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
Quote from: raketa on 10/14/2014 07:44 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.
(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?
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: raketa on 10/14/2014 07:44 amAre 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 systemIf 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? QuoteCommenting 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.
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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 10/14/2014 03:51 pmSome 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-crewRead 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.
Quote from: obi-wan on 10/14/2014 05:48 pmRead 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.
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.
1/NASA wants to do same thing that is doing last 40 years to fly to Earth orbit, it is safe who is going to send astronauts on long trip without assurance to bring them back. 2/NASA has plans for Mars trip but hopes it will be cancel, because it will be safer for NASA reputation not to do risky human endeavor and blame congress for canceling mission because the cost overrun.3/Boeing spacecraft will not force them go farther, and let them focus on unmanned probes.4/Spacex is building real hardware to leave Earth orbit and build it cheap. I think it scares lot of folks in NASA management.5/Boeing spacecraft is paper craft. Spacex is real hardware that will be launch this month.6/If Pad abort and January inflight abort will be successful, Spacex will have system ready to flight in February 2015.7/If Boeing to start build today they will have something in 2-3 years. 8/Strange that NASA prefer paper before real hardware flying and testing.
Also odd that the only other conmpetator, who actually has a flight tested article, (Although not into orbit yet) was the one who got shafted, as Boeing has mockups, but no real flight testable article.
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 10/14/2014 09:14 pmAlso odd that the only other conmpetator, who actually has a flight tested article, (Although not into orbit yet) was the one who got shafted, as Boeing has mockups, but no real flight testable article.Wrong. Boeing did parachute drops. Just drop the bias, SNC is way behind Boeing.
[1/NASA wants to do same thing that is doing last 40 years to fly to Earth orbit, it is safe who is going to send astronauts on long trip without assurance to bring them back.
2/NASA has plans for Mars trip but hopes it will be cancel, because it will be safer for NASA reputation not to do risky human endeavor and blame congress for canceling mission because the cost overrun.
3/Boeing spacecraft will not force them go farther, and let them focus on unmanned probes.
4/Spacex is building real hardware to leave Earth orbit and build it cheap. I think it scares lot of folks in NASA management.
5/Boeing spacecraft is paper craft. Spacex is real hardware that will be launch this month.
6/If Pad abort and January inflight abort will be successful, Spacex will have system ready to flight in February 2015.
Despite SpaceX only showing “satisfactory” performance during CPC, Gerstenmaier says the young space company has “performed very well” on other relevant work and has the benefit of more schedule margin than the other companies.
Space X had the best price of the three contenders and Gerstenmaier expressed a “high” overall level of confidence in the company’s ability to successfully perform the CctCap contract. However he acknowledged “some technical concerns about this proposal,” and worries that the schedule could be affected by having to tackle redesign issues late in the program.
7/If Boeing to start build today they will have something in 2-3 years.
8/Strange that NASA prefer paper before real hardware flying and testing.
There are no "deadlines" for the commercial crew contracts.
Quote from: QuantumG on 10/14/2014 10:09 pmThere are no "deadlines" for the commercial crew contracts.Except for the goal of being full flight ready by 2017 so additional Soyuz seats don't have to be purchased.
Quote from: brovane on 10/14/2014 10:14 pmQuote from: QuantumG on 10/14/2014 10:09 pmThere are no "deadlines" for the commercial crew contracts.Except for the goal of being full flight ready by 2017 so additional Soyuz seats don't have to be purchased. Which isn't a deadline.. it's just a desire.
Gerstenmaier goes on to say that Sierra’s proposal “has more schedule uncertainty. For example, some of the testing planned after the crewed flight could be required before the crewed flight, and the impact of this movement will greatly stress the schedule.”
Although the document praises Sierra’s “strong management approach to ensure the technical work and schedule are accomplished,” it cautions that the company’s Dream Chaser had “the longest schedule for completing certification.” The letter also states that “it also has the most work to accomplish which is likely to further extend its schedule beyond 2017, and is most likely to reach certification and begin service missions later than the other ‘Offerors’.”
so.. just curious.. what do you think a deadline is?
You are right,but tell me any big old company(Boeing, Lockheed,.ATK,..) got it project from NASA and defense budget and was done on budget.
You will not find such project.
Quote from: raketa on 10/14/2014 07:54 pmYou will not find such project.I found ten (maybe 12).
You are right,but tell me any big old company(Boeing, Lockheed,.ATK,..) got it project from NASA and defense budget and was done on budget. You will not find such project.