This might be why Boeing would be presumed by WSJ, etc., to be the leader in the competition."Boeing is the first, and thus far only one of the three competitors (including Sierra Nevada Corp. and SpaceX) to complete all their assigned milestone task requirements under NASA’s Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative funded under the auspices of the agency’s Commercial Crew Program."http://www.universetoday.com/114097/boeing-completes-all-cst-100-commercial-crew-ccicap-milestones-on-time-and-on-budget-for-nasa-ahead-of-competitors/ - Ed Kyle
That would be because a lot of Boeing's milestones were "studies" and "reports". Boeing did not push the envelope one iota. Both SpaceX and SNC on the other hand selected milestones that were much harder and have nearly completed them all, putting their programs, in my opinion, much further ahead than Boeing. So many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.
It means that Pasztor is making up stuff again.
Charles Lurio writes: "Companies will be told results tomorrow morning; public announcement likely to follow shortly after."https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/511637156746768384Edit: Added link
So many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.
Quote from: clongton on 09/16/2014 01:56 amSo many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements.
The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 02:05 amQuote from: clongton on 09/16/2014 01:56 amSo many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements. Sure. In the concrete form of actual hardware assembled from actual legacy systems.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/16/2014 02:16 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 02:05 amQuote from: clongton on 09/16/2014 01:56 amSo many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements. Sure. In the concrete form of actual hardware assembled from actual legacy systems.Boeing, and the others, completed hardware testing milestones and critical design reviews, but only Boeing completed all of its milestones. That could be important tomorrow, but we'll see. I'm guessing two winners. http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20140912-ccicap-milestone-list.html - Ed Kyle
Sorry if this is obvious to others, I'm just curious.
Where does it say in the CCtCap selection criteria that CCiCap milestone completion is a metric that will be part of the evaluation?
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 04:09 amQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/16/2014 02:16 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 02:05 amQuote from: clongton on 09/16/2014 01:56 amSo many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements. Sure. In the concrete form of actual hardware assembled from actual legacy systems.Boeing, and the others, completed hardware testing milestones and critical design reviews, but only Boeing completed all of its milestones. That could be important tomorrow, but we'll see. I'm guessing two winners. http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20140912-ccicap-milestone-list.html - Ed KyleBut the milestones are different for each. Isn't this apples to oranges, then?For example, two of the incomplete SpaceX milestones are Pad Abort and In-Flight Abort.Those are not listed on the Boeing or SNC milestone list.Given that these are some of the most significant tests/validations of a manned system, how can the milestones list be used as an apples to apples comparison?Sorry if this is obvious to others, I'm just curious.
How about this? Only one CCtCap award and that goes to Boeing or Sierra Nevada.SpaceX as the clear fronrunner gets a contract outside CCtCap limitations for fasttracking crew to the ISS? Conceivable?
Quote from: AS-503 on 09/16/2014 04:25 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 04:09 amQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/16/2014 02:16 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 02:05 amQuote from: clongton on 09/16/2014 01:56 amSo many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements. Sure. In the concrete form of actual hardware assembled from actual legacy systems.Boeing, and the others, completed hardware testing milestones and critical design reviews, but only Boeing completed all of its milestones. That could be important tomorrow, but we'll see. I'm guessing two winners. http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20140912-ccicap-milestone-list.html - Ed KyleBut the milestones are different for each. Isn't this apples to oranges, then?For example, two of the incomplete SpaceX milestones are Pad Abort and In-Flight Abort.Those are not listed on the Boeing or SNC milestone list.Given that these are some of the most significant tests/validations of a manned system, how can the milestones list be used as an apples to apples comparison?Sorry if this is obvious to others, I'm just curious.Competitors entered CCiCAP on the basis that their milestones would take them substantially towards the final system. NASA would not have accepted them into the programme unless they agreed that those milestones would achieve that.