-
#540
by
rpapo
on 22 Aug, 2014 21:17
-
Well, just like any bidding process, there were better offers and lesser offers. Just like what happened with CRS contracts. SpaceX was the low bidder, and Orbital the next one. That Orbital was charging more for what it was delivering is immaterial. Neither company knew the other's bid ahead of time, and the two companies' bids were accepted. I don't know who lost, nor the reasons why, but I'm pretty sure that cost was not the only consideration.
Likewise here, except that there were three companies that won that round (and four who lost out). Or 2.5 winners, depending on how you want to look at it.
-
#541
by
Avron
on 22 Aug, 2014 21:41
-
Milestones for CCiCap were agreed upon through negotiations between NASA and the CCiCap competitors.
And based on how far the available funding (i.e. NASA + Boeing contributions) would take them.
So is BA the front runner due to 50 odd years of experience ? never mind what funding purchased?
-
#542
by
Coastal Ron
on 22 Aug, 2014 22:56
-
Milestones for CCiCap were agreed upon through negotiations between NASA and the CCiCap competitors.
And based on how far the available funding (i.e. NASA + Boeing contributions) would take them.
So is BA the front runner due to 50 odd years of experience ? never mind what funding purchased?
Short answer is no.
Go look at the CCiCap Selection Statement to see what NASA's rationale was. Boeing ranked high on their technical approach and level of confidence (no doubt because they have lots of experience), but moderate on the business side for "level of effectiveness" for their low level of corporate investment. Both Sierra Nevada and SpaceX rated higher than Boeing for the "Business Information" evaluation portion.
But Boeing's ranking overall meant that they merited the funding they got on CCiCap, because of where Sierra Nevada and SpaceX were at that point. But now we're two years later, and there is new progress and evaluation criteria that will be used for CCtCap.
After the winners are announced I would think NASA will again release a selection statement to explain their rationale. I think it's not only important for the contenders, both winners and losers, but for the industry as a whole to see what strategies worked and which ones didn't - and why? Because I'm sure most of us are hoping there will be more COTS/CCiCap type efforts in the future... they sure seem to be cost effective.
-
#543
by
rcoppola
on 22 Aug, 2014 23:10
-
Milestones for CCiCap were agreed upon through negotiations between NASA and the CCiCap competitors.
And based on how far the available funding (i.e. NASA + Boeing contributions) would take them.
So is BA the front runner due to 50 odd years of experience ? never mind what funding purchased?
Short answer is no.
Go look at the CCiCap Selection Statement to see what NASA's rationale was. Boeing ranked high on their technical approach and level of confidence (no doubt because they have lots of experience), but moderate on the business side for "level of effectiveness" for their low level of corporate investment. Both Sierra Nevada and SpaceX rated higher than Boeing for the "Business Information" evaluation portion.
But Boeing's ranking overall meant that they merited the funding they got on CCiCap, because of where Sierra Nevada and SpaceX were at that point. But now we're two years later, and there is new progress and evaluation criteria that will be used for CCtCap.
After the winners are announced I would think NASA will again release a selection statement to explain their rationale. I think it's not only important for the contenders, both winners and losers, but for the industry as a whole to see what strategies worked and which ones didn't - and why? Because I'm sure most of us are hoping there will be more COTS/CCiCap type efforts in the future... they sure seem to be cost effective.
(I'm OT but...) I couldn't agree more with you. The next 2 COTS/CCiCAP type efforts should immediately be a Deep Space and/or Lunar/Mars habitation module and a Lunar/Mars Lander. If they could start funding those in 2016, we'd be in good shape when SLS Block 1B is up and running.
-
#544
by
arachnitect
on 23 Aug, 2014 01:34
-
-
#545
by
Jim
on 23 Aug, 2014 14:12
-
(I'm OT but...) I couldn't agree more with you. The next 2 COTS/CCiCAP type efforts should immediately be a Deep Space and/or Lunar/Mars habitation module and a Lunar/Mars Lander. If they could start funding those in 2016, we'd be in good shape when SLS Block 1B is up and running.
NASA has no need or money for those.
-
#546
by
jtrame
on 23 Aug, 2014 15:15
-
(I'm OT but...) I couldn't agree more with you. The next 2 COTS/CCiCAP type efforts should immediately be a Deep Space and/or Lunar/Mars habitation module and a Lunar/Mars Lander. If they could start funding those in 2016, we'd be in good shape when SLS Block 1B is up and running.
NASA has no need or money for those.
No Money, agreed.
But the NASA Mission Directorate "Human Exploration and Operations" seems to indicate a need. How can NASA develop human exploration beyond earth orbit without habitats and eventually landers?
OK off topic. But a great direction for the evolution of the commercial effort IMO.
-
#547
by
Robotbeat
on 23 Aug, 2014 16:32
-
(I'm OT but...) I couldn't agree more with you. The next 2 COTS/CCiCAP type efforts should immediately be a Deep Space and/or Lunar/Mars habitation module and a Lunar/Mars Lander. If they could start funding those in 2016, we'd be in good shape when SLS Block 1B is up and running.
NASA has no need or money for those.
They certainly have the need as much as they need anything. They should replace the Orion program with some sort of lander, hab, deep space spacecraft. Buzz Aldrin has crazy ideas, but that one (evolving Orion program to a deep space vehicle program of some sort) is a good one. Orion is too heavy, too expensive, basically useless on its own. It should've been a lot more like the CST-100.
-
#548
by
su27k
on 23 Aug, 2014 17:49
-
(I'm OT but...) I couldn't agree more with you. The next 2 COTS/CCiCAP type efforts should immediately be a Deep Space and/or Lunar/Mars habitation module and a Lunar/Mars Lander. If they could start funding those in 2016, we'd be in good shape when SLS Block 1B is up and running.
NASA has no need or money for those.
The money for commercial crew development would be available after 2017.
-
#549
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 Aug, 2014 18:27
-
Back on topic please chaps. I never want to see "I'm off topic but"!
-
#550
by
TrevorMonty
on 23 Aug, 2014 20:24
-
ISTM the problem with CST-100 for COTS-2 is a small hatch and lack of an unpressurized cargo bay like Dragon's trunk.
Adding the latter would have to be a service module extension, and that would cover the circular solar panel at its bottom. It would also add even more mass, perhaps requiring at least one more $RB.
Seems by using an expensive, disposable service module instead of integrating it like DV2 & DC they've painted themselves into a corner.
My $0.02
I do not get this fascination with unpressurized cargo.
There is no indication that NASA needs a lot of it.
The retiring ATV has no unpressurized cargo capability.
Volume and re-boost are its two big features.
The current ATV caries over 4 mt of fuel for re-boost plus almost a ton of transfer fuel.
Don‘t underestimate the importance of CST00 being able to boost the ISS, as of now NASA are totally reliant on Progress.
With no LAS needed a cargo CST00 propulsion module can carry substantially more fuel, only limitation being LV payload.
The problem, as has been discussed to death elsewhere, is the direction and strength of that thrust. If the CST-100 is docked where the Shuttle used to be, it cannot pull the ISS because the exhaust from the thrusters would impinge on the station itself. It can only push the ISS if the station is spun around to face the opposite of its normal direction (American end towards the direction of the orbit).
The strength is another matter. You can't have a brute force rocket like a LAS doing the work, as the ISS wasn't designed to handle such accelerations, or such force being transmitted through the docking adapter.
Here is the information on propulsion module. A cargo version doesn't need the four LAE or the high number of RCS and OMAC engines demanded by a crew vehicle for redundancy.
http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract
-
#551
by
Jcc
on 24 Aug, 2014 16:11
-
Here is the information on propulsion module. A cargo version doesn't need the four LAE or the high number of RCS and OMAC engines demanded by a crew vehicle for redundancy.
http://www.rocket.com/article/aerojet-rocketdyne-completes-cst-100-work-commercial-crew-integrated-capability-contract
Just noticed in the above link:
"The 28 100-pound thrust class RCS engines are adapted from a similar engine design currently in production. These engines provide high-altitude abort attitude control, on-orbit low delta-v maneuvering functions
and space station re-boost capability"
I did not think reboost was a requirement, but that may be a capability for CST-100 and Dragon (not sure about DC).
-
#552
by
stichtom
on 16 Sep, 2014 21:17
-
Boeing: "The spacecraft will undergo a pad-abort test in 2016, an uncrewed flight in early 2017, leading up to the first crewed flight to the ISS in mid-2017."
-
#553
by
PahTo
on 16 Sep, 2014 21:29
-
What LV will CST-100 use? I heard Gen Bolden refer to launch/crew capability that doesn't rely on "The Russians".
-
#554
by
Hauerg
on 16 Sep, 2014 21:33
-
What LV will CST-100 use? I heard Gen Bolden refer to launch/crew capability that doesn't rely on "The Russians".
Maybe he was just pretending to be an American?
Weird.
-
#555
by
AJW
on 16 Sep, 2014 21:38
-
What LV will CST-100 use? I heard Gen Bolden refer to launch/crew capability that doesn't rely on "The Russians".
Maybe he was just pretending to be an American?
Weird.
That's tomorrow's announcement of the deal between ULA and BO to replace the RD-180.
-
#556
by
PahTo
on 16 Sep, 2014 21:47
-
What LV will CST-100 use? I heard Gen Bolden refer to launch/crew capability that doesn't rely on "The Russians".
Maybe he was just pretending to be an American?
Weird.
That's tomorrow's announcement of the deal between ULA and BO to replace the RD-180.
I have a hard time believing a new LV (HR at that) can be functional by 2017. Keep in mind the Atlas V vehicle envisioned employs a 2 engine Centaur, which in itself would need development time (and big $$), and using engines that are apparently end of life (going to RL-10C-1. which won't fit on Centaur). So while FINALLY developing ACES (common 5 meter upper stage) may be in the offing, (and sorry to repeat myself), I have a really hard time believing ULA will take on new core stage development, new upper stage development, and all that comes with it, especially when one considers the action they've shown wrt ACES to date. Remember, Boeing gets the big pot of money, not ULA/LV.
-
#557
by
arachnitect
on 16 Sep, 2014 23:12
-
[Homer Simpson Voice] WOOHOO! [/Homer Simpson]
Just really glad to see CST-100 made it. Didn't believe the rumors could be true as they started coming in this morning.
Can't wait to see them taking shape in the OPF, and rolling out at SLC-41.
(Okay, I'm done abusing the servers for a while.)
-
#558
by
OnWithTheShow
on 17 Sep, 2014 15:23
-
Anyone know why the CST-100 doesn't have an in-flight abort demonstration requirement?
-
#559
by
oiorionsbelt
on 17 Sep, 2014 19:33
-
Anyone know why the CST-100 doesn't have an in-flight abort demonstration requirement?
Also can anyone give a status of the human rating of the Atlas V ?
