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

[strangequark]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/54623998-79/nasa-atk-liberty-space.html.csp

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.

Picture of Mr. Bishop's presumed residence is attached.

[mmeijeri]

Eventually, some other customers need to commit to buying crew flights

Such as Bigelow, who has said he won't commit until he has two competing suppliers.

[jongoff]

Picture of Mr. Bishop's presumed residence is attached.

I was trying to find a clever way of expressing my feelings on the issue, but you beat me to the punch.

~Jon

[Ronsmytheiii]

Such 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.

And dont forget Soyuz will still fly, offering redundancy.

[Rocket Science]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/54623998-79/nasa-atk-liberty-space.html.csp

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.

Picture of Mr. Bishop's presumed residence is attached.

Polycarbonate?

[yg1968]

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.

The strange part is that NASA could decide to fund 1 or 2 companies through certification but they could later downselect to one company for CTS.

[mr. mark]

Not sure if I heard right but, ATK has 10 days to formally file an appeal we are now 6 days in and no appeal.

[MP99]

Such 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.

Crew 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

[Space Pete]

Eventually, some other customers need to commit to buying crew flights

Such 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.

[MP99]

Eventually, some other customers need to commit to buying crew flights

Such 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.

IF yg is correct, NASA would take two suppliers through to readiness, though not willing to pay all standing costs for service from both.

That would bring them to the stage they are ready to service Bigelow, circumventing your catch-22. Just needs Bigelow to step up to the plate and make their service available quickly after the infrastructure is provided for them.

cheers, Martin

[yg1968]

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

[yg1968]

The selection statement (when available) will be posted here:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=38

[Prober]

Eventually, some other customers need to commit to buying crew flights

Such 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.

See your point, and it might have interest for the companies but not for NASA.  All in all should make no difference for the NASA selection process.

[jongoff]

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

I 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

[yg1968]

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

I 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

I 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.

[baldusi]

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

I 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

I 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.

[Lurker Steve]

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

I 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

I 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 ?

[baldusi]

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

I 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

I 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!

[A_M_Swallow]

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.

[pathfinder_01]

The 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.