If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/15/2014 06:15 pmBoeing/LockMart haven't done HSF vehicles before on FFP. Boeing did Spacehab on FFP
Boeing/LockMart haven't done HSF vehicles before on FFP.
Quote from: yg1968 on 10/15/2014 02:00 pm If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals. Not true. Commercial does not always mean cheapest. When I look for an item on Amazon, I just don't look at price, I look at the supplier ratings too.
Quote from: Jim on 10/15/2014 07:29 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 10/15/2014 02:00 pm If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals. Not true. Commercial does not always mean cheapest. When I look for an item on Amazon, I just don't look at price, I look at the supplier ratings too.Right. But we are talking about 3 providers that had pretty good ratings. You would be willing to pay almost twice as much for half a star?
Quote from: yg1968 on 10/15/2014 08:00 pmQuote from: Jim on 10/15/2014 07:29 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 10/15/2014 02:00 pm If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals. Not true. Commercial does not always mean cheapest. When I look for an item on Amazon, I just don't look at price, I look at the supplier ratings too.Right. But we are talking about 3 providers that had pretty good ratings. You would be willing to pay almost twice as much for half a star?One provider was new and only had a few ratings. I don't trust new ones.
Quote from: Jim on 10/15/2014 08:45 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 10/15/2014 08:00 pmQuote from: Jim on 10/15/2014 07:29 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 10/15/2014 02:00 pm If commercial crew had really been commercial, NASA would have selected the two cheapest proposals. Not true. Commercial does not always mean cheapest. When I look for an item on Amazon, I just don't look at price, I look at the supplier ratings too.Right. But we are talking about 3 providers that had pretty good ratings. You would be willing to pay almost twice as much for half a star?One provider was new and only had a few ratings. I don't trust new ones.Hmmm...I'm with Jim here.For my business, I spend more on proven, typically more expensive tech to mitigate risks to my business. However I do cycle in less expensive and/or newer, less-proven tech from time to time for potential future efficiencies. But never exclusively. It's a process. It's a balance. The next couple of years will bring more clarity. From a purely fan-in-the-seat perspective, it will be fascinating having Boeing and SpaceX, 2 extraordinarily different companies, going full-out to hit 2017. It's a great narrative.
I totally concur. NASA did take one "risky" choice: Dragon 2. But it was not really all that more risky and really cheap. DreamChaser had a lot more inherent risks than the capsules. And the project was still less mature than the other competitors. And it was not the cheapest. And it was, indeed the riskiest of the three. And the execution performance during CCDev and CCiCap was a bit below the other two. In the end, it was a 20% cheaper option than Boeing's, with a lot of extra risks.
When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule
Quote from: baldusi on 10/15/2014 10:26 pmI totally concur. NASA did take one "risky" choice: Dragon 2. But it was not really all that more risky and really cheap. DreamChaser had a lot more inherent risks than the capsules. And the project was still less mature than the other competitors. And it was not the cheapest. And it was, indeed the riskiest of the three. And the execution performance during CCDev and CCiCap was a bit below the other two. In the end, it was a 20% cheaper option than Boeing's, with a lot of extra risks.When did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsule. Besides you could argue that giving a contract to a company such as Boeing which is unwilling to put any skin in the game is risky from a financial point of view. The challenges to commercial crew so far have been mostly financial (not having enough funding from Congress), not technical.
Quote from: yg1968 on 10/15/2014 10:45 pmWhen did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsuleAn upgrade that changes it from a cargo container into a human habitat with intricate life support systems. Though I was a DC fan, I do have to acknowledge that neither SNC nor SpaceX has ever flown humans into space before.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 10/15/2014 11:37 am(1) In contrast, SpaceX and SNC are relative newcomers to projects of this size. [..] What is the largest project ever done by SNC? (Not a rhetorical question - I'm asking since I'm not familiar with SNC's business.)(2) I applaud your humility at the end there, it's a shame you didn't rethink your entire comment from that perspective. SNC are a 53 year old aerospace company.. this is not their first BBQ.
(1) In contrast, SpaceX and SNC are relative newcomers to projects of this size. [..] What is the largest project ever done by SNC? (Not a rhetorical question - I'm asking since I'm not familiar with SNC's business.)
Quote from: TomH on 10/15/2014 11:21 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 10/15/2014 10:45 pmWhen did Dragon 2 become risky? It's an upgrade to an existing capsuleAn upgrade that changes it from a cargo container into a human habitat with intricate life support systems. Though I was a DC fan, I do have to acknowledge that neither SNC nor SpaceX has ever flown humans into space before.It isn't long duration life support. I.E. it could be as simple as a CO2 scrubber. Didn't Apollo 13 rig up a setup using some ducktape and plastic bags and pieces from the LM and CM? Dragon v1 is already a human occupied spacecraft when attached to ISS. If the life support system doesn't work, and in an emergency, dragon can land pretty much anywhere land or sea. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/15/2014 03:11 amQuote from: brovane on 10/15/2014 03:08 amYou are comparing fixed priced contracting to cost-plus contracting with is comparing Apples to Oranges. Right, but the point still stands. Boeing kind of prefers that contracting style, SpaceX (and perhaps Orbital?) kind of hate it.I wouldn't say that. Boeing has done many FFP. TDRSS, every NASA Delta launch since 1992 and there are others.
Quote from: brovane on 10/15/2014 03:08 amYou are comparing fixed priced contracting to cost-plus contracting with is comparing Apples to Oranges. Right, but the point still stands. Boeing kind of prefers that contracting style, SpaceX (and perhaps Orbital?) kind of hate it.
You are comparing fixed priced contracting to cost-plus contracting with is comparing Apples to Oranges.