LIVE: CCiCAP Commercial Crew Awards Announcements - August 3, 2012

[cro-magnon gramps]

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/

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!

Downloaded and watched on blackberry playbook, was awesome. Better than the SpaceX CGIs for detail and clarity. Thx Chris for hosting it on L2, SNC for allowing us the privilege, and the people who created it. This has certainly been a watershed day for Space Flight.

[yg1968]

Bolden's press conference on YouTube:

[AnalogMan]

Redacted Space Act Agreements have been posted:

The Boeing Company Space Act Agreement (NNK12MS01S)
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=632

Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) Space Act Agreement (NNK12MS02S)
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=633

Sierra Nevada Corporation Space Act Agreement (NNK12MS03S)
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=634

[copies attached]

[yg1968]

It's not entirely surprising but all optional milestones in the SAAs have been redacted.

[Robotbeat]

It'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.

[yg1968]

It'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.

[Chris Bergin]

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!

Lots of articles to come over the coming weeks. Already got about four for Dream Chaser in the pipline!

[yg1968]

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!

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!

[Lars_J]

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!

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!

I certainly support NSF readership to have an equal say in future NASA decisions. 

[hkultala]

SpaceX 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.

[Rocket Science]

SpaceX 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.

I get where you are going with this, but I'm just stating what NASA said.

[Robotbeat]

It'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.

Yeah, but there are a whole lot of milestones that are completely redacted, it's not just about dates. After thinking about it, I suspect it is relating to propulsive landing. They want to have the flexibility of changing the optional milestones in case things don't work out, etc, so they may go for splashdown as the recovery method (which they already do) if there are issues with propulsive landing. Just speculation.

Also, Blue Origin had optional milestones for CCDev2 related to their hydrolox engine development. I wonder if some of SpaceX's optional milestones are about RLV? I sort of doubt it (money is too tight right now to necessarily expect NASA to help with that), but man-rating a reusable Falcon 9 first stage may be an appropriate optional milestone that you'd want completely redacted until further in development. I think this is less likely.

[Prober]

Redacted Space Act Agreements have been posted:

The Boeing Company Space Act Agreement (NNK12MS01S)
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=632

Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) Space Act Agreement (NNK12MS02S)
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=633

Sierra Nevada Corporation Space Act Agreement (NNK12MS03S)
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=634

[copies attached]

ya know some of these pdf's are almost lol quality.  NP, got an app for that.

[MP99]

Redacted Space Act Agreements have been posted:
[copies attached]

Loving the humour in this - noting the number of times downloaded. 

* NNK12MS01S_Boeing_SAA-Redacted.pdf (6183.81 KB - downloaded 35 times.)
* NNK12MS02S_SpaceX_SAA-Redacted.pdf (2967.07 KB - downloaded 71 times.)
* NNK12MS03S_Sierra_Nevada_Corp_SAA-Redacted.pdf (5301.54 KB - downloaded 39 times.)

cheers, Martin

[yg1968]

Redacted Space Act Agreements have been posted:

The Boeing Company Space Act Agreement (NNK12MS01S)
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=632

Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) Space Act Agreement (NNK12MS02S)
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=633

Sierra Nevada Corporation Space Act Agreement (NNK12MS03S)
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=634

[copies attached]

Some highlights from the SAAs:

-SNC's optional milestones supports "a [redacted word or date] orbital crewed demonstration flight".

-Boeing says that it's business case closes with two commercial crew flights per year.
-Boeing says that its optional milestones finishes with a crewed flight possibly to the ISS in December 2016.

-SpaceX says in bold that it knows that there is a huge difference between cargo and crew.
-SpaceX says that it would land Dragon with both parachutes and its propulsion system (page 1.2 of their summary).
-SpaceX has a mid-2015 crewed orbital test flight and a December 2015 crewed ISS test flight
-SpaceX seems to have redacted (on page 1.5 of their summary) an important test flight in late 2014 or early 2015 (I am guessing that it is an unmanned test flight)

-SpaceX has 14 base period milestones and 15 optional ones.
-Boeing has 19 base period milestones and 34 optional ones.
-SNC has 9 base period milestones and 31 optional ones.

It's hard to be sure but there seems to be only one set of optional milestones (the optimal ones). I was expecting two sets of milestones (the optimal ones and the ones based on fixed funding of $400M per company per year).

[yg1968]

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

[Space Pete]

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.

[mmeijeri]

Well, we all knew it was coming - the simple fact is that two companies cannot be sustained with only one flight per year each.

There could be flights to other destinations, and for other customers.

[yg1968]

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.

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.

[Space Pete]

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.

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?

There 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.