The 1st company I mentioned plans to be flying manned in 2016, a year ahead of the ISS crew flight. NASA is in no danger - unless it doesn't trust the 1st company? In that case then why did they get a contract in the first place?No, this is about taking care of old friends - nothing more.
Quote from: clongton on 10/13/2014 12:36 pmThe 1st company I mentioned plans to be flying manned in 2016, a year ahead of the ISS crew flight. NASA is in no danger - unless it doesn't trust the 1st company? In that case then why did they get a contract in the first place?No, this is about taking care of old friends - nothing more.If you are reffering to SpaceX and flying manned in 2016. Has SpaceX ever delivered a project on time?
Isn't/wasn't 2016 the target date for NASA/LM/Boeing to deliver IOC for SLS/Orion?Maybe SpaceX picking up human space flight responsibilities isn't needed, then...
Quote from: AncientU on 10/13/2014 04:34 pmIsn't/wasn't 2016 the target date for NASA/LM/Boeing to deliver IOC for SLS/Orion?Maybe SpaceX picking up human space flight responsibilities isn't needed, then...Orion first crew flight isn't scheduled until around 2021. Orion isn't a backup to the Commercial crew contract.
It was supposed to be. That's how badly NASA completely screwed it up - royally.
Quote from: clongton on 10/13/2014 04:45 pmIt was supposed to be. That's how badly NASA completely screwed it up - royally.Which is why the Boeing bid was accepted for the Commerical Crew Contract. Boeing know's how to deliver large Aerospace contracts ontime. SpaceX hasn't delivered a project on time.
Quote from: brovane on 10/13/2014 04:55 pmQuote from: clongton on 10/13/2014 04:45 pmIt was supposed to be. That's how badly NASA completely screwed it up - royally.Which is why the Boeing bid was accepted for the Commerical Crew Contract. Boeing know's how to deliver large Aerospace contracts ontime. SpaceX hasn't delivered a project on time. When did Boeing last deliver a large Aerospace contract ontime?
Quote from: clongton on 10/13/2014 04:45 pmIt was supposed to be. That's how badly NASA completely screwed it up - royally.Boeing is expensive but they will deliver on time and have the Aerospace project management skills that SpaceX and SNC lack. They also don't have all the distractions that SpaceX has.
Boeing know's how to deliver large Aerospace contracts ontime. [snip] Boeing is expensive but they will deliver on time and have the Aerospace project management skills that SpaceX and SNC lack.
They haven't - not in living memory.
In my opinion NASA's assertion is bogus and I call it BS. There are 2 companies involved, one of which is already proceeding to manned flight with or without NASA's money. So a 100 day delay would not affect that company in any way. The other company has made no bones that without the NASA contract it would likely shut down its spacecraft effort and let the people involved in it go. That is the only setback - that company won't go forward without NASA's money promised up front. In my opinion this entire thing reeks of corruption at the highest level of NASA, that company and both their Congressional lackeys.
Quote from: clongton on 10/13/2014 05:07 pmThey haven't - not in living memory.You must have a short memory.You can look at the 777 airliner and 747 development for well managed projects and delivered on time. The Delta-IV and the SaturnV-SIC stage. The F-18 Super Hornet was also delivered on time.
No they weren't. You need to look at the "original" schedule, not the ones that were published close to delivery of the product.
Boeing doesn't deliver every project on time. Statistically it is far from assured.
You have a long and rather selective memory. The 777 went into customer service 19 years ago, the same year the Super Hornet first flew. The 747, and the Saturn first stage. were designed in the 1960s. I'd be amazed if anyone responsible for managing these projects is still at Boeing.About the Delta-IV, "The first flight of Delta 4 has been delayed several times this year because of various technical problems. It was originally supposed to have flown before the Atlas 5." from a Seattle paper, http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Boeing-has-a-lot-riding-on-the-Delta-4-rocket-1100684.php The 787, a much more recent yardstick of ability to deliver on time, was several years late.
Discussing costs, Gerstenmaier says that “although SNC’s price is lower than Boeing’s price, its technical and management approaches and its past performance are not as high and I see considerably more schedule risk with its proposal. Both SNC and SpaceX had high past performance, and very good technical and management approaches, but SNC’s price is significantly higher than SpaceX’s price.” Touching on why Boeing received a $4.2 billion contract, versus $2.6 billion for SpaceX, he adds “I consider Boeing’s superior proposal, with regard to both its technical and management approach and its past performance, to be worth the additional price in comparison to the SNC proposal.”
Quote from: erioladastra on 10/13/2014 01:47 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 10/13/2014 07:06 amA concern over 100 days means that there is no margin built in a program that will be 2 years behind due to lack of full presidential requested funding by Congress. If it means buying another Soyuz ride for 70M compared to the CC program in the billions, so be it in search of the truth...Yes, you are correct that funding, and NASA trying to deal with TWO companies will be the biggest factor - but 100 days is a HUGE amount fo time. Even without the inevitable burps and issues along the way throwing away 3 months certainly guarantees at least one more launch provided by Soyuz. That is significant money and political/national prestige there.Like I said above in post #168 "that ship has sailed" and Joe the plumber is the US couldn't care less...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 10/13/2014 07:06 amA concern over 100 days means that there is no margin built in a program that will be 2 years behind due to lack of full presidential requested funding by Congress. If it means buying another Soyuz ride for 70M compared to the CC program in the billions, so be it in search of the truth...Yes, you are correct that funding, and NASA trying to deal with TWO companies will be the biggest factor - but 100 days is a HUGE amount fo time. Even without the inevitable burps and issues along the way throwing away 3 months certainly guarantees at least one more launch provided by Soyuz. That is significant money and political/national prestige there.
A concern over 100 days means that there is no margin built in a program that will be 2 years behind due to lack of full presidential requested funding by Congress. If it means buying another Soyuz ride for 70M compared to the CC program in the billions, so be it in search of the truth...
Half true. Joe the plumber is not interested in what NASA hopes to do at the ISS in ~4 years time. He knows that the Shuttles were cancelled because one crashed and has accepted that there will be a delay before the replacement flies. In 4 years time, when the replacement does not fly, he will be less forgiving.
Boeing is already late on the KC-46 tanker.http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2024732896_boeingtankerxml.htmlAnd this happens with an old and very well known airplane.