Quote from: Jim on 10/14/2014 12:17 amWhat says SNC has long-term potential?SNC had goals beyond ISS crew transport and had aims for a true commercial future beyond ISS. CST-100 seems to be a one trick pony, and an expensive one at that. But maybe the question is, if it didn't have potential, why did we invest a couple hundred million dollars in it only to add it to the long list of abandoned programs?
What says SNC has long-term potential?
I think we could argue the relative technical merits of the three candidates forever and not pick a clear winner. They're good at different things, and I think it's a shame if all three don't get developed.
Oh that would be funny. Congress we cut your funding in half. NASA ok, we are dropping Boeing and going single source with SpaceX because at 1/2 funding we can still afford SpaceX but not Boeing.
SNC had goals beyond ISS crew transport and had aims for a true commercial future beyond ISS. CST-100 seems to be a one trick pony, and an expensive one at that.
That would be taking action.. no, what'll happen is they'll just whine a lot and then change nothing. The schedules will blow out and when it becomes apparent that none of the providers will fly before the end of life of the ISS (or the heat death of the universe), the entire program will be cancelled with a lot of "I told you so" from the usual suspects in Congress.
The Dream Chaser, on the other hand, is a mini-Shuttle, and two Shuttles crashed because of failed heat shielding.
Been hearing this "Musk could go it alone" fairy tale for years now. Hasn't happened. If anything, they're behind where NASA would like them to be, not ahead, and for the same reasons.
Quote from: QuantumG on 10/14/2014 05:37 amBeen hearing this "Musk could go it alone" fairy tale for years now. Hasn't happened. If anything, they're behind where NASA would like them to be, not ahead, and for the same reasons.Aren't you the same QuantumG who posted recently that "NASA was holding SpaceX back"? A sudden change of opinion?
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. NASA needed to have a commercial crew contract partner that can deliver ontime and not be distracted by other things, like the President of the company going around and talking about colonizing Mars etc. 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. Not saying that SpaceX will not deliver on time but if they do, it will be a first. SpaceX needs to demonstrate better project management skills and planning that it has so far in its company history if it wants to compete in the same space as the big firms like Boeing for govt contracts.
It was supposed to be. That's how badly NASA completely screwed it up - royally.
(Ventura star, spaceplane,).
Quote from: QuantumG on 10/14/2014 05:37 amBeen hearing this "Musk could go it alone" fairy tale for years now. Hasn't happened. If anything, they're behind where NASA would like them to be, not ahead, and for the same reasons.Where would NASA like SpaceX to be at this time from a manned spacecraft perspective right now?
Are you serious? Boeing never deliver under budget and on time maybe last time at Apollo time. Why so much project was canceled in the last 35 years,because over budget not because delay(Ventura star, spaceplane,). Spacex is first company that deliver little bite late but on budget. Spacex is probably the only company that in next 10 years deliver all components that NASA wants to have to explore our solar system. -Earth to orbit heavy lunch.-spacecraft able to and on mars or together solar body and deliver significant payload-interplanetary vehicle-new better spacesuit-reusable system
Commenting on the two winning capsule concepts, Gerstenmaier clearly singles out the Boeing design for most praise, being “the strongest of all three proposals in both mission suitability and past performance. Boeing’s system offers the most useful inherent capabilities for operational flexibility in trading cargo and crew for individual missions. It is also based on a spacecraft design that is fairly mature in design.” He also points to Boeing’s “well-defined plan for addressing the specific issues from Phase 1,” and says of the three bidders Boeing “has the best management approach, with very comprehensive and integrated program management, and an effective organizational structure, further ensuring they will be able to accomplish the technical work in a manner that meets NASA’s standards.” Phase 1, the Certification Products Contract (CPC), covered hazard reports, plans for verification, validation and certification.
That bolded portion is basically the definition of "subjective."
Some congressmen ask Bolden, why not use Orion for commercial crew purposes?http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/42165smith-to-bolden-why-not-orion-for-commercial-crew
Read the whole article - Smith and Pallazo (sp?) are saying replace one of the Commercial Crew vehicles with Orion. Then read Gerst's document - would they replace the "clearly superior" bid, regardless of cost? I am just old enough and cynical enough to think that this may be the opening shot in the battle for the ultimate dream of Congress (and some at NASA, and some on this site): two ways to get into space - in a Boeing capsule on top of a Lockheed launch vehicle, or in a Lockheed capsule on top of a Boeing launch vehicle.