CCiCap Announcement Coming Soon
Marc’s note: The announcement of who will get selected for the next round of CCiCap could be as early as later this week, though more likely next week. The question is who will get funded. We know that NASA can select up to three companies to fund, two fully, one half funded. NASA does not need to select three companies. But based on previous NASA statements you could argue they will select three companies. One important factor is the funding level available to them. What do you think? Who will get funded? Vote in our poll.
anybody but ATK
Opposite of Congress. But progress always is.
Um, nice timing on ATK for this announcement:
http://www.space.com/16631-…
But I was completely floored by the pics and announcement of an ATK CAPSULE. Where the heck did that come from??? And talk about a timeframe that seems *very* ambitious.
I think they just entered the “in the running”.
–T
ULA doesn’t have a separate CCiCap bid.
I was wondering if anyone would notice that. I included all the teams from the CCDev2 that got contracts, funded and unfunded. 🙂
ULA == category “Other” …
ATK? Did someone over at Thiokol send out a memo about this poll and asked all the retirees to vote? What the heck? Does Shelby happen to have a staff of ~ 180?
The poll might also have read- Which two entrants will get full funding and which one will get partial funding for CCiCap?
IN that scenario, It’s Space X, Boeing and Sierra Nevada partial.
One wonders if you can “Chase a Dream” with 1/2 /partial funding, though.
Agree with you — however, Boeing and Sierra Nevada’s plans don’t work unless ULA also completes the Atlas V upgrades. Is ULA prepared to keep on working based only on the promise that eventually Boeing and SNC will be buying Atlas V launches?
Anyone that knows…. these days, how much say does Boeing have over ULA? Can Boeing just direct it to upgrade Atlas for CST and 1/2 funded Sierra (1.5 guaranteed customers).
I would assume that ULA, Boeing and Lockheed eventually want a better Atlas anyhow, right?
It is more complicated than that.
Boeing and SNC can go ahead in the immediate. Because both admit to being able to fly on one of many human ratable launchers. So its not an issue given one/more will be rated irrespectively.
As to EELV human rating and use – that is an entirely different can of worms. Do we mess with one or the other … or none … may depend on how Orion/SLS fortunes roll out in the near term, post CCiCap.
I voted for ATK, but NOT because I want them even around, but as an expression of how I think NASA will rig the results to get the pork to Utah!
Sierra Nevada
spacex
ULA
lifting body
capsule
down mass
two luanchers
Folks:
Not much of a ‘contest’ when the game is rigged. Especially not when the rules keep changing mid-stream.
While almost everyone else hungrily scrambles for these table scraps (compared to the well fed military budget), these funds to develop a part of a part of a program, Spacex is:
– already building it’s next version of Falcon booster, the v1.1, after just it’s third successful flight. I call that evolving!
– already started a test program, Grasshopper, to make that new booster reusable.
– continuing to develop it’s crewed version of Dragon.
– turning every penny of it’s government funding back into development.
Truly a shameful state of affairs. This one little comedy simply shows how much the whole system is broken. We shouldn’t be discussing who’s going to ‘win’ here but how to fix the problem in the first place.
tinker
P.S. Here’s an inspiring Desktop background I’m using right now, enhanced and compressed by yours truly. Feel free.
ULA is not eligible.
All I know is, if SpaceX isn’t among the companies selected, a criminal investigation should follow.
I voted SpaceX, Boeing (fully funded), ATK (half funded). Not selecting SpaceX and Boeing would be ridiculous. I included ATK not because it deserves to be included, but because I think the old guard will put its thumb on the scales. If not ATK, then I expect SNC to get the 0.5 funding. If they really want to screw commercial space they’ll select Boeing and ATK, with partial funding for Dream Chaser.
“they’ll select Boeing and ATK, with partial funding for Dream Chaser.”
Why fund Spacex? They are ahead? Isnt it not about performance, but about being “fair”??
George,
Not about fair. Not about performance.
These things are juggling factors to express NASA’s requirements through the lens of Congressional intent.
If Gerst doesn’t do SpaceX, he’s on the “hot seat” to explain the shortcoming of an obviously leading program, having spoken glowingly of it so far. E.g. whats the wrinkle.
If Gerst doesn’t do ATK, its about explaining what part of due diligence of a proven provider with loads of astros (“experts’) who can’t be ever wrong … is wrong.
If Gerst doesn’t do Boeing, its about explaining what part of past heritage doesn’t address the rules set down by CCiCap.
Its like writing a judicial opinion following a ruling.
I voted SpaceX, Boeing (fully funded), ATK (half funded).
My students have this view as well.
Not selecting SpaceX and Boeing would be ridiculous.
Really, really embarrassing. In light of Orion’s long fumbled program, courtesy of Dr. Griffin.
The Boeing award being second to SpaceX would make it really painful for all the other primes if they get a full award and can’t keep up with the little guys.
Many I know thought the “half award” was a “thank you for playing” payoff to ATK all along. What does it mean … if they don’t even get that … [snicker].
If not ATK, then I expect SNC to get the 0.5 funding.
Heard this one a lot too. Underestimates Shuttle influence.
If they really want to screw commercial space they’ll select Boeing and ATK, …
They fear screwing themselves to do so. “Ok, so show me ATK’s / Boeing’s demonstrated reentry/recovery of current flight vehicle experience …”
Comes down to “choose your way to be embarrassed”.
Aside from the obvious congressional districting of funds thumb on the scale in an election year, SpaceX has the only true “integrated” proposal with any sensible flight history to matter.
Next up is Boeing because of history as well as expectation of a pragmatic on time, on budget program addressing what was requested. Not brilliant but no sweat.
Sierra Nevada’s unique approach, derived from the HL-20 / BOR4, is a hard one to dismiss/accept, because a) the HL20 was the backup plan for if the Shuttle didn’t work out (meaning many perceive this as the true successor to Shuttle), b) need for diversity to CYA in case capsules have a late discovered “surprise”, and c) retains possible long held military interests. In many ways, this one has certain hidden capabilities that privately affect many in Congress in ways they wish to publicly dismiss, such that it becomes top priority of all of these. Yet it certainly isn’t as far along as SpaceX, or from a firm of enormous heritage as Boeing. Continues to surprise.
Blue Origin intrigues Congress, as they always worry that a fat wallet indifferent to them, with a lot of smart guys, might yield something that makes them look like a bunch of stupid yokels that they truly are. Should they do what they say, and say what they do, they’d be next in priority. Can we tell yet?
Now, delving into the bottom of the barrel, what do we find? Excaliber Almaz, with a Soviet era capsule with tons of flight history (beats SpaceX there), frankly it can do the job already … but … what do you launch it on? The “integrated” is the issue, unless you want to fly Proton’s or Soyuz LV or perhaps Zenit … this one’s an oddball for many reasons, but could you make it work, absolutely yes, less risk than Boeing in fact. All capsule no launch vehicle.
Which leaves us with … er … ATK. Brilliant PR and masterful manipulation of the lobbyist domain. They’ve take solids about as far as you can go for HSF, slapped an America flag on them (ignore that french stuff that may or may not be there given Athena 3 pursuits of an all solids design of the first to fly “Liberty”). They forced their way into Shuttle, forced their way into CxP, forced their way into SLS, and now … why not CCiCap too. Oh yeah, and we’ll also do a capsule based on an abandoned part of Orion, and we’ll backfit cargo in stealing from Orbital’s COTS approach, and we’ll use MLAS to lighten abort engines to fit. And trust us it’ll be cheap and safe.
And none of these things will have cost/schedule overruns, nor last minute surprises that cause us to go back for redesign. Ignore that Ares IX test, or the performance gap lofting Orion, or the black zone controversy, or the 4 successive test vehicles intended to bring to flight status Ares I alone. That’s all history. But look just at the Shuttle history, while ignoring the 2x-4x fixed cost over reusable liquids ATK fought off for decades, as it’ll now be … cheap?
ATK is the complement of Excaliber Almaz – everything in the booster, not much in the capsuule. Perhaps they should consolodate? Or maybe slapping a flag on a Soviet capsule might be going too far?
So, in a rational universe:
1. SpaceX because you need to move along what’s soonest, most likely
2. Sierra Nevada because you need diversity away from capsules
3. Boeing kept alive as backup to SpaceX being “too good” a deal
add:
Never thought to check on it, but actually ATK and Excaliber Almaz make a good combo. In launching a TKS capsule with what they have in hand today (4seg + various other solids = Athena 3 == “Liberty Beta”), they could prove a complete HSF in less than a year.
Many don’t know that you can assemble such on a pad “the old fashioned way”, and that such pads are common or cheap to constuct for a one shot deal. Here’s what that would return:
1. Documented evidence of full flight regime and ISS profile of an all up solid vehicle with instrumented crew vehicle to show crew experience would be nominal. Like (and better) than Dragon’s current demonstrated capability, and putting them well ahead of CST-100.
2. EA’s TKS capsule proposal is all about flight rate and reusability. They can actually do that before others.
So both can prove an actual system, where you can track back the economics, apart from the operational pad support for actual flight use (KSC Launch Complex 39 w/crawler&MLP would be 5x cost of SpaceX facilities to use).
rational universe lolol. We will see lol
Why do you need diversity away from capsules? I’d say that DC adds a lot more risk than a third capsule. It would also be much more exciting, but I’d be very reluctant to optimise for that until we have two commercially viable capsules. And I’m skeptical that will happen any time soon.
Why do you need diversity away from capsules?
Politically, so that you and your party doesn’t get blamed for shutting down a American strength/dominance/”one of a kind” … that turns out to later matter. Especially for real national security. Believe it or not.
Ironically, part of the same reasons for wanting ATK’s solids … enhancing your munitions delivery capability.
I’d say that DC adds a lot more risk than a third capsule.
Program/budget risk, design risk, platform/LV risk, TPS risk, … the list goes on and on. Recovery risk here actually is less, given Shuttle experience.
It would also be much more exciting, but I’d be very reluctant to
optimise for that until we have two commercially viable capsules.
No. The issue is two viable systems with independent technologies/components. So that if one stands down for a year, the other stands up.
One of these should do volume of business in one sector. The other in a different sector. Look at all of the best marketed proposals, you’ll see they have this as an essential component.
add:
Congress doesn’t like multiple US space programs, period. They have no choice but to endure a “commercial” program because the govt run one isn’t useful at the moment. What they’d like to believe is when govt finally does something, then we’ll get down to one system (e.g. “commercial” gets folded into “arsenal space”). That is the “second capsule” you speak of, e.g. Orion.
Many of us think that unlikely. More likely – “arsenal system” vendors overpromise and underdeliver resulting in uncompetitive behaivor. Other guys displace them when budgets get reduced still further.
So the complementary technologies address other long term options … when the bottom falls out. And then we reduce (or redistribute) the total number of HSF systems remaining.
The issue is two viable systems with independent technologies/components.
But wouldn’t you have that with two capsules too? It’s not as if we’re suddenly going to find out that capsules don’t work. DC on the other hand is a much less proven class of design. I see the value of dissimilar redundancy in general, but not if one of the two designs is very mature and proven while the other isn’t. Unless the goal is to push the envelope, but I’d argue that shouldn’t be our primary concern just yet.
… I see the value of dissimilar redundancy in general, …
What I was speaking to …
… but not if one of the two designs is very mature and proven while the other isn’t.
Not quite that simple. The decision is to choose futures too. Remember that mature components actually can carry future liability (e.g. need for future continuance), which is different than a mature design, or that of a mature corporation.
Many thought HL20 should have been developed concurrently with Shuttle – there is a ton of work on it already, and quite a few think the design was more proven than all the other Shuttle “replacements”.
Certain recent developments in technologies suggest one might not wish to bet the farm all on capsules …
Politically, so that you and your party doesn’t get blamed for shutting down a American strength/dominance/”one of a kind” … that turns out to later matter.
Ah, that makes sense.
Especially for real national security. Believe it or not.
Interesting. Can you say more?
What, and start another “scary military space plane meme” like with X-37B? No.
Christopher Miles:
… you know darn well it’s the X-37 C that some in Boeing want as a future winged crew alternative.
Yes, right as usual. Of course.
Full disclosure – did a very early prototype for the GNC.
My heart is with the Boeing guys, who have hands down the best base technology that I know. However, the second or third best company to do it from. All kinds of reasons for these.
I know HL20, Shuttle, X-38 … all from inception. Including the side stories.
There’s a lot of pride in finally addressing a need. Which also is reflected in the ongoing success of SNC’s efforts.
Someone has to explain the hidden elephant in the room.
The ATK votes are pure political cynicism. But you have to see the insides of this activity to understand it. And how long the fan dance will go on.
I would also suggest that all those pictures with Lori Garver next to the Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser prototype would indicate the direction of any down select. Don’t forget Sierra Nevada is Woman owned, can help with MWOB buying criteria.
And, after all these years shouldn’t Langely get to claim a real launch Vehicle too?
btw, Total bummer if, just before its ALT tests, Sierra doesn’t get selected
And, Noone, you know darn well it’s the X-37 C that some in Boeing want as a future winged crew alternative. They’ve (not so quietly) been seeding that meme themselves.
So it’s
Win: Space X,
Place: Boeing,
and Show: Sierra Nevada (till it runs low/out of NASA funds in ’14)
ATK can go fiddle with the Senate Launch System. As I said in a previous post- looking at the poll- I don’t know where those ATK/Thiokol votes are coming from-
Maybe they like the cool new ATK rendering? Humph. SRB’s on steroids with paint job by NASCAR.
“Why do you need diversity away from capsules?”
I got a chance to hear one of the SNC higher-ups talk about the DC recently. They’re attempting to differentiate themselves from the rest of the market by touting themselves as the go-to platform for returning experiments and other equipment from the ISS. The lifting-body design means that the cargo would be subjected to fewer g’s on reentry than in a capsule, and landing on a runway means that returned experiments can be pulled off the vehicle and into processing or environmentally-controlled storage much quicker than from a capsule floating out in the ocean. I think they make an interesting case.
OK – what are the next steps, then, for teams that are chosen?
I hate to sound anxious, but when do they start cutting metal? When to they start throwing things at the sky?
Since the SLS and the Liberty space rocket will both be using 5-segment SRBs, it would probably be in NASA’s best interest to lower SLS development and recurring cost by helping to fund the development of the Liberty rocket.
With its ability to launch more than 20 tonnes of payload into orbit, the Liberty vehicle could put ATK/Astrium into direct competition with the ULA’s Delta IV heavy. The Liberty could also be utilized to launch Bigelow BA-330 space station components into orbit.
Astrium’s Ariane 5 upper stage could make the Liberty rocket the commercial launch vehicle of choice for the European Space Agency. So don’t be surprised if manned and unmanned Liberty vehicles are being launched from
French Guiana in the 2020s for ESA.
Marcel F. Williams
Marcel,
5-seg SRBs for SLS? The runners for the upgrade were just announced. Nobody knows what will be used on SLS, and I’m betting liquids, myself. Unless you’re talking about optimizing for the maybe on or two flights that the original configuration might make.
Steve
My option would be to simply use three SLS core vehicles in a Delta IV heavy configuration to achieve the 130 tonne plus payload capacity for the SLS.
But the current SLS configuration utilizes 5-segment SRBs and NASA doesn’t even have the money yet to– fully fund– the future alternatives to the SRBs. And with the President trying to cut SLS funding below $3 billion a year, there might not even be enough funding to immediately fund the upper stage (CPS).
Plus the President’s budget proposal doesn’t even have the 130 tonne payload SLS vehicle operational until 2030! However, since the SLS is really the Congress’s baby, they’re trying to make the super heavy configuration operational by 2022 (December 2021). We’ll see if there’s any super heavy money to fund that configuration:-)
Reference: NASA: EDS Integration: Budget Availability Scenarios – August 19, 2011
Marcel F. Williams
Marcel,
OK, I see what you’re saying. To be honest, I hope that the concept, as opposed to particular hardware, does not come into play. In my mind, I paraphrased your proposal as: since we can’t do what we want to do (because of the money), then let’s take whatever we can get and find a way to duct tape it together into something, anything, which would be better than nothing. Obviously I’ve exaggerated the situation to make my point, but I wanted to stress the point that I think it’s a risky way to do things.
Components (large or small) that are to be integrated into a system need to be designed (or redesigned) from their first steps with that integration as the target. Basically, I’m giving you the “it’s not Lego” argument. Time will tell. I suspect that SLS has lots of surprises in store for us yet.
Steve
Liberty is not going to be launched from Guiana. ESA will not allow it.
ESA will launch whatever vehicles from Guiana that will be to their economic advantage. And since the Ariane 5 core booster will be a major component of the Liberty upper stage, it would be to their economic advantage to use their own products as much as possible for manned missions into orbit.
Marcel F. Williams
Liberty / Athena III might not in the end use ECS, might be an all solid design. E.g. a “head fake”.
ATK said it would be priced comparable to the Soyuz seat price, 56 million at the time. That’s almost 400 million a pop. SpaceX is at 140 million. You really believe NASA is going to throw away 250 million twice a year to ATK?
It would certainly be consistant. Shutle. Ares 1. And SLS.
Space X says a lot of things! But what they really need to do is to get their birds routinely into space. They currently have a $1.6 billion contract with NASA for about 12 launches to the ISS. The Falcon 9 is supposed to be able to launch up to 10.4 tonnes into orbit per launch. Hopefully, they can do this on a routine basis.
The Liberty will be able to launch around 22 tonnes into orbit per launch. How much will a launch cost? If you assume that the Liberty cost are close to the estimates for the similar Ares 1, then it should be around $300 million per launch. I believe the at Delta IV heavy is over $400 million to launch an equivalent amount of tonnage.
But launch cost for the Falcon 9 and for the Liberty rocket will largely depend on how much actual demand there is for such launches– not what someone says to the media.
Marcel F. Williams
ATK said Liberty would be significantly less than then cost to fly on the Soyuz. http://www.space.com/15625-… – Commercial practices are changing the game!!
Go through the list of what ATK claims the costs were for developing RSRB and RSRBV, where they themselves speak to the underlying costs of manufacturing and certification for HSF of a large solid motor.
Now … how does ATK “commercial practices” change any of that? Right – it doesn’t.
Can we say … “bait and switch”?
“Oh, my goodness, I didn’t expect that to cost so much …”
Liberty Test Vehicle
This is not the Liberty Test Vehicle.
Yes it is.
Here’s the link to the Liberty web site.
Lots of rage here – There are four good proposals. In alphabetical order:
– ATK
– Boeing
– Sierra Nevada
– SpaceX
We all have favorites… and some people seem to think that we also have a Dark Lord of the Sith – Darth Vader candidate in ATK. Careful what we wish for folks… you just might end up with Luke and Leia.
What is will come down to is the written proposals and track records of the above four companies. You can make an honest, intellectual, argument for any of the four above. To simply dismiss one on Ares I rage or SpaceX arrogance is foolish.
This is one hard decision – wouldn’t want to be in Phil McAlister’s shoes.
Strange things are afoot when the TEA Party in Space is defending ATK – sheesh.
Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space
As discussed on NSF, Gerst is the selecting officer for CCiCap (not McAlister).
Just an observation, and it may not be factual, but looking at these comments, it seems to me that people believe the money will go to those companies most likely to “succeed” in the industry anyhow, whether they get any of this money or not. I wonder how much that reflects how they would allocate the money themselves.
Given the concept of NASA, and this program in particular, I would like to see the money go to where it would make the biggest difference in total viable potential offerings to our overall space capability. For example, Boeing, with their Apollo-era capsule, probably spends more money in a year storing and preserving the historical artifacts built in their model shops over the years than some of these other companies spend in total, and their reps at meetings and public functions all wear suits that cost many hundreds of dollars, and all of this money ultimately comes from their customers. SNC, on the other hand, has the most unique and potentially game changing offering in the spacecraft category (in my opinion), and the amount of money in the CCiCap could maybe make them or break them before they can finish. So, I would like to see the money go to the dark horses, like SNC and Excaliber, where it would potentially make the biggest difference. I’m a big SpaceX fan, but I think they’ll get money somewhere whenever they need it, because there are so many players who already “know” that SpaceX will take the commercial brass ring. If this CCiCap money is an “investment” in commercial, then make it work to try to improve industry offerings and strengthen the industry as a whole. If you give it to the companies that will succeed anyhow (without it), that’s the other kind of investment — looking for dollar profits.
One of the biggest reasons that “old space” got to be the way it is was through consolidations/buy-outs, and we ended up with too few players, who are too large, and they can “make the rules,” to their own bloated advantage. Programs like CCiCap and COTS, I believe, need to work to make the commercial space industry more diverse, with more players, doing more things, in more different ways. Otherwise, we’ll only end up with a couple of more Boeings and LMs, with no incentive for progress.
Steve
One of the biggest reasons that “old space” got to be the way it is was through consolidations/buy-outs, and we ended up with too few players, who are too large, and they can “make the rules,” to their own bloated advantage.
Mr Steve,
Absolutely. And politically “safe”. This is how Congress thinks. And they think they only need one vendor of services, and definately not a new industry segment, which would interfere with friendly interests.
You require “bloat” and companies that can “make the rules” to be able to maintain lobbyists that feed Congress. Congress must be fed. Anything smaller doesn’t have the capacity. One must understand the ecosystem.
How does the ecosystem work to support your suggested strategy? That’s the means to avoid “pipe dreams”.
May I suggest you examine the history of solar energy against major energy industry concerns for a similar example. Most enlightening.
Mr. C,
Yep, I looked into SSPs some years ago. My eyes got sore from reading “yes, but” over and over. Some day ecology will have to overrule economy, or we simply won’t be here to watch the Earth recover without us.
As for Congress, I’d like to ask them, if it’s 10 pm, your stomach is grumbling, you put the last of your coins into the one and only vending machine in your building, and nothing comes out, what are you going to do?
Steve
Steve 20 20
I was thinking how, when I made that comment about Spacex not winning the down select money to make things fair, how I was looking in the right direction but like a man with bad vision and no glasses my view was fussy. Lol thanks for clearing it up with your 20 20s. It sure helped lol. It must be cool to have such good eyes lol
And no I’m not even going to wonder what it must be like to be a human telescope like Mr. C
Mr. Mcgoo
Mr. Stone
I think you really should get beyond your Tea party problem. People are trying to fix things and there are many ways to do things better. There are hundreds of ways to do stuff better.
Just a guy who has no clue how to fix it, But I know if people care and are active things can change. Thanks for your work Mr. Gasser its people like you that give me hope!!!!
Indepentent Thinker
Lets make this bet a little more interesting.
Who will get funded and –
(1) What the official reason will be that’s touted…and…
(2) What will really happen over time…
So it will be -Boeing, Sierra and Space-X.
On (1) What the official reasoning will be –
Boeing will get touted as being well along, “well understood” or words like that. Also the one most likely to be able to get on that super reliable, “safe” Atlas.
Sierra will be in the winner’s circle because it’s reusable, and winged and has range and all that – “safety” again.
Space-X will get the consolation prize of the “half” an award, official lingo being that the non-traditional launch abort system is a big risk.
The decision will speak well of Blue-Origin, but say it brings nothing to the table that Boeing did not, and otherwise was very close (pat on the back, etc, nice job kind of wording).
Space-X will get tossed out of the play at the selection AFTER this one.
Then on (2) What will really happen over time –
The money will run out super fast as Boeing goes into a massive over-run, meaning delay, blaming the lack of progress on inadequate funding. Sierra will never be allowed aboard an Atlas ULA, a competitor in all practical terms. Artificial barrier after barrier by ULA will screw them over.
Boeing will never get $500M a year (the commercial crew apx. yearly budget) to stretch to pay for 2 capsules/modules PLUS 2 Atlas launches plus pad upgrades. One Atlas ALONE, no spacecraft, will end up costing almost that much by 2015. Read the news all.
After this my ummm…”bet” ends. Very uncertain AFTER this point. The only way to get more money to Commercial Crew and Boeing will be (a) a major NASA diversion of about an ADDITIONAL $500M or more a year (unlikely, given everyone defending turf elsewhere), (b) a major NASA top-line plus up of about the same amount (unlikely in the time-frame here), or (c) canceling SLS and enriching everyone else from those funds (also unlikely in a time-frame to matter to commercial crew). Then Space-X could or will simply fly their own crew…who knows…and put in an unsolicited proposal? This will get soooo interesting…
Space X being “tossed out of the play” depends on the next administration I’d imagine.
I assume Griffin (when wearing his AIAA hat) and Scott Pace would lobby against Space X to Romney – calling it a distraction to SLS, etc
But Griffin, (when wearing his Stratolaunch, Inc hat) – would support Space X outside of NASA sponsored programs.
Obama reelection would mean Space X moves along apace.
The money will run out super fast as Boeing goes into a massive
over-run, meaning delay, blaming the lack of progress on inadequate
funding.
From the standpoint of “cost plus” by a prime – yes, absolutely.
Folks:
One of the things that takes the sting out of this debacle is that more private investors are throwing real amounts of funding into launch vehicles and spacecraft. Either they are doing it themselves (Elon Musk) or are financing promising technologies (Sir Richard Branson).
Spacex probably doesn’t need any more money from NASA (beyond the cargo delivery contract, that is). In fact, missing out on this ‘award’ wouldn’t even slow them down much. Super Dracos are being tested and they already have a design for crew accommodation.
Now, if the lawmakers were giving out a ‘True American Innovator Award’ then Spacex would win hands down, no contest.
tinker
Spacex probably doesn’t need any more money from NASA (beyond
the cargo delivery contract, that is). In fact, missing out on this
‘award’ wouldn’t even slow them down much.
Sorry my friend – slightly too far. To qualify abort systems … etc, they’ll shoot big money soon, or have to payout over a longer development cycle. All of the participants have this big hurdle.
The game plan would likely change to doing HSF for other than ISS crew reasons – which they certainly could do. That would be bad for NASA, Congress … and the US as a whole. Terrifically embarrassing to have so much demonstrated potential … go in another direction. Only certain lobbyists mouth that as a means to make SpaceX look petulant to members of Congress, to serve clients interests.
Although it helps CCiCap that SpaceX appears to not need them. Apart from said damage, SpaceX and the US would not obviate the need for Soyuz crew flights as quickly, and while it would result in forming a near term larger commercial space industry (due to more players), it would likely be unstable due to more sporadic manned flight rate. So yes and no.
CCiCap gets from this independence the capacity to consider other CCDev participants without bias for the larger efforts … because one of the small fry could get away, perhaps the others likewise possess similar advantages and thus bear more examination …
Which is ironic given that Congress is trying hard to not have a “commercial space” industry that undercuts “arsenal space” protected interests.
Boeing and Sierra Nevada fully funded, SpaceX at a half. Boeing because of it’s lobbying budget and NASA astronauts want the feeling of flying and a stick so the dream chaser. Boeing and SpaceX will eventually serve the commercial market, Bigelow Aerospace facilities, and NASA gets it’s mini shuttle.
I expect them to fund Falcon 9+Dragon and Atlas V + (CST100+DreamChaser).
Liberty is a viable option, but ATK is in a red state, whereas SpaceX, Boeing, and SpaceDev are all in blue states, and the election is only weeks away…
My
vote:
Space-X
will get the half share because NASA is already funding them with 1.6 Billion
for ISS re-supply. In addition, they have already stated they will proceed
anyway without the contract. It’s a freebe for NASA. This might be to best thing for Space-X since
they will not be subject to as much oversight which accounts for much of the costs
in these projects.
Boeing
is the safe bet so they will get a full share.
SNC DreamChaser
will get a full share because it cannot be done on a half share. It has the sexy factor
and will be the higher risk higher reward project?
To
the person who says ULA will never let DC fly aboard an Atlas. Why? I see no
benefit to stalling. It would benefit ULA to fly it ASAP and secure future
contracts before others. My guess is they will be especially eager to say “I told you so” since
ULA is/was banned from competing with these other teams because they are a
“Monopoly”
SpaceX should get a chance to prove they can do it better and cheaper than everyone else…..Boeing and SNC at full award, SpaceX at half.
Mr. C!!
You say Excalibur Almaz can have human rated capsules ready to go in a year!!!
Fund them 1/2 and use the rest of the down select money for missions. Maybe buy a Bigelow Hab for L1
Screw the piglet games!!!!!
Pay Spacex to boost these capsules, at normal falcon rates till they can get their own dragon flying on their own dime!!
Others want to play get their own investors!!!
Spacex just won that science satellite contract. Time to usher in cheaper Space flight/human space flight and stop feeding piglets soon to be porkers.
I have been saying let’s fly only to hear it will take years and years!!!!
ONE year!!!!!!!!!
Note to Congress
soonest
cheapest
Let’s fly!
Others want to play, get private investors like Spacex.
There is some Tea party thought for you Mr. Stone!
And if they run to DoD, lower prices will still get them later!!!!
Have the tea party crowd go after high priced DOD launch Mr. Gassor
Mr. C I know this sounds radical, maybe crazy
But what if you just changed the game now got one human rated rocket flying fastest cheapest and created market with missions money Now!!! Flights to ISS
Let them compete with falcon prices and Excalibur capsule prices.
Tired of paying for no flights
Joe public
Joe Tax Payer
Joe Tea party
Its a soviet relic – lost out to Soyuz capsule as the different “design bureaus” battled for dominance. TKS is an overbuilt battleship that was intended to be reflown to bring down costs. Not a single thing in it is anything but Russian built.
The electronics and life support have been replaced.
Lol their used car lot is even better than ours lol. Still wouldn’t that be better buying seats??? Just a desprate thought. Lol I don’t like reality so trying to change it. Lol
Parallel lines
This selection “process” will go on for years and the only US commercial vehicle that will probably ever fly to ISS is Space-X Dragon by the time ISS life is over. Look up how long the competition to select a prime contractor for Project Apollo took, and that was to go to the Moon, with only a very limited manned spaceflight experience. We are talking about “capsules” to low earth orbit here !
I wonder how many years the Wright brothers thought you would have to worp your wings to turn your plane before flaps.
A guy named Marcel told me you have to do one step at a time Leo, moon etc. Mr. Bigelow has his factory built and ready!!!! He is just waiting 🙂
My votes were who I think will get funded (ATK, Boeing, ULA) which are exactly the ones I don’t want funded.
(Sung to the spam song: “pork, pork, pork, pork…..”)
If you are right I bet Spacex still kicks their A#$%es to HSF
Your post is what got me wondering if we were asked the right question or if there should have been two questions. Thanks
Yep. The confusion is the only thing which expains the high vote for ATK, imho.
NASA is just a jobs program now and a place to hide diversity candidates and promote them up the GS level. The reason for all this “competitive” process on commercial crew & cargo is to keep multiple companies funded just so NASA can avoid making a decision while appointing diversity program managers & staff to monitor the contractors, give them big titles and keep them on the government dole. When I was at Boeing we referred to NASA JSC as the Post Office and going on site was referred to as “I am going to the Post Office”. That is what NASA has become, this once premiere US technological juggernaut is now just another government welfare program.
Rocket Man. You are spot on! American exceptionalism used to be the trademark of NASA and now it is a redistribution service for government where nothing gets decided or done without a bunch of pandering. My vote is pandering will continue so ATK and Boeing will be the winners with SpaceX maybe getting the .5. Much like Ford refusing the bailout money I see SpaceX being like Ford utilizing their self reliance and efficiency to continue to be a TOP player (true commercial space flight).
Marc,
At the time I wrote this, I was away from the Internet and had forgotten or missed who had written the pole. So my thoughts are just what they are.
Doesn’t your survey stated like it was assume that we have no influence and are in fact only here to Helplessly WATCH!
6348 people responded to this pole thats some say so I think?
Anyway I answered who I thought SHOULD be funded, and if any NASA leaders do read your pole before they decide I would want them to know what I/WE think!
Just trying to help
George H. Worthington IV
Keith if you think this is an important idea please ask your readers. Or ask the survey writers to do another one!
The dangers of surveys
The other day a survey of the CCiCap down select was provided on NASA watch.
What was the question?
Who Will get funded in the next round of CCiCap
Shouldn’t the question have been
Who do you think SHOULD get funded in the next CCiCap
Many people said that they chose who they think will be selected NOT who they think SHOULD be selected!
Isn’t it possible that the people that make the selection may use this survey to justify their dumb choice!!!!
Maybe we just get the poor management we expect.
Spin doctor
Whoever wrote the survey didn’t really want our opinion did They???
They were either very smart or just were not thinking.
Maybe another survey with two questions might be a good idea
What do you think?
Lol I Win!!!!!, I was right!!! I knew NASA would fund their budget busting buddies yea!!!! Lolol
Question
How many of you answered who you thought NASA would fund and NOT who you thought should get funded!!
Lol Joe Q feeling pushed around by THEM again!!! Lolol
Keith, Do our opinions/votes matter or not????
ATK is now leading with over 2000 votes. How many of those votes really feel Humans should be riding on ATK’s solid boosters?
Just curious!!!
There is another issue here. Rep. Wolf, under the Wolf-Bolden agreement, has mandated that the final contractors be subject to the onerous FAR rules, rather than the current light SAA regulatory oversight enjoyed by the competitors.
FAR is known for multiplying bureaucracy and costs, and ‘New Space’ companies have kicked against it in the past.
‘The usual suspects’ are big and bureaucratic enough already to absorb the costs of FAR. The new commercial contenders (SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, Blue Origin and Excalibur) might be drowned by it.
In a perverse sense, some companies might heave a sigh of relief for not being chosen in the final round. Although for this round they may be grateful for getting the money to develop their technology further for eventual use in conjunction with the private sector (Bigelow and commercial orbital missions).
Pork can be harmful to your health lolol