Author Topic: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1  (Read 640934 times)

Offline Nindalf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Canada
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #220 on: 10/14/2014 01:12 am »

What 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?
Boeing seems pretty cozy with Bigelow.  I don't really know of any commercial customers SNC has lined up.

As for being a one-trick pony, that seems unfair to CST-100.  Dream Chaser is heavily specialized for taking people to and from LEO stations (and accordingly, in some ways it would do it better than either of the capsules).  CST-100 is a modular design that would be easier to adapt to other purposes.

Notably, even in the base design CST-100 is suitable for providing stationkeeping/reboost delta-V for the station it's docked with.  Additional services weren't supposed to be a determining consideration, but there's a pretty good case for NASA and other station operators to prefer the CST-100 even for that reason alone.  Its heat shield is also protected behind the propulsion module (and, being detachable, may even be replaceable in orbit), which is one reason I think it's likely to be the best lifeboat of the three.

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.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #221 on: 10/14/2014 01:18 am »

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.

That's the real problem, which is a bigger picture issue that gets beyond the scope of this thread.  Our whole human spaceflight policy is a disaster, and it's hard not to just give up in disgust.  We need some real leadership in high places to champion the human spaceflight program, and to care not just about keeping contractors fed but to care about the actual mission(s) and performance. 

Certainly it seems as if the amount of money going into projects is inversely proportional to their payoff these days, and I think the projected SLS/Orion flight rates are so ridiculously low that it's almost comical.  I have to think something's gotta give, as our current path is insane, with commercial crew vehicles being developed for 6 flights and then nothing else, and Orion/SLS being developed at insane cost levels with no actual mission and no money for a lunar lander, mission module, or anything that would make Orion remotely useful.  It's just nuts.
« Last Edit: 10/14/2014 01:21 am by vt_hokie »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #222 on: 10/14/2014 01:19 am »
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.

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.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #223 on: 10/14/2014 02:31 am »

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. 


SNC goals are meaningless in this context.  As for one trick ponies, look no further than DC.  CST-100 has more utility and adaptability.

Online Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #224 on: 10/14/2014 03:34 am »

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 total proposal is 4.2+2.6 so around 7 Billion.  However that includes both development and operational expenses.  I think for Boeing's proposal it is up to 4.2 which would cover several manned test flights and up to 6 crew flights.  So potentially cuts could happen and still finish the development of the capsule.  The wild card is SpaceX and Musk because of their focus beyond just making money.  With the funding from NASA, even partial. Musk could just decide to push ahead and complete development at the original schedule just to tweak Boeing and Jeff Bezos.  There is bragging rights for the first private company to get a crew into orbit and recover them successfully and I bet that Musk want's those bragging rights.  That is one thing that Billionaire's love and that is bragging rights.  Certainly Musk isn't going to let Bezo's Blue Origin get that milestone first.  For a Billionaire their is only so many  super cars and luxury jets you can buy.  However having a Space Company that has done something only 3 other nations has done, gives you bragging rights at the next cocktail party.  For Boeing it is all business and dollars and cents for Musk and SpaceX it is more than that.  Which makes it a big variable because Musk has no board etc. to report to, he has complete control of SpaceX.   
« Last Edit: 10/14/2014 03:37 am by brovane »
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #225 on: 10/14/2014 05:37 am »
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.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #226 on: 10/14/2014 06:01 am »
The Dream Chaser, on the other hand, is a mini-Shuttle, and two Shuttles crashed because of failed heat shielding.

Challenger did not crash because of failed head shielding.  Please be more careful in your assertions.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #227 on: 10/14/2014 06:08 am »
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.

Aren't you the same QuantumG who posted recently that "NASA was holding SpaceX back"? A sudden change of opinion?
« Last Edit: 10/14/2014 06:08 am by Lars-J »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18199
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #228 on: 10/14/2014 06:30 am »
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.

Aren't you the same QuantumG who posted recently that "NASA was holding SpaceX back"? A sudden change of opinion?
Actually, with those two statements, QuantumG is saying the same thing twice. He has not changed opinion IMO.

Offline raketa

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #229 on: 10/14/2014 07:44 am »

It 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.     
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

Offline rpapo

Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #230 on: 10/14/2014 10:42 am »
(Ventura star, spaceplane,).
Please keep your facts straight.  Though I agree Boeing tends towards cost and schedule overruns (and they are not the only one by far), VentureStar was a Lockheed-Martin project, not one of Boeing's.  That particular project died largely because it was too ambitious.
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Online Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #231 on: 10/14/2014 11:44 am »
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.

Where would NASA like SpaceX to be at this time from a manned spacecraft perspective right now? 

"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #232 on: 10/14/2014 12:23 pm »
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.

Where would NASA like SpaceX to be at this time from a manned spacecraft perspective right now?

Three years ahead of Boeing instead of only two and ready to fly crew as soon as the new docking adapter is installed.


Online Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #233 on: 10/14/2014 02:28 pm »
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

If Boeing performs so poorly as you are asserting then why did NASA associatte administrator William Gerstenmaier write this in a internal document about the contract award?  If you are serious that must mean SpaceX really sucks as far as program management, because NASA thinks they are worse than Boeing in this category.   So what say you?

Quote
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.
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #234 on: 10/14/2014 02:33 pm »
That bolded portion is basically the definition of "subjective."
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #235 on: 10/14/2014 03:47 pm »
That bolded portion is basically the definition of "subjective."

It is subjective but it is the conclusion of NASA's evaluation board on the matter, which is what counts in the commercial Crew selection.  There were enough subjective areas like management competence, project management, organizational structure, technical maturity, ability to stick to a timetable. The higher ranking by Boeing in these areas put it ahead of SNC, despite the price difference.  I doubt that the GAO is going to over-rule NASA and say that SNC should have been more highly rated in these subjective areas.   
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #236 on: 10/14/2014 03:51 pm »
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

Offline AJW

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 807
  • Liked: 1315
  • Likes Given: 136
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #237 on: 10/14/2014 04:09 pm »
The original Constellation program overview in 2006 included Orion support for the ISS with 6 crew, 210 day stay time, lifeboat, and pressurized cargo capabilities.
We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives.

Offline obi-wan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • Liked: 691
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #238 on: 10/14/2014 05:48 pm »
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.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #239 on: 10/14/2014 06:05 pm »

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.

Ha!  I think that would be the official death of any hope for NASA.  The way I see it, the $2.6 billion or whatever it is going to SpaceX is the only ray of hope right now in an otherwise hopelessly aimless agency that seems to exist more for political pork than for advancing aeronautics or space exploration. 

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1