This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

SpaceX Meets Important CCiCap Milestones

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
July 2, 2013
Filed under , ,

NASA Commercial Crew Partner SpaceX Completes Two Human-Critical Reviews, SpaceRef Business
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, Calif., recently completed two milestones for NASA’s Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative, which is intended to make commercial human spaceflight services available for government and commercial customers.
These were the fifth and sixth milestones for SpaceX, a partner in NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP). The company is on track to complete all 14 of its CCiCap milestones by mid-2014.
… The beauty of having the pad abort test review was it allowed both NASA and SpaceX to start coalescing toward an understanding of what will be tested and how we’ll measure success,” said Ed Mango, NASA’s CCP manager. “We’re really looking forward to seeing SpaceX’s pad abort system take off from along Florida’s Space Coast.”

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

17 responses to “SpaceX Meets Important CCiCap Milestones”

  1. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    Gee, it’s nice to see an article that has nothing to do with government factions fighting over budgget cuts. Looks like SpaceX is getting back on track with respect to the schedule. CCiCAP just might be the turning point in the human exploration and exploitation of space.

    • Aaron GrandeCorazón Clark says:
      0
      0

      I agree. Next stop Mars!

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

        Actually, the next stop will be the actual pad abort test. Preparing for it is very important but the test will show how far along they are. I believe the test is planned for later this year. Based on their first ISS mission being behind schedule, I would expect this test to get delayed.

  2. DocM says:
    0
    0

    Not only this, but in today’s AvWeek article Boeing said they’re paying SpaceX a visit soon: Subject: if F9 can be used for CST-100. Seems the launch price of Atlas V is an issue as F9’s price was the focus of their comments. They mention a possible change after CST-100’s second flight.

    Last paragraph, first page –

    http://www.aviationweek.com

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      It’s glaringly obvious. As Sheldon would say…I want to do the math!

      Go look at the yearly budget (actual) so far for the Commercial Crew program, then go read up on budget battles and events. (In FY 13, under a CR, we’re talking $525M). I think you’ll find a preponderance of evidence that the yearly commercial crew budget isn’t going up above that 500 mark or thereabouts anytime soon, for many years. So, if we take and go with Atlas, just go see what cargo Atlas’s go for to NASA – just for the launcher mind you. That will be around 200 a shot (and climbing fast, read about all that too). So if you want a spacecraft too, Boeing does want to get paid for the CST after all, then we are talking about some obvious math on flight rate per year. Probably about 1 launch per year with Boeing/Atlas? 250 CST, 250 Atlas. Maybe two every 18 months, best case, if CST comes in competitive to Dragon? If the CST can be made for about 100M a unit as well (Dragons’ will be around there). So why would this be chosen when you could assure double the launch rate (to 2 a year, maybe even 3) on a spacecraft that’s already flying (adding reliability growth)?

      ALTERNATELY-if you know the hammer will come down on you (congressman, etc.) for giving Space-X too much business, you cut it down the middle …viola…whisper in their ear… Boeing, get w. Space-X…or no congressional pressure will save you.

    • Saturn1300 says:
      0
      0

      Boeing has always said they might use F9. I pointed out that CST-100 was too heavy for the published lift capacity for F9. Now with the new F9 they might get it to work.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Saturn 13
        Is the new f9 powerful enough to lift Dream Chaser?? Although I never saw the wisdom of having to limit your space vehicle landing sites to just runways sure seems to me that spacex should have another customer here????

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      We’ve been harping on the need for redundancy lately. I hope things don’t suddenly go in the other direction where everyone starts using the same LV. We could too easily fall once again into the recurring trap of having our one solution get into trouble with no alternatives to fill in for it. The dumbest thing we could do is create yet another “gap.”

      As I understand it, COTS and CCiCAP have never been about finding the best solution, but rather finding viable solutions (plural).

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Hey Steve,
        Yes who will step up to challenge Spacex in lift?? Is anyone even trying to compete in price with the falcon 9 or 9R.

        add
        hummm
        Maybe Spacex should still fly the current merlins and the merlins Ds so they can have their own redundancy system in place.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          Hi George. I think most of the large aerospace companies, those who build LVs, are attempting to compete on both price and capability with SpaceX. They simply have not been overly successful, to date, in doing so. But things can change in surprising ways and sometimes very quickly. Case in point: SpaceX pretty much came onto the scene and shot up the ladder of success over night, by industry standards. No one really saw it coming or thought that it could happen so fast. There’s no reason why similar big changes can’t happen at any time. Consider that Boeing and LM both have the corporate capital to make big jumps and take big risks without having to count every penny.

          I don’t see SpaceX, or anyone else, using a previous version of their current products as a redundant alternative. When “finished” product runs into trouble, it’s a process or materials problem, which are going to be common to both the new model and the older model manufacturing, so you don’t have a viable alternative unless you’ve been stockpiling old models, which is unlikely given their costs.

          I think the idea of Boeing using the Falcon 9 is a very encouraging step in the right direction. Something that people have learned from the animal kingdom is that it is possible, and often profitable, to both cooperate and compete with other animals (companies). Companies needn’t be one or the other, but can be both at the same time in different situations to their mutual benefit. Think of it as symbiosis.

          I want to stress the idea of needing more than one solution to the LV, or any other, requirement. When you’re planning and putting up buildings, would you chose to use single-source components, materials or manufacturers if there were suitable alternatives that weren’t single source? Obviously not, all else being equal. The reasons are obvious and apply no less to launch vehicles or spacecraft. A key point is that your suppliers/subcontractors be separate companies, so that if one gets into trouble you’re not stuck for a source. How many construction projects went late because a single supplier had a strike or a fire to deal with? And when the customer’s building isn’t finished on time, he’s losing boat loads of money, day-for-day, paying for people, utilities, insurance, supplies, etc. that are at a dead stop, doing nothing at all because the building isn’t ready. And the contractor goes broke because of the penalty clauses in the contract.

          One more point: the various LVs and spacecraft that are or soon will be available are not necessarily swapable. In a spacecraft it could be something as simple as the amount of auxiliary power available for running equipment or experiments, or the voltages supplied, that knock one spacecraft out of the running. Or the amount of delta-V for repositioning and stationkeeping. These are not things that you can retrofit after the fact for a specific customer, but rather must be redesigned before building, if they can be done at all. The same holds for LVs.

          All of this brings us back to the same old argument — to design a mission, you start with the requirements of the final step and work backwards defining the requirements of each preceding step. If you make a given choice, and if you have multiple alternatives to chose from, it’s because of your detailed requirements, not simply because one supplier is cheaper or has more capacity than another.

  3. BenjaminBrown says:
    0
    0

    Proton is unmanned, and despite the troubles with the program the Russian’s haven’t had a failure with a Soyuz spacecraft since 1971.

    • WasBill says:
      0
      0

      Actually, ’75 and ’83 were fairly significant.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      But they have had a Soyuz LAUNCHER failure recently. Recall August 2011, the Soyuz on a cargo resupply run.

      And now this one.

      • korichneveygigant says:
        0
        0

        If I remember correctly the series of Launcher that failed was not the manned Soyuz type, but related nonetheless

  4. Stuart says:
    0
    0

    Funnily enough I thought SpaceX had gone silent, turns out they were working hard !

    Very good news indeed!

  5. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    As a custumer Why would I want to fly my people or cargo on a CST-100 or a Dream Chaser as opposed to a Dragoon.