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

[Prober]

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.

Dreamchaser could also move to Orbitals rocket if its working up to specs.  That would be an interesting combo.

[Robotbeat]

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.

Dreamchaser could also move to Orbitals rocket if its working up to specs.  That would be an interesting combo.

Antares has a lot of performance to make up. It'd be a significantly different rocket. Not that it can't happen, of course. And I don't believe it's designed for being man-rated.

But the point that these guys may end up riding on other rockets when they become available is a good one.

[Go4TLI]

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.

That doesn't even make any sense.

[Go4TLI]

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 ?

It wouldn't be any different.  The integrated system still requires certification as you suggested, and that costs money. 

While it is certainly technically possible to fly on multiple launch vehicles, as some are planning, those multiple launch vehicles can also drive techincal design and specifications from a system and component level which in turn will drive cost and schedule from a system and component certification.  If that becomes cost prohibitive, which is likely, you will see that dropped quicker than a lead ballon and exactly the reason you see focus on only specific launch vehicles at this time. 

[erioladastra]

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

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.

[yg1968]

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.

When you say "past iCAP", I am assuming that you mean past the iCAP base period?

Incidentally, I imagine that another option could be to fast track the funding for one provider (the leader) after spring 2014 but still fund a follower. 

[pathfinder_01]

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[Jim]

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.

No, it doesnt.  How many people does it take for you to realize that you don't make sense.   The part about making Boeing+ULA behave doesn't make sense.  NASA doesn't have the right/ability to mix and match spacecraft with launch vehicles.  It is up to the service provider to determine his combination.

[erioladastra]

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.

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.

True to a point.  NASA ultimately pays for it.  Yes, SpaceX will leverage from other projects, as will Boeing.  SpaceX may likely be cheaper based on what we all read and hear.  But at some level, NASA is paying.  And you are right this will (hopefully) be cheaper than NASA doing it - but that doesn't change things really.  But unless it is 50% of current (=NASA/Russian costs) you won't get any bang for using 2 companies.  With 1 flight a year you can't close the business case.  It would be great if we could have multiple companies and things like Bigelow all providing a use case.  But at least early on we won't.  I have seen the data.