chaser video on L2! :D That's one of the best - if not the best - CGI I've seen on any of these vehicles. So it was worth it!
Quote from: Lee Jay on 08/03/2012 04:56 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2012 04:48 pmAnd the baseline article for this annoumcement.Lots of specific articles to come.http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/08/nasa-ccicap-funding-spacex-boeing-sncs-crew-vehicles/I don't know how you throw those together so fast, and so well. Great baseline.Thanks! Would have been a lot faster if my PC hadn't slowed down to a snail to get that massive Dream Chaser video on L2! :D
It's not entirely surprising but all optional milestones in the SAAs have been redacted.
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/03/2012 07:24 pmIt's not entirely surprising but all optional milestones in the SAAs have been redacted. In SpaceX's case, I do wonder if some of the reason for redacting was to lessen the impact in case they do not meet their goals. For instance, they may have said (before redacted) that the crewed flight could be done /before/ 2015 (see page 41 aka 1.7). And, as long as we're speculating, maybe they have some other partner for test flights. The places that they have redaction are kind of weird.
Pub time, but just wanted to thank everyone for chipping in with useful posts on all of the main threads for today.Very clean threads, no moderating required, good day all round!
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 08/03/2012 07:52 pmPub time, but just wanted to thank everyone for chipping in with useful posts on all of the main threads for today.Very clean threads, no moderating required, good day all round! It helps that NASA choose the same picks that we did in the poll... There is very little to be unhappy about. Some very solid picks by NASA!
SpaceX is unique since it’s a modified cargo vehicle…
Quote from: Rocket Science on 08/03/2012 03:14 pmSpaceX is unique since it’s a modified cargo vehicle…no. It's the opposite way; currently they are flying cargo on non-finished crew vehicle.Dragon was always designed primarily as a crew vehicle, but they are using it also as a cargo vehicle, and they could use it as a cargo vehicle earlier than as a crew vehicle.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/03/2012 07:37 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 08/03/2012 07:24 pmIt's not entirely surprising but all optional milestones in the SAAs have been redacted. In SpaceX's case, I do wonder if some of the reason for redacting was to lessen the impact in case they do not meet their goals. For instance, they may have said (before redacted) that the crewed flight could be done /before/ 2015 (see page 41 aka 1.7). And, as long as we're speculating, maybe they have some other partner for test flights. The places that they have redaction are kind of weird.I don't think so. The reasons for redacting these optional milestones is that they don't want their competitors to know too much about their future plans (and then adjust their plans accordingly). Given that these milestones are optional and can even be changed, it is not very surprising that they have been redacted.
Redacted Space Act Agreements have been posted:The Boeing Company Space Act Agreement (NNK12MS01S)http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=632Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) Space Act Agreement (NNK12MS02S)http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=633Sierra Nevada Corporation Space Act Agreement (NNK12MS03S)http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=634[copies attached]
Redacted Space Act Agreements have been posted:[copies attached]
It looks like NASA is thinking of downselecting to only one company when CTS is eventually awarded. See this thread:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29593.msg940097#msg940097
Well, we all knew it was coming - the simple fact is that two companies cannot be sustained with only one flight per year each.
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/08/2012 09:17 pmIt looks like NASA is thinking of downselecting to only one company when CTS is eventually awarded. See this thread:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29593.msg940097#msg940097Well, we all knew it was coming - the simple fact is that two companies cannot be sustained with only one flight per year each.
I still think that you could have a business case with one commercial crew flight per year if you win both a crew (CTS) and a cargo (CRS2) contract.
There could be flights to other destinations, and for other customers.
In a statement Friday, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said he was "disappointed and disheartened by the news.""I have been concerned that favoritism may be playing far too prominent of a role in NASA’s decision-making process, especially with regards to companies closely tied to key NASA officials," he said. "ATK is a proven leader and their track record is beyond exemplary. It was my understanding that ATK’s Liberty proposal ranked very high in technical merit, and was the lowest-risk option."Bishop’s concerns about favoritism stem from alleged relationships he says President Obama and NASA administrator Charles Bolden have with Musk.
Eventually, some other customers need to commit to buying crew flights
Picture of Mr. Bishop's presumed residence is attached.
Such as Bigelow, who has said he won't commit until he has two competing suppliers.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/54623998-79/nasa-atk-liberty-space.html.cspQuoteIn a statement Friday, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said he was "disappointed and disheartened by the news.""I have been concerned that favoritism may be playing far too prominent of a role in NASA’s decision-making process, especially with regards to companies closely tied to key NASA officials," he said. "ATK is a proven leader and their track record is beyond exemplary. It was my understanding that ATK’s Liberty proposal ranked very high in technical merit, and was the lowest-risk option."Bishop’s concerns about favoritism stem from alleged relationships he says President Obama and NASA administrator Charles Bolden have with Musk.Picture of Mr. Bishop's presumed residence is attached.
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/08/2012 09:31 pmI still think that you could have a business case with one commercial crew flight per year if you win both a crew (CTS) and a cargo (CRS2) contract. That may be true, however the basic issue from NASA's perspective would be whether or not their resources would be better used funding the certification for one company vs. two companies - i.e. how much is the redundancy of the second company worth, when the money to support that second company could be used to support one company, and get them into service sooner?Quote from: mmeijeri on 08/08/2012 09:26 pmThere could be flights to other destinations, and for other customers.Well, therein lies the rub - although there could be other customers, will there be in reality? Eventually, some other customers need to commit to buying crew flights, or else the higher development & certification costs just aren't going to be able to justify themselves with only one flight per year from NASA - and NASA won't want to be stuck having to prop-up a company who would fall without NASA's money, taking a crew transportation capability with them.
Quote from: mmeijeri on 08/08/2012 10:45 pmSuch as Bigelow, who has said he won't commit until he has two competing suppliers.NASA is not obligated, or should, structure services to the benefit of a private entrepreneur. Bigelow is hardly an assured proposition, and as we have seen with EELV overestimating commercial requirements can have devastating effects.
Crew vehicles may be able to carry cargo, but will be limited to certain kinds of goods, while efficiency is further decreased.
Quote from: Space Pete on 08/08/2012 10:04 pmEventually, some other customers need to commit to buying crew flightsSuch as Bigelow, who has said he won't commit until he has two competing suppliers.
Quote from: mmeijeri on 08/08/2012 10:45 pmQuote from: Space Pete on 08/08/2012 10:04 pmEventually, some other customers need to commit to buying crew flightsSuch as Bigelow, who has said he won't commit until he has two competing suppliers.Yes, but the prospect of achieving two competing suppliers may well be dependent upon people like Mr. Bigelow committing to buying flights.Catch-22.
The strange part is that NASA would be willing to fund 1 or 2 companies through certification but they would later downselect to one for CTS.
I was simply saying that it is one possibility. I am not saying that it will necessarely happen like that. NASA might also decide in 2014 to have only company for phase 2 of certification (and for the CCiCap optional milestones). But you can make up your own mind by looking at the source document at figure 2 on page 3 of the certification white paper:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29593.msg940089#msg940089
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/09/2012 05:31 pmI was simply saying that it is one possibility. I am not saying that it will necessarely happen like that. NASA might also decide in 2014 to have only company for phase 2 of certification (and for the CCiCap optional milestones). But you can make up your own mind by looking at the source document at figure 2 on page 3 of the certification white paper:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29593.msg940089#msg940089I really hope they take two companies through certification. It just makes a lot more sense to combine Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo for flight services, instead of downselecting to only one Commercial Crew provider while keeping two Commercial Cargo providers.~Jon
Quote from: jongoff on 08/09/2012 06:50 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 08/09/2012 05:31 pmI was simply saying that it is one possibility. I am not saying that it will necessarely happen like that. NASA might also decide in 2014 to have only company for phase 2 of certification (and for the CCiCap optional milestones). But you can make up your own mind by looking at the source document at figure 2 on page 3 of the certification white paper:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29593.msg940089#msg940089I really hope they take two companies through certification. It just makes a lot more sense to combine Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo for flight services, instead of downselecting to only one Commercial Crew provider while keeping two Commercial Cargo providers.~JonI agree with you. It would be nice to have both the Atlas V and the Falcon 9 human rated at the end of certification even if either SpaceX or Boeing/SNC doesn't end up getting a CTS contract.
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/09/2012 08:24 pmQuote from: jongoff on 08/09/2012 06:50 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 08/09/2012 05:31 pmI was simply saying that it is one possibility. I am not saying that it will necessarely happen like that. NASA might also decide in 2014 to have only company for phase 2 of certification (and for the CCiCap optional milestones). But you can make up your own mind by looking at the source document at figure 2 on page 3 of the certification white paper:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29593.msg940089#msg940089I really hope they take two companies through certification. It just makes a lot more sense to combine Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo for flight services, instead of downselecting to only one Commercial Crew provider while keeping two Commercial Cargo providers.~JonI agree with you. It would be nice to have both the Atlas V and the Falcon 9 human rated at the end of certification even if either SpaceX or Boeing/SNC doesn't end up getting a CTS contract. Having both certified should allow whoever wins to do a bid among the LV suppliers.
Quote from: baldusi on 08/09/2012 08:26 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 08/09/2012 08:24 pmQuote from: jongoff on 08/09/2012 06:50 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 08/09/2012 05:31 pmI was simply saying that it is one possibility. I am not saying that it will necessarely happen like that. NASA might also decide in 2014 to have only company for phase 2 of certification (and for the CCiCap optional milestones). But you can make up your own mind by looking at the source document at figure 2 on page 3 of the certification white paper:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29593.msg940089#msg940089I really hope they take two companies through certification. It just makes a lot more sense to combine Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo for flight services, instead of downselecting to only one Commercial Crew provider while keeping two Commercial Cargo providers.~JonI agree with you. It would be nice to have both the Atlas V and the Falcon 9 human rated at the end of certification even if either SpaceX or Boeing/SNC doesn't end up getting a CTS contract. Having both certified should allow whoever wins to do a bid among the LV suppliers.But they are certifying an integrated solution. If you change LV supplier, do you need to certify again ? Boeing can't just switch from a P&W engine on a 7x7 to perhaps a Rolls Royce engine without some sort of certification tests, right ? How would this be different ?
That's a different problem. We don't know if they will go forward with full system certification for two contestants. But assuming they do with one, but both F9 and AV are HR, then they could do a new bid. I was stating this as a purely blanket statement. SpaceX won't go with Atlas V, and I highly doubt that Boeing would go with Falcon 9 after all the trouble of certifying the Atlas V. But, for example, if they get a 2017-2020 contract and the ISS gets an extension to 2025, who knows!
The Dream Chaser may end up on the Falcon 9, if only to ensure that Boeing+ULA behaves.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 08/09/2012 08:51 pmThe Dream Chaser may end up on the Falcon 9, if only to ensure that Boeing+ULA behaves.Why? Dreamchaser could move to Falcon 9 if they choose to, but NASA can not tell Dreamchsaer it must use Falcon 9.
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 08/09/2012 09:47 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 08/09/2012 08:51 pmThe Dream Chaser may end up on the Falcon 9, if only to ensure that Boeing+ULA behaves.Why? Dreamchaser could move to Falcon 9 if they choose to, but NASA can not tell Dreamchsaer it must use Falcon 9. Dreamchaser could also move to Orbitals rocket if its working up to specs. That would be an interesting combo.
Quote from: baldusi on 08/09/2012 08:44 pmThat's a different problem. We don't know if they will go forward with full system certification for two contestants. But assuming they do with one, but both F9 and AV are HR, then they could do a new bid. I was stating this as a purely blanket statement. SpaceX won't go with Atlas V, and I highly doubt that Boeing would go with Falcon 9 after all the trouble of certifying the Atlas V. But, for example, if they get a 2017-2020 contract and the ISS gets an extension to 2025, who knows!The Dream Chaser may end up on the Falcon 9, if only to ensure that Boeing+ULA behaves.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/08/2012 11:04 pmQuote from: mmeijeri on 08/08/2012 10:45 pmSuch as Bigelow, who has said he won't commit until he has two competing suppliers.NASA is not obligated, or should, structure services to the benefit of a private entrepreneur. Bigelow is hardly an assured proposition, and as we have seen with EELV overestimating commercial requirements can have devastating effects.OTOH, there is benefit to NASA if they can order one flight per year from each of two providers, and someone like Bigelow provides additional demand to close their business cases.The unreliability of that demand is the issue, not the benefit if it were in place. It makes sense for NASA not to do anything to discourage other users, without actually supporting them - as long as it's cost-neutral. Though BEAM would be great if it goes ahead.Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/08/2012 11:04 pmCrew vehicles may be able to carry cargo, but will be limited to certain kinds of goods, while efficiency is further decreased.Assuming the price of a flight is almost independent of the number of passengers then it makes sense to use mass and cubic that would otherwise go to waste, regardless of the implied inefficiency.Bulk supplies for a TP destination would presumably use CRS-type services, possibly sharing further costs with NASA.cheers, Martin
The overhead of two companies will be too great (mission ops, launch services, docuemntation, certification...) everything. Looking at the cost profiles and what NASA funding levels will be it is not possible to carry 2 past iCAP unless 1) NASA gets a signifcant increase in budget (which won't happen IMO) or 2) or the schedule moves to the right.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 08/09/2012 08:51 pmQuote from: baldusi on 08/09/2012 08:44 pmThat's a different problem. We don't know if they will go forward with full system certification for two contestants. But assuming they do with one, but both F9 and AV are HR, then they could do a new bid. I was stating this as a purely blanket statement. SpaceX won't go with Atlas V, and I highly doubt that Boeing would go with Falcon 9 after all the trouble of certifying the Atlas V. But, for example, if they get a 2017-2020 contract and the ISS gets an extension to 2025, who knows!The Dream Chaser may end up on the Falcon 9, if only to ensure that Boeing+ULA behaves.That doesn't even make any sense.
Of course it makes sense. When trucking things having the tractor and the trailer made by different companies is normal practice. Capsules are payloads to the lv.
Quote from: erioladastra on 08/10/2012 03:20 amThe overhead of two companies will be too great (mission ops, launch services, docuemntation, certification...) everything. Looking at the cost profiles and what NASA funding levels will be it is not possible to carry 2 past iCAP unless 1) NASA gets a signifcant increase in budget (which won't happen IMO) or 2) or the schedule moves to the right.Err, that overhead would be the responsibility of the company not NASA and may be lower that anything NASA does internally. NASA would pay but they would be paying for services, not running it. From the looks of it Space X plans to use the same mission ops for manned as for cargo with the addition of a flight surgeon. ULA would be providing launch services to the rest and odds are they won't be hiring a lot of staff just to integrate a manned vs. unmanned vechile. Documentation is a fuzzy cost(it depends on what is documented and how). Certification is another fuzzy one.
