Updates NASA's CCDev-2 Program

[T.Neo]

:dry:

They obviously plan to perform more launches per year and they're ramping up production in an effort to do so. Whether they will manage such flight-rates remains to be seen though.

The fact that the vehicle will hopefully fly 17 times before a manned flight, means that a lot of the issues with the vehicle will be discovered and solved, and there will be a generally better technical understanding of the system, making it safer.

 

[orb]

Parabolic Arc: Le Tableau du Jour: NASA’s CCDev 2 Partnerships:

Above is a NASA provided chart showing reimbursable Space Act Agreements (SAAs) with the four CCDev 2 partners. Reimbursable SAAs permit the CCDev2 partners to use NASA’s unique resources and technologies such as facilities, personnel, expertise, or equipment to further advance their commercial crew transportation system concepts. In exchange for using NASA resources, NASA’s associated costs are reimbursed by the CCDev 2 partner.

These agreements encompass various skills and infrastructure including such areas as testing of rocket engine propulsion systems at Stennis Space Center’s test facilities; conducting spacecraft hazardous propellant testing using NASA’s White Sands Test Facility test methods, technology, and facilities; and collaborating with Kennedy Space Center engineers on spacecraft ground processing to include landing site operations analysis and pre/post flight flow development.

Several more center reimbursable agreements are being negotiated at present.

 

[Izack]

:dry:

They obviously plan to perform more launches per year and they're ramping up production in an effort to do so. Whether they will manage such flight-rates remains to be seen though.

The fact that the vehicle will hopefully fly 17 times before a manned flight, means that a lot of the issues with the vehicle will be discovered and solved, and there will be a generally better technical understanding of the system, making it safer.

I agree with this idea, but do they really need 17 unmanned test flights? The Apollo CSM needed only six. (You could also say STS needed none, but it's not a valid argument.)

 

[T.Neo]

How many flights does a commercial airliner need before it is qualified for operational use?

Spacecraft usually don't get a large number of flights before they start operating, because launches are so expensive. Launching satellites and cargo flights on Falcon before moving to manned flights creates that possibility while it actually pays for itself (since these flights will be paid for by customers). More flights just means more knowledge with the system.

STS flew several times before it entered 'operation', but most people would agree today that flying humans on the first flight ever of a spacecraft was madness.

It's just that the more technical knowledge you gain, the safer your system is (theoretically). It'll hopefully give them a good deal of system maturity before they put people on it, and nobody can really argue with that.

 

[Izack]

It'll hopefully give them a good deal of system maturity before they put people on it, and nobody can really argue with that.

No, not really.

 

[orb]

Aviation Week: Blue Origin Failure Unlikely Show-Stopper:

The inflight failure of Blue Origin’s second test vehicle is not necessarily a failure of the secretive company’s efforts to begin launching scientists and space tourists on a reusable suborbital rocket. Nor will the aborted launch affect NASA’s plans to use private operators to transport cargo and crew to the International Space Station (ISS).

{...}

The company is also working on an orbital “Reusable Booster System” with the partial support of NASA’s Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program, which is seeding development of crew vehicles capable of reaching the ISS. Bezos says in his website posting that the company is building two crew capsules—one for the suborbital flights and one for the larger orbital vehicle.

According to the proposal that won Blue a $22 million Space Act Agreement (SAA) award under CCDev-2, the orbital vehicle will carry seven astronauts and use 100,000-lb.-thrust, liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen, “deep-throttling, restartable engines to perform VTVL maneuvers for booster recovery and reuse.”

Most of that work apparently is being done with internal funds. Under its CCDev-2 agreement, the company will test the pusher-type launch abort system it started with an investment that included $3.7 million in CCDev-1 funds from NASA. It also will begin testing the throttlable engine, as well as maturing the capsule design, according to the proposal.

NASA says the company started work on those tasks in May. The failure last month was unrelated to the CCDev-2 tasks, according to Phil MacAlister, who runs the CCDev program for NASA.

{...}

 

[orb]

Parabolic Arc: Vanderbilt: Abandoning Space Act Agreements Would Kill Commercial Crew Program:

COTS, and CCDev till now, succeeded because their non-traditional Space Act Agreement contracts *prevented NASA from imposing their normal procurement practices*, and allowed the commercial partners to get things done at far lower commercial cost levels.

If CCP management gets away with abandoning what’s been working and switching to modified traditional procurement, all the arguments over whether the results will actually be any better or safer are moot. There will be no results, because *the money isn’t there.*

The Senate appropriators reportedly just came back with $500m for CCP next year, somewhat more than the House, but still far less than the NASA request. $500m may be just barely enough to support multiple competing commercial crew projects – if done under the old arrangements.

Under anything like traditional NASA procurement practice, $500m will barely pay for the viewgraphs. If CCP management goes ahead with their current approach, they will be effectively killing the program, absent money miraculously raining from the skies.

{...}

Florida Today - The Flame Trench: Commercial crew contracts to change:

NASA today told industry partners it would abandon the use of Space Act Agreements in the next phase of the program developing commercial crew taxis, despite many companies' preference for them.

"We've made our decision and we recognize that not everyone will agree with it, but we're at the point where we had to make one and move forward,” Brent Jett, deputy director of the Commercial Crew Program office, said during a meeting at Kennedy Space Center.

{...}

 

[Ark]

So, we're cutting the CCDEV money practically in half, and imposing a whole new set of cost-inflating rules for them to follow?

Brilliant. :facepalm:

 

[orb]

NASA: RELEASE : 11-312 -NASA Releases Commercial Crew Draft RFP, Announces CCDEV2 Optional Milestones

Parabolic Arc: NASA Releases Commercial Crew Draft RFP, Announces CCDEV2 Optional Milestones

 

[orb]

Parabolic Arc: NASA to Abandon Goal of Funding Multiple Commercial Crew Systems:

Congressional stinginess with NASA’s Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) budget is forcing the space agency to abandon a key goal of the effort: to obtain multiple, redundant access to low Earth orbit with price competition between providers.

According to the CCDev draft request for proposal released yesterday, NASA will ultimately select only one system to fund to completion:

The acquisition will be conducted as a two-phased procurement using a competitive down-selection technique between phases. In this technique, two or more contractors will be selected for Phase 1. It is expected that the single contractor for Phase 2 will be chosen from among these contractors after a competitive down-selection.​

The space agency is currently funding four companies to build spacecraft: Blue Origin, Boeing, Sierra Nevada Corporation, and SpaceX. The first three companies plan to use United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V rocket to launch their spacecraft into orbit. SpaceX would use its own Falcon 9 booster. NASA’s goal had been to fund at least two fully integrated rocket-spacecraft systems to full completion.

The key issue appears to be funding: while the Obama Administration has proposed spending $850 million on CCDev in FY 2012, the Senate would provide $500 million while the House has proposed $312 million. Congress has been much more enthusiastic about funding the Space Launch System and Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle, which will receive around $3 billion next year.

The issue affects not only NASA but also private space station operators such as Bigelow Aerospace who want multiple options and competition in launching crews and cargo. Bigelow plans to launch two space stations into orbit by the end of the decade if commercial transport options become available. The company will need more than 20 launches per year of cargo and crew to support its facilities.

 

[Urwumpe]

Ah great, the GOP again shows that their interpretation of a functioning market is a monopoly.

 

[T.Neo]

It just gets better and better and better. Isn't this another promising development the space enthusiast community can rally around? :dry:

I really think I must stop following US space policy, it's bad for my health.

 

[Urwumpe]

I really think I must stop following US space policy, it's bad for my health.

The news are not as bad as the Whiskey that you need for getting it down your throat.

:chainsaw:

 

[orb]

Parabolic Arc: Optional CCDev Milestones Include Dream Chaser Drop Test, Boeing Engine Firing

 

[orb]

Parabolic Arc: Code Name: DragonRider:

DragonRider.

It sound like somebody in Avatar, doesn’t it? Or the code name of the evil plot hatched by the most nefarious James Bond villain yet?

No, it’s just the project name for SpaceX’s effort to launch commercial crews to the International Space Station. DragonRider was one of the nuggets that Abhishek Tripathi revealed during a talk at the SETI Institute in Mountain View on Wednesday night. The SpaceX engineer gave an overview of his company’s work and some insights on what it is like to work there.

{...}

 

[orb]

NASASpaceflight: ASAP want NASA to avoid “going native” with CCP partners – SpaceX Latest

 

[orb]

SNC Dream Chaser Accomplishments in CCDev

 

[Ark]

So, what do you want to bet Boeing gets chosen as the sole commercial crew contractor? :dry:

 

[T.Neo]

So, what do you want to bet Boeing gets chosen as the sole commercial crew contractor?

I hope that NASA can find a way away from this "down select to one" madness and manage to have the ability for some redundancy.

Choosing Boeing may not be a bad choice- and this is for wholly legitimate reasons. They're a very experienced company and I believe NASA has rated their CST-100 project higher than all other CCDev competitors (even SpaceX).

Since Dragon is an unmanned resupply vehicle that can fly manned, it might make sense for NASA to use Dragon as a resupply vehicle and keep on hand the option to get the manned Dragon service up and running in the event that redundancy is required.

There is of course another reason why CST-100 might be a good idea: it is a product of an experienced, large company. And that makes it more difficult for the commercial space 'haters', closed-minded people and Big Aerospace lobbyists to criticise.

Boeing may be a large, extensive company... some may deride it as "old space", but I really do not see what the problem is. They're trying to be part of the whole CCDev scheme, and I like the fact that they're endorsing this new way of doing things. More can probably be said of their efforts to move toward the future, than the actions of Lockheed Martin.

 

[Tacolev]

Plus: SpaceX has flown their rocket and their capsule and has a backlog of commercial launches. That is a business plan. I can't see them throwing in the towel just because the federal money tap turns off.

The size and success of Boeing, on the other hand, actually works against them here. They have so many successful aerospace ventures, both for public and private customers, that they wouldn't bat an eye at dropping CST-100 if funding vanished. But if funded their's is arguably the lowest risk for the same return of the three CCDev vehicles. There's very little room for engineering surprises in their design.