Author Topic: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser  (Read 68248 times)


Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8097
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2873
  • Likes Given: 686
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #1 on: 08/17/2014 11:11 PM »
Only three years away! (and always will be?)
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #2 on: 08/17/2014 11:43 PM »
Hi Chris

Is you link to SNC new propulsion system correct?


Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8153
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 104
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #3 on: 08/18/2014 01:15 AM »
Only three years away! (and always will be?)

;)

No.  Three years and counting.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10272
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2036
  • Likes Given: 624
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #4 on: 08/18/2014 01:34 AM »
I actually agree that is a good way forward. It does presuppose however that the non-chosen company wishes to continue. I would hope that they do so choose. If the commercial HSF program grows, all three will be needed. It would be a shame to see one or two fold up because they weren't chosen. They have all come so far, and I know that all three do have the financial where-with-all to continue without NASA funding.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #5 on: 08/18/2014 01:43 AM »
I'm hoping to see Blue Origin go suborbital soon, and I would be pleasantly surprised if the are the first to orbit a manned commercial spacecraft on their own booster.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline rcoppola

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1952
  • USA
  • Liked: 1186
  • Likes Given: 471
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #6 on: 08/18/2014 01:52 AM »
I'm hoping to see Blue Origin go suborbital soon, and I would be pleasantly surprised if the are the first to orbit a manned commercial spacecraft on their own booster.
I'll keep my eyes out for those dancing unicorns...
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10272
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2036
  • Likes Given: 624
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #7 on: 08/18/2014 01:53 AM »
I'm hoping to see Blue Origin go suborbital soon, and I would be pleasantly surprised if the are the first to orbit a manned commercial spacecraft on their own booster.

SpaceX is much further along to that goal than Blue Origin.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline UberNobody

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #8 on: 08/18/2014 02:01 AM »
I love the fact that you use Boeing's capsule as the thumbnail for that article *hint hint* lol.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5877
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 4529
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #9 on: 08/18/2014 06:55 AM »
I actually agree that is a good way forward. It does presuppose however that the non-chosen company wishes to continue. I would hope that they do so choose. If the commercial HSF program grows, all three will be needed. It would be a shame to see one or two fold up because they weren't chosen. They have all come so far, and I know that all three do have the financial where-with-all to continue without NASA funding.
True.

IRL none of these companies will fold if they lose NASA funding for this programme. Wheather they would choose to continue to go to a full build is a different matter. I think it's pretty clear SpaceX would, SNC might and Boeing (given their business plan rating for other business) probably not.

Beyond that things get murky.  :(

It could be argued if you can only fund 1 then that should be Boeing, as they have had the most full awards and are least likely to continue on their own funding.

The real question would be how much progress to their final vehicle has each entrant actually made?

If Boeing were 1st on the scoring that would be fair enough (but since they've flown nothing so far it seems unlikely) but they seem to have run a deeply political programme. Hiring space at the OPF and then saying "Oh if we don't win we walk and anyone we hired goes straight out the door" is basically taking hostages. If you're not sure you can afford the space, why hire it to begin with?

In soccer that's called "Playing the man, not the ball."  :(

I also think the programme has shown the benefits of competition to deliver advanced systems on a tight timescale if suitably funded. Let's keep in mind it's the decisions of congress that have pushed the 1st launch date so far back.

SNC has come from a company with (AFAIK) no experience of building a whole flight vehicle to flight testing and (so far) partial build of the first composite crewed lifting body reusable spacecraft. on 1/2 the awards of the mainstream proposals.

I just like to remind people that for this generation of space engineers that's about as innovative as it's possible to be.  :)

However that late substitution of the Orbitec engine is a bit worrying.  :(  If there's anything the study of engineering programmes teaches it's that late design changes to a well developed design usually cause a lot of trouble unless (like adding the 5th engine in the Saturn V booster stage) allowances were made for them in the original design (by ensuring the load bearing structures have enough margin to accommodate it for example).

Rocket engines are not plug-n-play. It's highly probable the new design will give better Isp than the hybrid design but the hybrid design has racked lots  of test time by now. Lack of test time on a stand is the sort of thing that is likely to make NASA very twitchy. People may feel their behavior is a little excessive on this subject but they are the customer (in this instance).

Personally I'd leave the the Orbitec engine tech for a "Dream Chaser 2.0" but I'll hope SNC are able to allay any concerns NASA has and wish them well.

I hope that NASA can support 2 fully funded spacecraft.

And here is where the US members of nasaspaceflight can help make it happen......

Call the office of your Representative and Senator and ask to speak to the staffer who deals with space matters.

Ask them if they are aware of CCtCap and if not outline what it's about.

Tell them you support it's goals and express your concerns that it needs to be fully funded for at least two winners to ensure crewed access to the ISS for the US (who after all built it) in case of problems with the lead design.

Ask them what their bosses views are on this.

I've refrained from going into details on the approach because that would make it look like an organized pressure group with a script, so if you don't feel you know enough details look them up.

It's your station, your astronauts access to it and your taxes that go to Russia to pay for the (current) tickets.

Does this not seem worth a small investment of your time?
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5877
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 4529
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #10 on: 08/18/2014 07:03 AM »
I'll keep my eyes out for those dancing unicorns...
That's an understandable PoV but consider BO have developed a 100 000lb LO2/LH2 engine.

No one does that (especially the LH2 part) just as a pleasant diversion to pass away the afternoons.  :(

Something is in the works, the question is what (and when)?
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3519
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2076
  • Likes Given: 2412
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #11 on: 08/18/2014 07:09 AM »
If the commercial HSF program grows, all three will be needed. It would be a shame to see one or two fold up because they weren't chosen.

I disagree.  Even if the market grows by a huge amount, there will at best be enough of a market to support two carriers.

The more companies there are fighting for the market, the less scale each has, and less scale means higher prices.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8013
  • UK
  • Liked: 1280
  • Likes Given: 168
CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #12 on: 08/18/2014 10:08 AM »
I'll keep my eyes out for those dancing unicorns...
That's an understandable PoV but consider BO have developed a 100 000lb LO2/LH2 engine.

No one does that (especially the LH2 part) just as a pleasant diversion to pass away the afternoons.  :(

Something is in the works, the question is what (and when)?

I've always found it curious that BO have felt the need to be so secretive about things, other than occasional public missives they really don't say much about their progress or otherwise.
« Last Edit: 08/18/2014 10:09 AM by Star One »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10272
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2036
  • Likes Given: 624
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #13 on: 08/18/2014 12:49 PM »
I love the fact that you use Boeing's capsule as the thumbnail for that article *hint hint* lol.

There are lots of reports floating around here and there about who is in and who is out. Some come from reliable sources and others are from wanna-be's. The bottom line is that nothing is real, until the ink is on the contract. It is unwise to take any one of the so-called expert reports and propagate them as secret facts when everything is actually still up in the air. There has been no official announcement on the competition. Don't forget, at one time EACH of the three companies was reported by experts to be the most likely looser in the competition. I advise extreme caution when "hinting" at who is in and who is out. Wait for the announcement please, then we shall see.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online Chris Bergin

Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #14 on: 08/18/2014 01:19 PM »
Well said Chuck. And the use of CST-100 as the lead image is because, and you can check this, I've mainly used Dream Chaser and Dragon a lot in previous articles. Just spreading the love :)

And Monty, the link is fine as it was to give air to the spread of articles for DCSS.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9067
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #15 on: 08/18/2014 02:28 PM »
Yes. I am skeptical of rumours too. Prior to the CCiCap awards, it was mentioned that ATK was the favourite at one point in time. That obviously didn't pan out. However, as you get closer to the announcement date, the rumours become more and more accurate.
« Last Edit: 08/18/2014 03:22 PM by yg1968 »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5877
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 4529
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #16 on: 08/18/2014 02:33 PM »
I advise extreme caution when "hinting" at who is in and who is out. Wait for the announcement please, then we shall see.
Wise words.

I think we all have preferences for who we would prefer to be selected but that's a different thing, and a different question.

Time for a poll of who thinks who will be in (and how many slots there will be)?

"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7837
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2108
  • Likes Given: 4962
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #17 on: 08/18/2014 02:38 PM »
Great article Chris and the news as well! :) I’ve always wanted a good ROI for the US tax dollars spent on any and all programs, which is why I set up my “Commercial Crew Alternate Universe” thread a while back. I feel we should not call any of the vehicles not chosen “losers” but rather not selected as prime candidates since great efforts have been made by all...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33940.msg1156576#msg1156576
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline rcoppola

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1952
  • USA
  • Liked: 1186
  • Likes Given: 471
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #18 on: 08/18/2014 07:26 PM »
I didn't say Boeing would be interested in that. I agree they wouldn't be. They have stated quite clearly they have no intention of self-fundning this without a clear path to an ROI. Which they don't have without NASA.

However, after reading my post again, I fear I may have jumped the shark, so I'm going to remove it.
« Last Edit: 08/18/2014 07:27 PM by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3333
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2132
  • Likes Given: 2569
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #19 on: 08/18/2014 10:56 PM »
It could be argued if you can only fund 1 then that should be Boeing, as they have had the most full awards and are least likely to continue on their own funding.

Not sure how it makes sense to reward the company that has received the most money but is the least committed to creating a critical service.

And wouldn't the flip side of that be that NASA would be able to spend less to create the same level of service with one of the other competitors?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #20 on: 08/18/2014 11:01 PM »
It could be argued if you can only fund 1 then that should be Boeing, as they have had the most full awards and are least likely to continue on their own funding.

That would be an excellent strategy to follow if your main goal was to shoot yourself in the foot.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #21 on: 08/18/2014 11:52 PM »
I'll keep my eyes out for those dancing unicorns...
That's an understandable PoV but consider BO have developed a 100 000lb LO2/LH2 engine.

No one does that (especially the LH2 part) just as a pleasant diversion to pass away the afternoons.  :(

Something is in the works, the question is what (and when)?

I've always found it curious that BO have felt the need to be so secretive about things, other than occasional public missives they really don't say much about their progress or otherwise.

Flight tests next year, suborbital I think. With the goal of offering commercial sub orbital flights. Orbital flights around 2018.

« Last Edit: 08/18/2014 11:53 PM by TrevorMonty »

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1994
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #22 on: 08/19/2014 01:33 AM »
I'm expecting SpaceX to be the odd man out. Boeing has flight heritage and big lobbyists. Sierra Nevada has wings and that's something NASA wants it seems. That leaves SpaceX holding the bag. I am one of SpaceX's biggest supporters but, I'm not sure that this wind is blowing in their direction. If not, they'll stay busy with cargo, commercial satellite launches and reuse for now. In the end, they become as know to the general public as Sea Launch sad to say. Without manned flights, SpaceX looses it's appeal.   
« Last Edit: 08/19/2014 01:46 AM by mr. mark »

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3015
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #23 on: 08/19/2014 01:49 AM »
In the end, they become as know to the general public as Sea Launch sad to say. Without manned flights, SpaceX looses it's appeal.   

Haha, makes me think of when I tell people I worked for Loral and the usual response is, the cosmetics company?  :)

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #24 on: 08/19/2014 01:57 AM »
I didn't say Boeing would be interested in that. I agree they wouldn't be. They have stated quite clearly they have no intention of self-fundning this without a clear path to an ROI. Which they don't have without NASA.


and that point still remains the problem with this whole program....Partners.   The slack in costs was to be picked up by "partners" and that's clearly not been the case with the program.   The number say this is a NASA funded design program.   So, let's stop playing games with it.  Pick a winner, fully fund it and get her done as quick as possible.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3333
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2132
  • Likes Given: 2569
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #25 on: 08/19/2014 02:16 AM »
I'm expecting SpaceX to be the odd man out. Boeing has flight heritage...

What flight heritage?  The last spacecraft they designed and built was last century.  I'd be surprised if any of those employees even work on the CST-100.

Quote
...and big lobbyists.

You must be assuming that NASA awards contracts based on bribes?  That technical merit and superior business models have no influence?  If that were true then Boeing deserves to be chosen...

Quote
Sierra Nevada has wings and that's something NASA wants it seems.

I do agree with that, and I think most of us want Sierra Nevada to get fully funded.

Quote
That leaves SpaceX holding the bag.

Interesting that you claim Boeing has some sort of flight heritage, but forget that SpaceX is the only contender flying human-rated and NASA certified spacecraft that they designed and built.

Quote
Without manned flights, SpaceX looses it's appeal.   

Not sure if you've heard of this Elon Musk guy, and his goal to reach Mars?  And how he is currently dominating the news without having flown any humans?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9494
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #26 on: 08/19/2014 02:32 AM »

What flight heritage?  The last spacecraft they designed and built was last century.  I'd be surprised if any of those employees even work on the CST-100.


Quite wrong.  X-37 and ISS and they did Shuttle sustaining engineering.  They have quite a lot of experience.  Not to mention leftovers from OSP and Spacehab.


Interesting that you claim Boeing has some sort of flight heritage, but forget that SpaceX is the only contender flying human-rated and NASA certified spacecraft that they designed and built.


It is not human rated.  It can be human occupied.


Not sure how it makes sense to reward the company that has received the most money but is the least committed to creating a critical service.


Not a consideration.
« Last Edit: 08/19/2014 04:41 PM by Jim »

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1994
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #27 on: 08/19/2014 03:20 AM »
I'm expecting SpaceX to be the odd man out. Boeing has flight heritage...

What flight heritage?  The last spacecraft they designed and built was last century.  I'd be surprised if any of those employees even work on the CST-100.

Quote
...and big lobbyists.

You must be assuming that NASA awards contracts based on bribes?  That technical merit and superior business models have no influence?  If that were true then Boeing deserves to be chosen...

Quote
Sierra Nevada has wings and that's something NASA wants it seems.

I do agree with that, and I think most of us want Sierra Nevada to get fully funded.

Quote
That leaves SpaceX holding the bag.

Interesting that you claim Boeing has some sort of flight heritage, but forget that SpaceX is the only contender flying human-rated and NASA certified spacecraft that they designed and built.

Quote
Without manned flights, SpaceX looses it's appeal.   

Not sure if you've heard of this Elon Musk guy, and his goal to reach Mars?  And how he is currently dominating the news without having flown any humans?
I am pretty sure Boeing will be one of the two. As for Elon Musk, a tiger's bite only hurts if he has teeth. Not many people are going to have Occupy Mars shirts if it takes SpaceX five years or more just to fly their capsule to orbit. Losing the NASA contract would be a HUGE blow to their plans. I think Musk is talking it down but, we all know how hard it would be to field a capsule without adequate funding from NASA.
   

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8333
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5116
  • Likes Given: 3417
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #28 on: 08/19/2014 03:33 AM »
I am pretty sure Boeing will be one of the two. As for Elon Musk, a tiger's bite only hurts if he has teeth. Not many people are going to have Occupy Mars shirts if it takes SpaceX five years or more just to fly their capsule to orbit. Losing the NASA contract would be a HUGE blow to their plans. I think Musk is talking it down but, we all know how hard it would be to field a capsule without adequate funding from NASA.
I am not sure "we all know" that. At the end of this round much risk will be retired and Musk may well choose to stay the course.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3333
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2132
  • Likes Given: 2569
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #29 on: 08/19/2014 03:37 AM »
I am pretty sure Boeing will be one of the two.

They are certainly in the running.  We'll know soon.

Quote
As for Elon Musk, a tiger's bite only hurts if he has teeth.

You keep alluding to politics being a consideration in who is chosen for Commercial Crew.  Do you really believe that NASA is choosing the winner or winners based on the strength of company lobbying efforts versus the merit of their bids?

That NASA is that corrupt?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1994
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #30 on: 08/19/2014 03:52 AM »
In the end Ron, I hope I'm wrong. It's hard to go up against well established contractors and win especially when you are the little guy. Elon has said that himself many times. I think I should not have said lobbyists as my intent was not to say NASA could be bought. Maybe I should have said experienced instead. We'll see soon enough. 

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5877
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 4529
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #31 on: 08/19/2014 08:20 AM »
I'm expecting SpaceX to be the odd man out.
Me too, as they are after all the only entrant racking up orbital flights now. Full mission cycles going up and coming down, which is useful experience to have if you're planning to carry humans.  :)
Quote
Boeing has flight heritage and big lobbyists.
When was the last time Boeing built a capsule? Or do you mean their "heritage" through McDonal Douglas? That's what 3,4,5 decades in the past?

You're right about the lobbyists. They have an army of those to (specially) plead their case.
Quote
Sierra Nevada has wings and that's something NASA wants it seems. That leaves SpaceX holding the bag. I am one of SpaceX's biggest supporters but, I'm not sure that this wind is blowing in their direction. If not, they'll stay busy with cargo, commercial satellite launches and reuse for now. In the end, they become as know to the general public as Sea Launch sad to say. Without manned flights, SpaceX looses it's appeal.   
I've noticed that when people start off "I am one of XXX's biggest supporters..." they're not going to say anything positive.  :( Thank you for demonstrating my point.

Weren't Sea Launch a Boeing joint venture? Outside of their ULA subsidiary they don't seem to be doing very well in the launch business.
Haha, makes me think of when I tell people I worked for Loral and the usual response is, the cosmetics company?  :)
Ouch.  :(

I really thought they had a shot with Aquarius.  :( I saw them like Apple after the Apple II and the Lisa. A solid company that had taken a bit of a battering. I though Aquarius would be their "Macintosh." A pragmatic approach to lowering the launch costs for all that payload that's not a $bn satellite that took a decade to build but is more likely to be a big mound of toilet tissue and ready meals.  Both of which become pretty important around meal times.  :)

Obviously a job in aerospace industrial forecasting did not beckon with that sort of insight.  :(

Not sure how it makes sense to reward the company that has received the most money but is the least committed to creating a critical service.
Simple. If you have limited resources (as NASA has) and you wanted to keep the maximum number of players in the game provided  each launch is competed. Over time the truly committed players will stay. The rest will drop out.  :(
Quote
And wouldn't the flip side of that be that NASA would be able to spend less to create the same level of service with one of the other competitors?
Compete every launch. No "block buys."

But please note. I wrote could not should.  :(

Personally I dislike people who whine.

I really dislike multi $Bn corporations who whine even more.

Some of Boeing's behavior has been giving me that "dentist's drill" feeling  :(
« Last Edit: 08/19/2014 08:55 AM by john smith 19 »
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5877
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 4529
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #32 on: 08/19/2014 09:06 AM »
It is not human rated.  It can be human occupied.
A fair point but it does give SpaceX current experience of the real issues around linking to a NASA certified human carrying facility in LEO.  Once you can meet those requirements the upgrade is for an ECLSS that can handle the worst case launch to docking time when running, on orbit storage and the amount of time to return to Earth coming back.

IOW's Dragon 1 has cracked the core  issues of building a vehicle solid enough and safe enough to be coupled to the ISS for the standard period of time. I'm sure Boeing and SNC can be made to do so also but the fact remains they have not done so yet.

Quite wrong.  X-37 and ISS and they did Shuttle sustaining engineering.  They have quite a lot of experience.  Not to mention leftovers from OSP and Spacehab.
Well yes and no. X37 and Shuttle use various types of reusable TPS. CTS-100 uses an ablator. I'm not if they have any experience of this material since Apollo.

So no actual capsule design experience for several decades but quite a lot of sub systems work?

TBH that sounds like they are on an equal footing with SNC, without the flight tests.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4687
  • Liked: 2806
  • Likes Given: 3928
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #33 on: 08/19/2014 04:25 PM »
If closing the 'gap' and stopping the $70M/seat payments are NASA (political) goals near the top of the list, wouldn't significant criteria be who will be ready first and cost the least?  SpaceX seems to win in both categories, and has a really nice pad being developed at the Cape to ice the deal.  Not a great time for a NASA slapdown/footshot by selecting all but SpaceX.
« Last Edit: 08/19/2014 04:31 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9494
  • Likes Given: 298
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #34 on: 08/19/2014 04:47 PM »

So no actual capsule design experience for several decades but quite a lot of sub systems work?


Not, actual human rated spacecraft  ISS, OSP, etc and other reusable spacecraft X-37.
The fact that it hasn't been a "capsule" is meaningless.

The type of TPS is one of the lesser issues.
« Last Edit: 08/19/2014 04:48 PM by Jim »

Offline Scylla

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
  • Clinton NC, USA
  • Liked: 621
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #35 on: 08/19/2014 04:57 PM »
If closing the 'gap' and stopping the $70M/seat payments are NASA (political) goals near the top of the list, wouldn't significant criteria be who will be ready first and cost the least?  SpaceX seems to win in both categories, and has a really nice pad being developed at the Cape to ice the deal.  Not a great time for a NASA slapdown/footshot by selecting all but SpaceX.
Boeing has expressed doubts about moving forward if they are not selected. SNC will probably move forward if not selected, but probably needs the money more than SpaceX. SpaceX has stated they are moving forward no matter what happens.

If a NASA long term goal is to maximize competition to create a variety of capabilities and across the board cost reduction, wouldn't SpaceX be the obvious one to drop if NASA can't take all three forward?
I reject your reality and substitute my own--Doctor Who

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3333
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2132
  • Likes Given: 2569
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #36 on: 08/19/2014 05:22 PM »
Boeing has expressed doubts about moving forward if they are not selected. SNC will probably move forward if not selected, but probably needs the money more than SpaceX. SpaceX has stated they are moving forward no matter what happens.

From the latest Aviation Week article about this topic (http://aviationweek.com/space/nasa-closes-commercial-crew-selection):

- Sierra Nevada Space Systems President Mark Sirangelo says the company is committed to the Dream Chaser orbital test flight in November 2016, regardless of a negative decision.

- Dragon 2 program manager Garrett Reisman says if Space X’s capsule is not selected, “there would be a lot less resources, and we’d have to bear all the development costs, so things would change. But we are not going to stop.”

- Boeing Commercial Space Vice President John Mulholland says, “it will be difficult to support the business case” without a NASA contract for CST-100.


Just as an observation, both Sierra Nevada and SpaceX have been building hardware that has either flown or will fly soon, and Sierra Nevada has even bought an Atlas V launch.  Boeing, though they have completed their CDR, has not built any full-up test or flight hardware, nor have they reserved an Atlas V flight.

Based on all of that it would be hard to argue that Boeing has shown the most commitment and the most sense of urgency for Commercial Crew.

Quote
If a NASA long term goal is to maximize competition to create a variety of capabilities and across the board cost reduction, wouldn't SpaceX be the obvious one to drop if NASA can't take all three forward?

Not sure I understand your logic.  I see it this way:

A. Dream Chaser + Dragon = 2 different launch vehicles and 2 different spacecraft types with unique advantages

B. Dragon + CST-100 = 2 different launch vehicles but both vehicles are capsules that don't provide cross-range and low g-force advantages of the Dream Chaser

C. Dream Chaser + CST-100 = 1 launch vehicle and 2 different spacecraft types with unique advantages

So for the most redundancy in launch vehicles "A & B" would be the choices, and for the most diversity in generic vehicle abilities "A & C" would be the choices.  The best combination of the two would be "A", which is Dream Chaser and Dragon.

No doubt other factors play into the ultimate decision, but I think this highlights some of the important ones.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9067
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #37 on: 08/19/2014 05:32 PM »
Actually, Boeing has essentially said recently that it would continue its program at least until CRS2 is awarded:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1244429#msg1244429

Offline dcporter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 389
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #38 on: 08/19/2014 05:32 PM »
If a NASA long term goal is to maximize competition to create a variety of capabilities and across the board cost reduction, wouldn't SpaceX be the obvious one to drop if NASA can't take all three forward?

Not sure I understand your logic.

Scylla's point was that if SpX is the most willing to continue without funding, then NASA could get that bit of competition for "free" if it funds the other two companies instead.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 456
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #39 on: 08/19/2014 05:35 PM »
IOW's Dragon 1 has cracked the core  issues of building a vehicle solid enough and safe enough to be coupled to the ISS for the standard period of time. I'm sure Boeing and SNC can be made to do so also but the fact remains they have not done so yet.

You mean the ISS that Boeing built and operates?

TBH that sounds like they are on an equal footing with SNC, without the flight tests.

Sirangelo was saying at AIAA that they still don't know how many thrusters the RCS will have. We also know they just changed the MPS to an entirely new system. (Boeing/AJR is through CDR on their propulsion, did a whole bunch of tests).

What flight tests? They had one drop test and they damaged the test article. Boeing has done a whole bunch of drop tests. Yeah Boeing broke stuff the first time around, but they fixed it, and successfully retested years ago.

If every little bit of experience is so important, why do people support DC?



We'll get an announcement soon. If CST-100 gets an award, I'll be ecstatic. The only result I'd be really unhappy with would be SNC getting an exclusive or the primary award in a "1.5" because I think it's a recipe for serious delays.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9067
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #40 on: 08/19/2014 05:37 PM »
If a NASA long term goal is to maximize competition to create a variety of capabilities and across the board cost reduction, wouldn't SpaceX be the obvious one to drop if NASA can't take all three forward?

Not sure I understand your logic.

Scylla's point was that if SpX is the most willing to continue without funding, then NASA could get that bit of competition for "free" if it funds the other two companies instead.

That would encourage companies not to put any skin in the game. For CCtCap, NASA has specifically stated that putting skin in the game would be considered a positive. 

Offline dcporter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 389
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #41 on: 08/19/2014 05:41 PM »
If a NASA long term goal is to maximize competition to create a variety of capabilities and across the board cost reduction, wouldn't SpaceX be the obvious one to drop if NASA can't take all three forward?

Not sure I understand your logic.

Scylla's point was that if SpX is the most willing to continue without funding, then NASA could get that bit of competition for "free" if it funds the other two companies instead.

That would encourage companies not to put any skin in the game. For CCtCap, NASA has specifically stated that putting skin in the game would be considered a positive.

Incentives to companies competing for rounds of developmental funding is irrelevant if we're now looking at the final round of developmental funding. If the sole goal is to end up with the largest number of companies active in the marketplace (it's not) then best approach right now would be to fund the two companies that are least able to move forward on their own.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5877
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 744
  • Likes Given: 4529
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #42 on: 08/19/2014 05:49 PM »
Actually, Boeing has essentially said recently that it would continue its program at least until CRS2 is awarded:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1244429#msg1244429
A few points.

Hinted rather than said outright I think from that article.

It pre-dates the AWST article saying the business case would be difficult.

Let's see what Boeing would have to demonstrate.

1) An actual vehicle. It took 2 launches for OSC to qualify but since the Atlas V is a known quantity and Boeing are a safe-pair-of-hands contractor to NASA maybe (Antares was a new LV) they can do the maiden launch and shake down cruise in 1 launch?

2) Be cheaper than OSC or Spacex. Given they have no flight record at this point.

3) Allay fears of a Russian engine embargo on Atlas engines. Now it's true that this would be a "civilian" application of the RD180, so in theory the Russians have no trouble with it, but would ULA stockpile them for their DoD payloads?

As always it's about money and schedule. Personally I think the 1st round of CRS contracts were very generous and I hope the 2nd will lower the average price per Kg that NASA is prepared to pay.
« Last Edit: 08/19/2014 05:52 PM by john smith 19 »
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9067
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #43 on: 08/19/2014 06:18 PM »
Actually, Boeing has essentially said recently that it would continue its program at least until CRS2 is awarded:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1244429#msg1244429
A few points.

Hinted rather than said outright I think from that article.

It pre-dates the AWST article saying the business case would be difficult.

Boeing is saying that the business case for continuing commercial crew without a NASA contract would be difficult. But I don't think that they are saying that the business case for CRS2 would be difficult. CRS2 should be awarded in the first half of 2015. So they won't have that long to find out if they will win or not.
« Last Edit: 08/19/2014 06:23 PM by yg1968 »

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3333
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2132
  • Likes Given: 2569
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #44 on: 08/19/2014 07:24 PM »
If a NASA long term goal is to maximize competition to create a variety of capabilities and across the board cost reduction, wouldn't SpaceX be the obvious one to drop if NASA can't take all three forward?

Not sure I understand your logic.

Scylla's point was that if SpX is the most willing to continue without funding, then NASA could get that bit of competition for "free" if it funds the other two companies instead.

The fallacy with that logic is that SpaceX won't build a NASA-certified vehicle, so NASA would not be able to use it for ISS.  TNSTAAFL

And the reason why is pretty easy to understand from a contract standpoint - after going through years of effort and hundreds of millions in taxpayer money NASA cannot justify awarding a transportation contract to a 3rd party that isn't fully certified.  And also, what do you think Boeing and Sierra Nevada would think about NASA awarding a transportation contract to SpaceX after they co-invested with NASA expecting to be the only providers?  Regardless who wins, that is not fair.

The only near-term market for crew transportation to LEO besides the ISS is Bigelow's private stations.  He is certainly free to set his own requirements for who is qualified, but using NASA to do the qualification means less overall liability for him.  Maybe he would contract with a provider that has not been certified by NASA, but maybe not.  Commercial crew transportation is hopefully an emerging market, but it's still a pretty small one.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline corrodedNut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #45 on: 08/19/2014 07:24 PM »
If a NASA long term goal is to maximize competition to create a variety of capabilities and across the board cost reduction, wouldn't SpaceX be the obvious one to drop if NASA can't take all three forward?

Not sure I understand your logic.

Scylla's point was that if SpX is the most willing to continue without funding, then NASA could get that bit of competition for "free" if it funds the other two companies instead.

That would encourage companies not to put any skin in the game. For CCtCap, NASA has specifically stated that putting skin in the game would be considered a positive.

In other words, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".

Offline Todd Martin

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • Elgin, IL
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #46 on: 08/19/2014 11:50 PM »
Previously, I thought Boeing would be the odd man out.  Since the launch vehicle is most of the cost, SpaceX has a clear advantage (Falcon 9 vs Atlas 5).  Between DC & Boeing, Boeing has the higher launch vehicle cost since it requires a heavier version of Atlas 5.  As far as quality is concerned, all 3 vehicles are considered safe to fly and meet the requirements.

Now with SNC saying they are changing the propulsion system at the last minute, I do not believe is likely to win.  I've been told that rockets are not legos.  That NASA is requiring extensive documentation & demonstration of safety & reliability.  That being further along in development is a good thing in the evaluation process. 

I'm sure the vehicle will be better after the switch or they wouldn't have done it.  In the long run, DC can still succeed.  One contract is not the end of the world.  I hope the Europeans or the Japanese move forward and take advantage of this gem.

Offline mijoh

Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #47 on: 08/20/2014 12:20 AM »
So, will the CCtCAP loser be allowed to take their hardware to foreign shores? I did not know that. It may be a blessing in disguise for the loser in that they will still get guidance from NASA, but a more dependable stream of $$$$ from their foreign client. I'd be surprised if the US govt allows this. 

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4687
  • Liked: 2806
  • Likes Given: 3928
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #48 on: 08/20/2014 01:30 AM »
Will the launch vehicle(s) be specified in the awards?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #49 on: 08/20/2014 02:43 AM »

Will the launch vehicle(s) be specified in the awards?
It should be, they are selling a complete solution for Earth to ISS transport.

Offline MichaelRBrumm

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #50 on: 08/21/2014 03:05 AM »
I see it this way:

A. Dream Chaser + Dragon = 2 different launch vehicles and 2 different spacecraft types with unique advantages

B. Dragon + CST-100 = 2 different launch vehicles but both vehicles are capsules that don't provide cross-range and low g-force advantages of the Dream Chaser

C. Dream Chaser + CST-100 = 1 launch vehicle and 2 different spacecraft types with unique advantages

So for the most redundancy in launch vehicles "A & B" would be the choices, and for the most diversity in generic vehicle abilities "A & C" would be the choices.  The best combination of the two would be "A", which is Dream Chaser and Dragon.

No doubt other factors play into the ultimate decision, but I think this highlights some of the important ones.

I agree with your assessment. I also happen to think that choice "A" would be the least expensive.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3015
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #51 on: 08/21/2014 03:47 PM »
I'll hold off on any speculation and wait for the official announcement, but let me just say that I hope the hard working and talented engineers and other professionals working on all of these projects land on their feet and get to continue to fight the good fight on some project or other, even if layoffs are in the cards for some of them on this particular program.  I've been there (and am currently looking for a job in fact) so I can empathize!  Uncertainty is tough, and it comes generally from factors beyond the control of those in the trenches despite their outstanding efforts.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9067
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #52 on: 08/21/2014 06:36 PM »
A couple of tweets of interest from Charles Lurio on CCtCap that confirms Chris' statement in the article that DC and SpaceX are seen as favourites within NASA:

Quote from: Charles Lurio
Likelier to put _cautious_ bet on SNC in CCtCap than whether SpaceX or Boeing wins other contract. Dream Chaser a 'fan favorite' at NASA/ULA
https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/502303654381363201

Quote
CCtCap: Boeing CST-100 called 'simpler' - but a "powerpoint tiger?:" SpaceX way ahead on design and test of real hardware for Dragon V2.
https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/502513269656289280

Quote
Conflicting reports tonight - CCtCap announcement on 22 August or slip to September for Congress notification requirements./I ask:or other?

https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/502312041798201344
« Last Edit: 08/21/2014 06:48 PM by yg1968 »

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1784
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #53 on: 08/21/2014 07:43 PM »
You can't help but love Dream Chaser the first time you see her. She's a beauty, even with a broken leg. I have no idea how the awards will be handed out, but it has been amazing being in a time where four, possibly five serious efforts to produce a manned orbital spacecraft are going on at the same time.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 861
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #54 on: 08/26/2014 11:57 AM »
Forgive a non-US person for not knowing what the process is. Assume for a moment that the NASA public announcement is the end of this week.

Is the NASA public announcement the first time anyone outside of NASA (and the hill) gets to hear who has been selected, or would the relevant companies already have confidential/embargoed briefings?

Offline Garrett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1106
  • France
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #55 on: 08/26/2014 02:13 PM »
Forgive a non-US person for not knowing what the process is. Assume for a moment that the NASA public announcement is the end of this week.

Is the NASA public announcement the first time anyone outside of NASA (and the hill) gets to hear who has been selected, or would the relevant companies already have confidential/embargoed briefings?
Not a US person either, but somewhere else on this forum somebody mentioned that the relevant companies find out during the public announcement. Apparently part of the application process involves compiling all the necessary paperwork so that only NASA signatures are needed to finalize the contract. That's the way I understood it anyway.

No idea if Congress or the White House are in the loop. They might unofficially know, but there's probably some impartiality/separation of powers required that keeps them away.

Just shooting from the hip here, to see if I can provoke a better-informed reply.
« Last Edit: 08/26/2014 02:14 PM by Garrett »
- "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." - Indiana Jones

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2590
  • Likes Given: 861
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #56 on: 08/26/2014 10:26 PM »
It appears Charles Lurio has the answer:

https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/504317862300102657

Quote
CCtCap announcement: Contractors will get 2 day warning of the event tho not of the results. So should hear if in Aug by end of Weds.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #57 on: 08/27/2014 01:16 AM »
Forgive a non-US person for not knowing what the process is. Assume for a moment that the NASA public announcement is the end of this week.

Is the NASA public announcement the first time anyone outside of NASA (and the hill) gets to hear who has been selected, or would the relevant companies already have confidential/embargoed briefings?
Not a US person either, but somewhere else on this forum somebody mentioned that the relevant companies find out during the public announcement. Apparently part of the application process involves compiling all the necessary paperwork so that only NASA signatures are needed to finalize the contract. That's the way I understood it anyway.

No idea if Congress or the White House are in the loop. They might unofficially know, but there's probably some impartiality/separation of powers required that keeps them away.

Just shooting from the hip here, to see if I can provoke a better-informed reply.

Yes, part of the process between selection and announcement is notifications of congress and the WH.  And I am sure that can't be easy.

Offline dglow

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
  • California
  • Liked: 523
  • Likes Given: 1248
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #58 on: 08/27/2014 12:50 PM »
Unless very tightly controlled, notifying Congress and the WH will leak this info. It won't go public, but whispers will get out. If sufficiently plugged-in, the contractors will know prior to the formal announcement.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3333
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2132
  • Likes Given: 2569
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #59 on: 08/27/2014 02:34 PM »
Unless very tightly controlled, notifying Congress and the WH will leak this info. It won't go public, but whispers will get out. If sufficiently plugged-in, the contractors will know prior to the formal announcement.

This type of stuff happens all the time with big government contracts.  You should see it when real money is at stake, like when JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) was going to be announced.  The leaks will happen, but so what?  The losers legal teams get a couple of days head start on writing up potential appeals, and the party plans are cancelled at the caters.  Heck, we're already getting leaks, and we have no financial stakes in the outcome...  ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1297
  • United States
  • Liked: 1427
  • Likes Given: 1971
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #60 on: 08/27/2014 02:35 PM »
Unless very tightly controlled, notifying Congress and the WH will leak this info. It won't go public, but whispers will get out. If sufficiently plugged-in, the contractors will know prior to the formal announcement.

They didn't for F-22 or F-35 awards.

Skip to minute 40. 
Bring the thunder Elon!

Offline BrianNH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Liked: 99
  • Likes Given: 259
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #61 on: 08/27/2014 03:49 PM »
When I was reading this discussion, I was remembering watching this same video on television and to me it was obvious that both companies knew in advance who would win.  Starting at 42:00, the winning company had a large number of smiling employees in a big open area ready to celebrate and the other had two unhappy looking executives sitting in a small conference room.  They knew, although it may have been unofficial.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #62 on: 08/27/2014 03:50 PM »
When I was reading this discussion, I was remembering watching this same video on television and to me it was obvious that both companies knew in advance who would win.  Starting at 42:00, the winning company had a large number of smiling employees in a big open area ready to celebrate and the other had two unhappy looking executives sitting in a small conference room.  They knew, although it may have been unofficial.

Yes, that was my impression as well.

Offline dglow

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
  • California
  • Liked: 523
  • Likes Given: 1248
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #63 on: 08/27/2014 04:22 PM »
When I was reading this discussion, I was remembering watching this same video on television and to me it was obvious that both companies knew in advance who would win.  Starting at 42:00, the winning company had a large number of smiling employees in a big open area ready to celebrate and the other had two unhappy looking executives sitting in a small conference room.  They knew, although it may have been unofficial.

Those Boeing executives knew. They played along for the cameras, but their demeanor was anything but excited or anticipatory.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8333
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5116
  • Likes Given: 3417
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #64 on: 08/27/2014 08:06 PM »
Heck, we're already getting leaks, and we have no financial stakes in the outcome...  ;)
I am not sure that I would call what we are getting "leaks" but that's semantics.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Ike17055

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #65 on: 08/27/2014 09:29 PM »
Big differences between leaks and rumors. One has to consider where the whispers are coming from and what agendas are at work. And if it is all so obvious, why is an announcement still pending, nearly two weeks after some leakers called it all over for their favorite contender.  Even that message has morphed, which generally would lend more doubt to its veracity. And why are all parties still talking, lobbying as if the contest is still on? Leakers and rumormongers often are persons who want to "prove" they are in the know...and often aren't.  They just like being considered "insiders." And some real insiders leak falsities to try to influence the real outcome, or position themselves to claim unsavory influences "changed" the outcome away from a merit selection.

Offline Giovanni DS

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
    • ChibiOS/RT Project
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 162
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #66 on: 08/27/2014 09:35 PM »
Big differences between leaks and rumors. One has to consider where the whispers are coming from and what agendas are at work. And if it is all so obvious, why is an announcement still pending, nearly two weeks after some leakers called it all over for their favorite contender.  Even that message has morphed, which generally would lend more doubt to its veracity. And why are all parties still talking, lobbying as if the contest is still on? Leakers and rumormongers often are persons who want to "prove" they are in the know...and often aren't.  They just like being considered "insiders." And some real insiders leak falsities to try to influence the real outcome, or position themselves to claim unsavory influences "changed" the outcome away from a merit selection.

This could be said looking at the thing from any perspective. It is not like leakers and rumormongers are more specific of any part.


Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17772
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 440
  • Likes Given: 3276
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline tesla

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Germany
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #69 on: 08/28/2014 03:32 PM »

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
« Last Edit: 08/28/2014 03:41 PM by Lars_J »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9067
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #71 on: 08/28/2014 03:51 PM »
Dragon V2 update:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parachutes-landing/

Great read Chris, thanks!

Mr. Bergin often doesn't like to give complete sources on his articles. here is one source on this article.
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Reisman_8-27-14/Reisman.mp3

From the article:
Quote
noted the former Shuttle astronaut to Future In-Space Operations (FISO) Working Group this week.

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1297
  • United States
  • Liked: 1427
  • Likes Given: 1971
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #72 on: 09/11/2014 07:27 PM »
Heh. Everyone pick a day and a time between now and October 1, then call the NASA Headquarters Media Contact, Allard Beutel at 202-358-2191, and ask for a 15 minute phone interview to ask questions about some random topic.

Based a block of his un-availability that will appear as everyone reports back in, we'll be able to discern when the downselect is going to happen!

(Please DON'T call the poor man, that was a joke).

Bring the thunder Elon!

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1416
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #73 on: 09/11/2014 10:36 PM »
Heads up: policy sites are reporting the budget CR may be delayed due to Obama's request  for "War on IS" funding.
DM

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8333
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5116
  • Likes Given: 3417
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #74 on: 09/11/2014 10:52 PM »
Ya, don't call anyone asking for interviews unless you have legit press credentials and actually want an interview...

Heads up: policy sites are reporting the budget CR may be delayed due to Obama's request  for "War on IS" funding.

Eh, the first time I read that I read "war on ISS" ... whew.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 393
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #75 on: 09/11/2014 10:57 PM »
Heads up: policy sites are reporting the budget CR may be delayed due to Obama's request  for "War on IS" funding.

not to go all political, but it is on-topic...
This is confirmed:  I heard yesterday (from House members via NPR) that the Republican controlled house will not pass the CR until they have full vetting of the "war" and how much involvement they have in calling the shots.  Too bad they weren't so active and interested in 2003...

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1416
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #76 on: 09/11/2014 10:59 PM »

Congress may want him to apply for a new War Powers Resolution authorization, while the Administration is talking about piggy-backing the authorities granted in the Iraq War authorization but with new funding.

Either way it moves the CR right.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2014 11:06 PM by docmordrid »
DM

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8097
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2873
  • Likes Given: 686
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #77 on: 09/11/2014 11:14 PM »
They have until Sep 30 to compromise, or there's another government shutdown.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7837
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2108
  • Likes Given: 4962
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #78 on: 09/11/2014 11:57 PM »
Election Day Tuesday, November 4, 2014. They all want to cover their a$$es... ::)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #79 on: 09/12/2014 12:50 AM »
Heads up: policy sites are reporting the budget CR may be delayed due to Obama's request  for "War on IS" funding.

Just to remind folks....  that may, or may not, have nothing to do with the delays.

IMHO, I suspect it does because I think NASA's selection is likely that the number picked is based on money available.  With NASA maximizing number despite the reality of the money.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2779
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 326
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #80 on: 09/12/2014 06:27 PM »
Heads up: policy sites are reporting the budget CR may be delayed due to Obama's request  for "War on IS" funding.
Just to remind folks....  that may, or may not, have nothing to do with the delays.

IMHO, I suspect it does because I think NASA's selection is likely that the number picked is based on money available.  With NASA maximizing number despite the reality of the money.

Agree, although I would note that CCtCap selection has implications well beyond this CR and for the next several years).  While current budget issues may have an impact on CCtCap award timing, I hope and expect that it has little bearing on the actual awards.

CCtCap as written does not allow for fractional awards.  On CCtCap award, each CCtCap awardee is committed to complete certification, and guaranteed a minimum of two post-certification ISS crew flights.*  On CCtCap award, NASA is committed to funding every awardee through certification and a minimum of two post-certification ISS crew flights.*


* Assuming the awardee wants those flights.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9067
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #81 on: 09/12/2014 08:00 PM »
Agree, although I would note that CCtCap selection has implications well beyond this CR and for the next several years).  While current budget issues may have an impact on CCtCap award timing, I hope and expect that it has little bearing on the actual awards.

CCtCap as written does not allow for fractional awards.  On CCtCap award, each CCtCap awardee is committed to complete certification, and guaranteed a minimum of two post-certification ISS crew flights.*  On CCtCap award, NASA is committed to funding every awardee through certification and a minimum of two post-certification ISS crew flights.*

* Assuming the awardee wants those flights.

You could still have one company that gets more money and another one that gets less funding. You would just have to adjust the timeline.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 08:17 PM by yg1968 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9067
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #82 on: 09/12/2014 08:08 PM »
Heads up: policy sites are reporting the budget CR may be delayed due to Obama's request  for "War on IS" funding.

Just to remind folks....  that may, or may not, have nothing to do with the delays.

IMHO, I suspect it does because I think NASA's selection is likely that the number picked is based on money available.  With NASA maximizing number despite the reality of the money.

I could understand NASA waiting for the CR in order to figure out its budget and adapt its milestones payment accordingly.

Being under a CR means that commercial crew would likely get $696M until an appropriation bill is passed. There is an across the board cut in the CR in order to get to the total number that was agreed in the budget deal of last year. I haven't worked out the math but I suspect that there is some flexibility as to how this across the board cut is applied.   

The text of the CR can be found here. The issues delaying its passage aren't related to NASA.

Here is the text of the CR released by the House a few hours ago. I don't see anything specific to NASA (other than the fact that spending levels will remain the same as FY 2014):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140908/BILLS-113hjres124-IH.pdf

Here is a summary:
http://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=392934

See also this article:
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/217198-house-spending-chief-unveils-clean-plan-to-avoid-government-shutdown
« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 08:15 PM by yg1968 »

Offline jamesh9000

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #83 on: 09/12/2014 08:25 PM »
Jeff Foust has tweeted:
Quote
NASA SpX-4 advisory says "NASA senior leaders will host a briefing Sept. 19 at 9 a.m." Could be about the CRS mission… or something else?

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1443
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 704
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #84 on: 09/12/2014 08:45 PM »
Since the launch is now the 20th, and this says "senior leaders"... seems plausible.  OTOH the launch is really early in the morning on the 20th, so maybe not.

I hope it is CCtCAP announcement, waiting is getting really dull.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 08:47 PM by abaddon »

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1416
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #85 on: 09/12/2014 09:09 PM »
Reads more like payload discussion  panels on the 18th and 19th,

Link....
« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 09:11 PM by docmordrid »
DM

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9067
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #86 on: 09/12/2014 09:11 PM »
Since the launch is now the 20th, and this says "senior leaders"... seems plausible.  OTOH the launch is really early in the morning on the 20th, so maybe not.

I hope it is CCtCAP announcement, waiting is getting really dull.

The timeline would make sense. By next week, the CR is expected to have been passed in the House and possibly in the Senate. I doubt that the Senate will offer any amendments to the CR given that it would have to go back to the House if they did. In any event, any amendments favored by the leadership in the House and Senate would have already been included in the CR at that point.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2014 09:11 PM by yg1968 »

Offline jamesh9000

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #87 on: 09/12/2014 10:07 PM »
Reads more like payload discussion  panels on the 18th and 19th,


Wouldn't it be cool if they finished the payload discussion and then said "oh, and one more thing..." then announced the cctcap winner(s)?

I know they'll never do it, but itd be a nice piece of showmanship if they did.


Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2779
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 326
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #88 on: 09/12/2014 11:54 PM »
You could still have one company that gets more money and another one that gets less funding. You would just have to adjust the timeline.
There is no provision in CCtCap for "less funding [for less performance]" for one company vs. another, or for one company receiving "more money [for more performance]" than another.  All CCtCap awardees will and must receive funding sufficient to achieve certification+ and will be obligated to do so [perform equally].

edit: clarify "performance".
« Last Edit: 09/13/2014 03:18 AM by joek »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9067
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #89 on: 09/13/2014 02:22 PM »
You could still have one company that gets more money and another one that gets less funding. You would just have to adjust the timeline.
There is no provision in CCtCap for "less funding [for less performance]" for one company vs. another, or for one company receiving "more money [for more performance]" than another.  All CCtCap awardees will and must receive funding sufficient to achieve certification+ and will be obligated to do so [perform equally].

edit: clarify "performance".

The performance would be the same for both companies but the timeline would be different (e.g., 2017 for the first crewed flight for one company but 2019 for the other). In any case, according to Charles Lurio, two fully funded companies will be selected.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2779
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 326
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #90 on: 09/14/2014 03:08 AM »
The performance would be the same for both companies but the timeline would be different (e.g., 2017 for the first crewed flight for one company but 2019 for the other). In any case, according to Charles Lurio, two fully funded companies will be selected.

Yes.  Right.  I think we are in violemt agreement.  As I have stated several times up-thread.  The only knob NASA has to twiddle is the funding profile for each awardee.   For some it may be "fast", as in certification+ 2015+; for others it may be "slow", as in certification+ 2019+. (NB: the CCtCap Solicitation Milestone payment profile extends through GFY 2020.

In any case, as I continue to point out, there is no room for a CCtCap fractional award.  Every CCtCap awardee will be contractually obligated to achieve certification and and thus will be required to perform ISS crew flights.  By the sme token, NASA will be obligated to fund all CCtCap awardees through cerifiation+.  CCtCap does not allow for anything less.

Offline MP99

Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #91 on: 09/14/2014 07:20 AM »
By the sme token, NASA will be obligated to fund all CCtCap awardees through cerifiation+.  CCtCap does not allow for anything less.

Wasn't there a concern that a participant that failed would then lose their IP or assets to the government?

Cheers, Martin

Offline topsphere

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #92 on: 09/15/2014 10:14 PM »
Charles Lurio writes: "Companies will be told results tomorrow morning; public announcement likely to follow shortly after."


https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/511637156746768384

Edit: Added link
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 10:16 PM by topsphere »

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1416
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #93 on: 09/15/2014 10:33 PM »
Quote
@TheLurioReport

Yet another item: Supposedly someone saw a poster just delivered KSC re CCtCap - included SNC/SpaceX, not Boeing. But I advise caution.
DM

Offline tesla

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Germany
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #94 on: 09/15/2014 10:46 PM »
From the same source:

"This just in from another re CCtCap: Award tomorrow between 10-11am EDT."

SO GET YOUR VCR FIRED UP!
WOOT WOOT!

EDIT: This article was posted just 10min ago. We will see how good WSJ is at predicting the future.  ;)
http://online.wsj.com/articles/boeing-takes-lead-to-build-space-taxi-1410820865
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 10:55 PM by tesla »

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • Liked: 233
  • Likes Given: 221
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #95 on: 09/15/2014 10:57 PM »
And the WSJ is reporting that "Boeing Takes Lead to Build Space Taxi."  It is from Andy Pasztor, so also take it with a grain of salt.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/boeing-takes-lead-to-build-space-taxi-1410820865

Quote
Boeing Co. appears positioned to beat out two smaller rivals for the bulk of a multibillion-dollar NASA contract to ferry astronauts to and from orbit, according to government and aerospace-industry officials.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 10:58 PM by RedLineTrain »

Offline topsphere

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #96 on: 09/15/2014 11:10 PM »
Could anyone with WSJ website access condense the main points in that article? ^

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3519
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2076
  • Likes Given: 2412
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #97 on: 09/15/2014 11:12 PM »
And the WSJ is reporting that "Boeing Takes Lead to Build Space Taxi."  It is from Andy Pasztor, so also take it with a grain of salt.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/boeing-takes-lead-to-build-space-taxi-1410820865

Quote
Boeing Co. appears positioned to beat out two smaller rivals for the bulk of a multibillion-dollar NASA contract to ferry astronauts to and from orbit, according to government and aerospace-industry officials.

The article seems to be based entirely on speculation.  There's no claim anywhere in the article that any information came from a source that actually knew the decision.

The closest it comes to justifying the conclusion that Boeing is "in the lead" is this:

Quote
Recent signals from the Obama administration, according to the officials, indicate that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's leadership has concluded on a preliminary basis that Boeing's proposed capsule offers the least risky option, as well as the one most likely to be ready to transport U.S. crews to the international space station within three years.

So some official who doesn't actually know is speculating based on "signals".

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3333
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2132
  • Likes Given: 2569
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #98 on: 09/15/2014 11:17 PM »
Could anyone with WSJ website access condense the main points in that article? ^

If you Google the title of the article, then click on the link from the Google search results, you get guest access to the article.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10272
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2036
  • Likes Given: 624
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #99 on: 09/15/2014 11:18 PM »
Going on record here before the awards that of the three competitors, in my opinion - Boeing is the least deserving to win. It has put the smallest amount of its own money into the project, preferring instead to let the USGov pay for the lion's share of its "Commercial" Crew  entry. The other two both committed much more of their own money, demonstrating a much greater commitment to the project than Boeing.

1. SNC brings a spacecraft to the table that is a true successor to Shuttle, with enormous cross range and far gentler re-entry g-stress. It is the only entry that is capable of returning payload or persons who desperately require a "gentle" return.

2. SpaceX brings a spacecraft that is actually designed for BEO missions but is capable of LEO service without wasting any of its true capabilities. It introduces a completely powered descent and landing, a true innovation. It also is capable of actually landing on both the lunar and Martian surfaces.

3. Boeing brings a spacecraft that is essentially an upgraded Apollo with air bag landing, its only innovative contribution.

While all three would be capable of providing crew rotation to the ISS, only Boeing has said that its Business Plan cannot close without a CCtCap win. That makes it the weaker of the three financially. Boeing's CST-100 is also the only entry that has not "flown". SpaceX's Dragon is actually providing cargo services to the ISS and DreamChaser has had an actual flight test, although unpowered. It has however, already paid for and scheduled its 1st space launch on an Atlas-V. Boeing has yet to show that level of commitment.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 01:03 AM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3333
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2132
  • Likes Given: 2569
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #100 on: 09/15/2014 11:26 PM »
And the WSJ is reporting that "Boeing Takes Lead to Build Space Taxi."  It is from Andy Pasztor, so also take it with a grain of salt.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/boeing-takes-lead-to-build-space-taxi-1410820865

Quote
Boeing Co. appears positioned to beat out two smaller rivals for the bulk of a multibillion-dollar NASA contract to ferry astronauts to and from orbit, according to government and aerospace-industry officials.

The quote I find the most interesting is:

"The officials cautioned that a last-minute shift by NASA chief Charles Bolden, who must vet the decision, could change the result of the closely watched competition."

Seems like Andy Pasztor is setting up a scenario that if Boeing doesn't win it's because of political intervention, not because Boeing is not the better choice.  Nice job Andy, nice job.

Also, Mr. Pasztor included this comment that I thought was pretty funny:

"For virtually the first time in its history, NASA is also seeking to reduce risk and keep a lid on prices by maintaining competition involving a major program."

Sure there is truth to it, but it's just funny that it has to be mentioned as the exception, and not the rule.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6020
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 1993
  • Likes Given: 683
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #101 on: 09/15/2014 11:52 PM »
That Pasztor article will sure look like a "Dewey Defeats Truman" article if Boeing doesn't come out on top tomorrow...

~Jon

Offline king1999

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • F-Niner Fan
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 345
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #102 on: 09/15/2014 11:58 PM »
And the WSJ is reporting that "Boeing Takes Lead to Build Space Taxi."  It is from Andy Pasztor, so also take it with a grain of salt.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/boeing-takes-lead-to-build-space-taxi-1410820865

Quote
Boeing Co. appears positioned to beat out two smaller rivals for the bulk of a multibillion-dollar NASA contract to ferry astronauts to and from orbit, according to government and aerospace-industry officials.

The quote I find the most interesting is:

"The officials cautioned that a last-minute shift by NASA chief Charles Bolden, who must vet the decision, could change the result of the closely watched competition."

Seems like Andy Pasztor is setting up a scenario that if Boeing doesn't win it's because of political intervention, not because Boeing is not the better choice.  Nice job Andy, nice job.

Also, Mr. Pasztor included this comment that I thought was pretty funny:

"For virtually the first time in its history, NASA is also seeking to reduce risk and keep a lid on prices by maintaining competition involving a major program."

Sure there is truth to it, but it's just funny that it has to be mentioned as the exception, and not the rule.

This is clearly a plugged job to provide some cover for Boeing's failure to be selected.
Also Mr. Pasztor's last statement about competition is false. SpaceX and Orbital has been competing for the Cargo Service, unless you can classify it as a non-major program, which I disagree.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7837
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2108
  • Likes Given: 4962
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #103 on: 09/16/2014 12:06 AM »
So who has veto over Charlie and is going to use it??
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline friendly3

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 182
  • Liege. BELGIUM.
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 2484
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #104 on: 09/16/2014 12:15 AM »
He also wrote :

Quote
Interviews with numerous space experts from industry, government and elsewhere—all of whom have been monitoring developments closely—reveal a growing consensus that Boeing is likely to emerge as the big winner to develop and operate the nation's replacement for the space-shuttle fleet, which was retired in 2011.

and this :

Quote
One of the two other bidders—SpaceX or Sierra Nevada Corp.—is expected to obtain a smaller contract as a second source, these experts said. SpaceX is in a very strong position to get the nod, the experts added.

So Pasztor's prediction is full award for Boeing and half award for SpaceX.
I would like it to be true and see SpaceX beat Boeing with half an award  ;D.
I would also like to know the names of those "experts".
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 12:15 AM by friendly3 »

Offline veblen

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 1368
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #105 on: 09/16/2014 12:19 AM »
Going on record here before the awards that of the three competitors, Boeing is the least deserving to win. It has put the smallest amount of its own money into the project, preferring instead to let the USGov pay for the lion's share of its "Commercial" Crew  entry. The other two both committed much more of their own money, demonstrating a much greater commitment to the project than Boeing.

1. SNC brings a spacecraft to the table that is a true successor to Shuttle, with enormous cross range and far gentler re-entry g-stress. It is the only entry that is capable of returning payload or persons who desperately require a "gentle" return.

2. SpaceX brings a spacecraft that is actually designed for BEO missions but is capable of LEO service without wasting any of its true capabilities. It introduces a completely powered descent and landing, a true innovation. It also is capable of actually landing on both the lunar and Martian surfaces.

3. Boeing brings a spacecraft that is essentially an upgraded Apollo with air bag landing, its only innovative contribution.

While all three would be capable of providing crew rotation to the ISS, only Boeing has said that its Business Plan cannot close without a CCtCap win. That makes it the weaker of the three financially. Boeing's CST-100 is also the only entry that has not "flown". SpaceX's Dragon is actually providing cargo services to the ISS and DreamChaser has had an actual flight test, although unpowered. It has however, already paid for and scheduled its 1st space launch on an Atlas-V. Boeing has yet to show that level of commitment.

Selecting Boeing only would be rewarding indifference. A company with such scope and history could have done more, but declined to. I wouldn't be surprised if CttCap can be found to be a cypher for "charade", well we'll soon see, but sequestration again? jeepers

Offline king1999

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • F-Niner Fan
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 345
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #106 on: 09/16/2014 12:19 AM »
I would also like to know the names of those "experts".

One of them is Loren Thompson?
LOL.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #107 on: 09/16/2014 12:39 AM »
Going on record here before the awards that of the three competitors, Boeing is the least deserving to win. It has put the smallest amount of its own money into the project, preferring instead to let the USGov pay for the lion's share of its "Commercial" Crew  entry. The other two both committed much more of their own money, demonstrating a much greater commitment to the project than Boeing.


I won't weigh in on the merits of any of the partners, but I will make something clear.  You folks have no idea how much any of the companies have really put in.  None.
« Last Edit: 09/19/2014 06:13 AM by Lar »

Offline dglow

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
  • California
  • Liked: 523
  • Likes Given: 1248
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #108 on: 09/16/2014 12:46 AM »

Going on record here before the awards that of the three competitors, Boeing is the least deserving to win. It has put the smallest amount of its own money into the project, preferring instead to let the USGov pay for the lion's share of its "Commercial" Crew  entry. The other two both committed much more of their own money, demonstrating a much greater commitment to the project than Boeing.


---------------------

I won't weigh in on the merits of any of the partners, but I will make something clear.  You folks have no idea how much any of the companies have really put in.  None.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But please, learn how to quote properly.

TFTFY above.
(PM to learn how)
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 12:46 AM by dglow »

Offline FuseUpHereAlone

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #109 on: 09/16/2014 12:47 AM »
Going on record here before the awards that of the three competitors, Boeing is the least deserving to win. It has put the smallest amount of its own money into the project, preferring instead to let the USGov pay for the lion's share of its "Commercial" Crew  entry. The other two both committed much more of their own money, demonstrating a much greater commitment to the project than Boeing.

1. SNC brings a spacecraft to the table that is a true successor to Shuttle, with enormous cross range and far gentler re-entry g-stress. It is the only entry that is capable of returning payload or persons who desperately require a "gentle" return.

2. SpaceX brings a spacecraft that is actually designed for BEO missions but is capable of LEO service without wasting any of its true capabilities. It introduces a completely powered descent and landing, a true innovation. It also is capable of actually landing on both the lunar and Martian surfaces.

3. Boeing brings a spacecraft that is essentially an upgraded Apollo with air bag landing, its only innovative contribution.

While all three would be capable of providing crew rotation to the ISS, only Boeing has said that its Business Plan cannot close without a CCtCap win. That makes it the weaker of the three financially. Boeing's CST-100 is also the only entry that has not "flown". SpaceX's Dragon is actually providing cargo services to the ISS and DreamChaser has had an actual flight test, although unpowered. It has however, already paid for and scheduled its 1st space launch on an Atlas-V. Boeing has yet to show that level of commitment.

This isn't a technology development project; there is a very specific mission outlined.  If Boeing is selected, it'll be because they provide the system that's most likely to succeed at its job.  It's the simplest, most elegant system.  Full propulsive landing is not innovative, it's needlessly more complex than what the mission requires.  And the latest info we've heard is that SN is redesigning their launch abort system.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 12:49 AM by FuseUpHereAlone »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26876
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6780
  • Likes Given: 4808
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #110 on: 09/16/2014 12:59 AM »
Don't think Boeing's is the simplest system. They have both abort motors and landing air bags. They and Dragon both use parachutes, but SpaceX has option of landing even if parachutes fail,
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

Offline tesla

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Germany
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #111 on: 09/16/2014 01:01 AM »
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2014/09/nasa-commercial-5.html

"There is still a chance that they will punt on this, folks. It has been delayed more than once already."

from nasa watch
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 01:02 AM by tesla »

Offline dglow

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
  • California
  • Liked: 523
  • Likes Given: 1248
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #112 on: 09/16/2014 01:10 AM »
Lurio is now claiming WSJ is wrong.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10272
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2036
  • Likes Given: 624
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #113 on: 09/16/2014 01:11 AM »
I won't weigh in on the merits of any of the partners, but I will make something clear.  You folks have no idea how much any of the companies have really put in.  None.


 ;D ok
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 01:11 AM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7837
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2108
  • Likes Given: 4962
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #114 on: 09/16/2014 01:27 AM »
While we all wait this seems fitting... :)

"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9067
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #115 on: 09/16/2014 01:41 AM »
So who has veto over Charlie and is going to use it??

Bolden doesn't have veto power unless he is the selecting officer.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 01:52 AM by yg1968 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9067
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #116 on: 09/16/2014 01:43 AM »
I won't weigh in on the merits of any of the partners, but I will make something clear.  You folks have no idea how much any of the companies have really put in.  None.

In the CCiCap selection statement, it is specifically mentionned that Boeing has put very little of its own money. In a House Hearing, it was mentionned that on average, commercial companies have put 10% of the funding. So we have some idea.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12668
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3461
  • Likes Given: 578
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #117 on: 09/16/2014 01:46 AM »
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

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7837
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2108
  • Likes Given: 4962
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #118 on: 09/16/2014 01:50 AM »
So who has veto over Charlie and is going to use it??

He doesn't have veto power. He is not the selecting officer.
From that WSJ article:

"The officials cautioned that a last-minute shift by NASA chief Charles Bolden, who must vet the decision, could change the result of the closely watched competition."

So what does that mean?
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9067
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #119 on: 09/16/2014 01:54 AM »
So who has veto over Charlie and is going to use it??

He doesn't have veto power. He is not the selecting officer.
From that WSJ article:

"The officials cautioned that a last-minute shift by NASA chief Charles Bolden, who must vet the decision, could change the result of the closely watched competition."

So what does that mean?

It means that Pasztor is making up stuff again.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 01:55 AM by yg1968 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10272
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2036
  • Likes Given: 624
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #120 on: 09/16/2014 01:56 AM »
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 may  be because a lot of Boeing's milestones were "studies" and "reports", something I might add that the entire old space establishment seems particularly good at doing. 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. Both companies pushed the envelope really hard.

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.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 02:00 AM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 476
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #121 on: 09/16/2014 01:59 AM »
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.

I've always wondered why Boeing didn't propose an upscale version of the X-37 to leverage that design.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline king1999

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • F-Niner Fan
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 345
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #122 on: 09/16/2014 02:03 AM »
It means that Pasztor is making up stuff again.

No wonder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Pasztor

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9067
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #123 on: 09/16/2014 02:05 AM »
Charles Lurio writes: "Companies will be told results tomorrow morning; public announcement likely to follow shortly after."


https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/511637156746768384

Edit: Added link

NW is saying the same thing.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12668
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3461
  • Likes Given: 578
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #124 on: 09/16/2014 02:05 AM »
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.
The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2323
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2185
  • Likes Given: 1590
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #125 on: 09/16/2014 02:14 AM »
Didn't this happen before in the run up to CCDEV? That ATK was one of the three ... This seems oddly familiar.

From the standpoint of Congress, and alone from erioladastra's recent comments here, a very compelling case might be made for Boeing, because, like with AR-1, it would be seen as the most acceptable way to reach 2017 with the fewest risks.

However, that would neglect the optics, so the same group would advocate for a Boeing followed by SpaceX position, like in the WSJ article, although this would protract the process, risking the 2017 deadline by adding program risk. Likely this is the origin of the report.

Lurio is likely reporting on program's office favorites and recommendations to the NASA Administrator. These sound likely.

Is Bolden or his boss to be compelled by Congressional "sweet talking"? Doesn't seem likely but stranger things have happened.

Right now John Q. Public, if even engaged in the process, would expect that the capsule that goes to the space station would be fixed up to handle crew too. Anything different would seem "wrong". Wrong is dangerous in election years.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2323
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2185
  • Likes Given: 1590
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #126 on: 09/16/2014 02:16 AM »
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.
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.

Where is it?

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3333
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2132
  • Likes Given: 2569
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #127 on: 09/16/2014 02:20 AM »
The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements.

NASA's real requirement is for a functioning crew transportation system, not reports and studies.

To Sierra Nevada's credit they flew hardware and reserved an Atlas V flight on an award half the size Boeing got, and Boeing, with the most conservative design, should have been able to get further along in their hardware testing.  Apparently a conservative design requires a conservative program approach too...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12668
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3461
  • Likes Given: 578
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #128 on: 09/16/2014 04:09 AM »
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.
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
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 04:11 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline AS-503

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
  • Orion Fab Team
  • Colorado USA
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #129 on: 09/16/2014 04:25 AM »
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.
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

But 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.

Offline friendly3

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 182
  • Liege. BELGIUM.
  • Liked: 116
  • Likes Given: 2484
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #130 on: 09/16/2014 05:07 AM »
Sorry if this is obvious to others, I'm just curious.

They are all aware of that.
May I remember that Lurio cites SpaceX and SNC as winners and Pasztor cites Boeing and SpaceX as winners (although with half an award for SpaceX).
I don't believe Pasztor for one minute but in all cases SpaceX is in, not out.
And obviously NASA can't stop US reliance on Russia with a launcher powered by a russian engine.
Can you imagine a situation where Atlas V is the sole choosen launcher (either with CST-100 or the Dreamchaser), the Ukrainian crisis worsen and in 2016 Russia really stops the sale of the RD-180? NASA will find itself still relying on Soyuz till when? 2020? 2023?
If not because SpaceX is far ahead with an already partially flying system NASA won't dare to dump them only for these (geo)political reasons.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5477
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 577
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #131 on: 09/16/2014 05:08 AM »
Where does it say in the CCtCap selection criteria that CCiCap milestone completion is a metric that will be part of the evaluation?
-- sdsds --

Offline SoulWager

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 177
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #132 on: 09/16/2014 05:35 AM »
Where does it say in the CCtCap selection criteria that CCiCap milestone completion is a metric that will be part of the evaluation?
If nothing else, it might impact the confidence of other judgments. Is there a link to the full set of selection criteria?

Assuming 2 rewards, I would Definitely pick SpaceX, for launch vehicle diversity. After that I'd probably pick SNC, because it has some capability SpaceX doesn't, and they seem less risky than Boeing as far as financial commitment goes.

If it was just 1 reward, I think Boeing would have a better chance.

Offline jamesh9000

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #133 on: 09/16/2014 07:15 AM »
I don't get how on earth a Boeing/BO partnership can win the lions share of the money for this. BO hasn't demonstrated their engine, hasn't demonstrated it working with a vehicle, and as far as we can tell this partnership is new. Why on earth would you pick this over a company that's already flying to the ISS, can do at least a 21 day turnaround, and has almost flight ready hardware? I know its Pasztor and he's a troll, but this just doesn't make any sense. If they give the bulk of the money to Boeing and SpaceX ends up sending astronauts to space years earlier, (more than likely) it'll just be egg on the face for nasa. Why take that risk?

I know its all just rumors and we should know very soon, but this one is really confusing to me.

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 449
  • Liked: 168
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #134 on: 09/16/2014 07:32 AM »
I'm not so sure why people think Boeing will be thrown under the bus...it's so far received that largest sum of money, almost 80 million more than SpaceX, the next biggest contender and far more than Sierra Nevada. Boeing completed all the things it was supposed to do on time. They have no plans to develop this vehicle further without an award, so NASA might face embarrassing questions over why it frakked 620 million dollars down the drain on something it didn't intend to use, esp from bought congresspeople. 

I mean Dream Chaser got shortchanged on the last round, it got a half award effectively after being supported greatly at first...so it would likely need a much bigger chunk in the next announcement to make up the difference and become operational on time. Not that I wouldn't like it to succeed. The CST100 looks to be an American Soyuz, in that it will do the job its supposed to do reliably, but its not inspiring or groundbreaking. 

What I think will happen in all probability is Boeing and SpaceX...but its not exactly what i would like to happen.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6319
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1577
  • Likes Given: 1387
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #135 on: 09/16/2014 07:42 AM »
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?

Offline darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 705
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #136 on: 09/16/2014 07:51 AM »
If Boeing does get the lions share of this, it will be interesting to see who takes advantage of the Government/Aerospace revolving door soon.  It will also be interesting to see just how much the CST-100/Atlas combo will soak the taxpayer for.

Offline MP99

Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #137 on: 09/16/2014 08:06 AM »


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.
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

But 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.

Cheers, Martin

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3519
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2076
  • Likes Given: 2412
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #138 on: 09/16/2014 10:50 AM »
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?

No, not conceivable.  It's illegal for NASA to give SpaceX an uncompeted award.  CCtCap was a competition open to anyone who wanted to bid.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3519
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2076
  • Likes Given: 2412
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #139 on: 09/16/2014 10:56 AM »


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.
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

But 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.

Nothing in CCiCap said that the proposals all had to take their respective programs the same distance toward the final system.  It's obvious that the SpaceX CCiCap plan, with two actual abort tests, brings them much closer to operation than CST-100.

NASA wanted to keep competition alive, so they gave several awards.  That doesn't mean they were equal.  Far from it.

Boeing completed its milestones already because they were far less ambitious.  SpaceX and Sierra Nevada negotiated more time for their milestones and NASA agreed to it.  NASA obviously thinks it's worth it to pay them for those milestones even if they are later than original scheduled.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10272
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2036
  • Likes Given: 624
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #140 on: 09/16/2014 11:42 AM »
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?
No, not conceivable.  It's illegal for NASA to give SpaceX an uncompeted award.  CCtCap was a competition open to anyone who wanted to bid.

Simple. NASA puts out a separate Request for Bid for emergency crewed access to the ISS with a crewed demonstration flight to ISS 12 months from the date of the award. Everybody that wants to gets to take a shot at it.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jarnis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Liked: 538
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #141 on: 09/16/2014 11:50 AM »
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?
No, not conceivable.  It's illegal for NASA to give SpaceX an uncompeted award.  CCtCap was a competition open to anyone who wanted to bid.

Simple. NASA puts out a separate Request for Bid for emergency crewed access to the ISS with a crewed demonstration flight to ISS 12 months from the date of the award. Everybody that wants to gets to take a shot at it.

...and funds it exactly how...?

Sorry, not plausible.

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2935
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 644
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #142 on: 09/16/2014 01:22 PM »
Crew Transportation Announcement Today
Posted on September 16, 2014 at 9:08 am by commercial-crew-program.

NASA will make a major announcement today at 4 p.m. EDT regarding the return of human spaceflight launches to the United States. Whoever is chosen will have the goal to achieve certification of the system – including a test flight to the International Space Station with a NASA astronaut — in 2017, returning a critical capability to America and greatly expanding the scientific research potential of the orbiting laboratory. Watch the announcement live on NASA TV at www.nasa.gov/ntv and find out details throughout the day on the Commercial Crew Program blog.

http://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2014/09/16/crew-transportation-announcement-today/
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 01:22 PM by AnalogMan »

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 449
  • Liked: 168
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #143 on: 09/16/2014 09:15 PM »
Wow...so that turned as I expected and not as all the polls on various Space websites thought...:)
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline Silmfeanor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1161
  • Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 214
  • Likes Given: 451
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #144 on: 09/16/2014 09:19 PM »
Wow...so that turned as I expected and not as all the polls on various Space websites thought...:)

I don't know if that warrants a smiley. But let's keep this discussion on-topic; what will happen to SNC now?
Various predictions seen across the 2 threads discussing / updates on the rewards:

-SNC will have the option to bid later on, after initial service contracts are up for renewal
-SNC will continue to work on Dream Chaser on a slower pace
-and that might end in final cancellation after a drawn-out battle. Or not.

What seems likely?

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1443
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 704
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #145 on: 09/16/2014 09:22 PM »
SNC would have to be certified first before they could bid on flights in the next contract.  It seems unlikely NASA would want to pay for that certification if SpaceX and Boeing are both certified already.

There's always a chance one of SpaceX or Boeing falters and has to be replaced as with Orbital in COTS but that seems extremely unlikely.

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1117
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #146 on: 09/16/2014 09:30 PM »
It was a dream and they chased the dream and everyone woke up and an LEO human commercial market does not yet exist and commercial nanosat market is getting covered by smaller suborbital vehicles. So it's got to hibernate, cryogenically, and suffer institutional brain drain, until such time as Bigelow-type inflatable HSF commercial market can be glancingly supposed to exist. With the Boeing announcement, I'd put that at 20 years. Capsules are robust, like an individual unicellular organism, or a TCPIP packet, and cannot be the extent, indefinitely, of a robust LEO infrastructure, which distributes risk over an ensemble of less individually robust commuter vehicles. A space plane's day will come. imo

Offline Nibb31

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • France
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #147 on: 09/16/2014 09:55 PM »
A space plane's day will come. imo

DreamChaser is not a space plane. It's a capsule with a slightly higher L/D ratio that launches on a freaking Atlas V.

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1117
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #148 on: 09/16/2014 10:42 PM »
Hi, poster from France. I agree to your granular semantic.  :)

I cannot locate any news items concerning Dream Chaser's understanding with ESA and DLR later than January 8 this year. For example,
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/01/dream-chasers-european-deal-opens-ambitions/
"The cooperative understanding between ESA and Sierra Nevada extends through early 2015, Winters said."

Do you know if DC is going to have its development funded by ESA or DLR? If DC did get picked up it'd be great. The numbers that just got awarded could indicate that the remaining development cost for DC is substantial. Any info on that?
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 10:49 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 449
  • Liked: 168
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #149 on: 09/16/2014 10:52 PM »
Wow...so that turned as I expected and not as all the polls on various Space websites thought...:)

I don't know if that warrants a smiley. But let's keep this discussion on-topic; what will happen to SNC now?
Various predictions seen across the 2 threads discussing / updates on the rewards:

-SNC will have the option to bid later on, after initial service contracts are up for renewal
-SNC will continue to work on Dream Chaser on a slower pace
-and that might end in final cancellation after a drawn-out battle. Or not.

What seems likely?

Oh, I means Boeing is a kind of boring choice, but it sounded like the more likely one. Most people were stridently predicting SpaceX and SNC because that's who they wanted to see win rather than what was actually likely. I feel good to have gone with my head instead of my heart in predictions.

I feel bad for Dreamchaser...I'm not sure how they can continue it without NASA as a customer.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline Burninate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1129
  • Liked: 343
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #150 on: 09/16/2014 10:55 PM »
Wow...so that turned as I expected and not as all the polls on various Space websites thought...:)

I don't know if that warrants a smiley. But let's keep this discussion on-topic; what will happen to SNC now?
Various predictions seen across the 2 threads discussing / updates on the rewards:

-SNC will have the option to bid later on, after initial service contracts are up for renewal
-SNC will continue to work on Dream Chaser on a slower pace
-and that might end in final cancellation after a drawn-out battle. Or not.

What seems likely?

Oh, I means Boeing is a kind of boring choice, but it sounded like the more likely one. Most people were stridently predicting SpaceX and SNC because that's who they wanted to see win rather than what was actually likely. I feel good to have gone with my head instead of my heart in predictions.

I feel bad for Dreamchaser...I'm not sure how they can continue it without NASA as a customer.

There was that interest from ESA in a europeanized Dream Chaser.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7837
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2108
  • Likes Given: 4962
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #151 on: 09/16/2014 10:58 PM »
Wow...so that turned as I expected and not as all the polls on various Space websites thought...:)

I don't know if that warrants a smiley. But let's keep this discussion on-topic; what will happen to SNC now?
Various predictions seen across the 2 threads discussing / updates on the rewards:

-SNC will have the option to bid later on, after initial service contracts are up for renewal
-SNC will continue to work on Dream Chaser on a slower pace
-and that might end in final cancellation after a drawn-out battle. Or not.

What seems likely?

Oh, I means Boeing is a kind of boring choice, but it sounded like the more likely one. Most people were stridently predicting SpaceX and SNC because that's who they wanted to see win rather than what was actually likely. I feel good to have gone with my head instead of my heart in predictions.

I feel bad for Dreamchaser...I'm not sure how they can continue it without NASA as a customer.

There was that interest from ESA in a europeanized Dream Chaser.
Hermes II :)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 449
  • Liked: 168
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #152 on: 09/16/2014 11:03 PM »
Wow...so that turned as I expected and not as all the polls on various Space websites thought...:)

I don't know if that warrants a smiley. But let's keep this discussion on-topic; what will happen to SNC now?
Various predictions seen across the 2 threads discussing / updates on the rewards:

-SNC will have the option to bid later on, after initial service contracts are up for renewal
-SNC will continue to work on Dream Chaser on a slower pace
-and that might end in final cancellation after a drawn-out battle. Or not.

What seems likely?

Oh, I means Boeing is a kind of boring choice, but it sounded like the more likely one. Most people were stridently predicting SpaceX and SNC because that's who they wanted to see win rather than what was actually likely. I feel good to have gone with my head instead of my heart in predictions.

I feel bad for Dreamchaser...I'm not sure how they can continue it without NASA as a customer.

There was that interest from ESA in a europeanized Dream Chaser.

There was news about that...I'd love that, but I am not sure they would pay up. Unless its launched on an Ariane rocket, it's not really employing European industry and workers...and ESA is very about that. Also they have had trouble just trying to agree on which rocket they were going to build next while the rest of the industry marches on. ESA's crew requirements for ISS are very low, so the flight rate would be appalling unless they sent it on other missions. Europes economic problems as a whole are only going to get much worse...so I think appetite for human spaceflight funding will go down for most of the rest of the decade.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Online Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2191
  • Canada
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 434
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #153 on: 09/17/2014 06:01 AM »
...
There was news about that...I'd love that, but I am not sure they would pay up. Unless its launched on an Ariane rocket, it's not really employing European industry and workers...and ESA is very about that. Also they have had trouble just trying to agree on which rocket they were going to build next while the rest of the industry marches on. ESA's crew requirements for ISS are very low, so the flight rate would be appalling unless they sent it on other missions. Europes economic problems as a whole are only going to get much worse...so I think appetite for human spaceflight funding will go down for most of the rest of the decade.
The DLR might be interested in the Dreamchaser to push Ariane 5 ME development. Since the current propose Ariane 6 variants are not adequate to lift the Dreamchaser. Also JAXA have shown some interest in the Dreamchaser.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9067
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #154 on: 09/17/2014 06:47 AM »
Wow...so that turned as I expected and not as all the polls on various Space websites thought...:)

I don't know if that warrants a smiley. But let's keep this discussion on-topic; what will happen to SNC now?
Various predictions seen across the 2 threads discussing / updates on the rewards:

-SNC will have the option to bid later on, after initial service contracts are up for renewal
-SNC will continue to work on Dream Chaser on a slower pace
-and that might end in final cancellation after a drawn-out battle. Or not.

What seems likely?

Oh, I means Boeing is a kind of boring choice, but it sounded like the more likely one. Most people were stridently predicting SpaceX and SNC because that's who they wanted to see win rather than what was actually likely. I feel good to have gone with my head instead of my heart in predictions.

I feel bad for Dreamchaser...I'm not sure how they can continue it without NASA as a customer.

There was that interest from ESA in a europeanized Dream Chaser.

There was news about that...I'd love that, but I am not sure they would pay up. Unless its launched on an Ariane rocket, it's not really employing European industry and workers...and ESA is very about that. Also they have had trouble just trying to agree on which rocket they were going to build next while the rest of the industry marches on. ESA's crew requirements for ISS are very low, so the flight rate would be appalling unless they sent it on other missions. Europes economic problems as a whole are only going to get much worse...so I think appetite for human spaceflight funding will go down for most of the rest of the decade.

The discussions were about an uncrewed DC. But I doubt that ESA or JAXA is interested in funding the rest of the development of DC.
« Last Edit: 09/19/2014 03:53 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Nibb31

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • France
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #155 on: 09/17/2014 06:58 AM »
The collaboration between SNC and ESA was that ESA would provide its implementation of the LIDS docking system to SNC, probably in exchange for seats. There was no question of any funding to get DC to completion (it is not ESA's job to subsidize foreign private R&D efforts), and certainly no question of launching DreamChaser on Ariane.

Contrary to popular belief, Ariane 5 isn't "man-rated". Any provisions for crew launches were abandoned when Hermes were cancelled, well before the Ariane 5 development phase. Off the top of my head, manned flights on Ariane would require:
- Expensive redesign work on Ariane, which is unlikely at this point in the launcher's lifecycle.
- Construction of manned operations facilities at Kourou.
- Modifications to the launch pad, including a new launch tower and escape capability.
- Deployment of search and rescue forces for abort situations.

ESA really doesn't have much interest in manned spaceflight. I don't see ESA or European governments justifying the expense at this stage.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2014 06:59 AM by Nibb31 »

Offline macpacheco

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Vitoria-ES-Brazil
  • Liked: 315
  • Likes Given: 2327
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #156 on: 09/17/2014 08:59 AM »
I'm expecting SpaceX to be the odd man out. Boeing has flight heritage and big lobbyists. Sierra Nevada has wings and that's something NASA wants it seems. That leaves SpaceX holding the bag. I am one of SpaceX's biggest supporters but, I'm not sure that this wind is blowing in their direction. If not, they'll stay busy with cargo, commercial satellite launches and reuse for now. In the end, they become as know to the general public as Sea Launch sad to say. Without manned flights, SpaceX looses it's appeal.   
Dragon V2 + Falcon Heavy are an alternate to some SLS/Orion missions.
Dragon V2 + Raptor rockets should provide an alternate to all SLS/Orion missions.
Some people at NASA probably wants a plan B if the general public gets outraged by the costs of SLS/Orion program and it ends up cancelled.
Plus a part of NASA likes the can do attitude of SpaceX, since SpaceX has a mission much larger than manned ISS flights, SpaceX will tend to accommodate any logical requests to improve on the design, since they are very likely to be needed for the Mars missions SpaceX aims to execute prior to the full blown MCT goal.
Looking for companies doing great things for much more than money

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6960
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 535
  • Likes Given: 610
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #157 on: 09/17/2014 11:20 AM »
Dragon V2 + Falcon Heavy are an alternate to some SLS/Orion missions.

The problem is that NASA would never be able to admit that publicly or act in accord with it. It would lead to massive political repercussions and possibly budget cuts.

Dragon V2 + Raptor rockets should provide an alternate to all SLS/Orion missions.

Raptor is not a given yet.

Plus a part of NASA likes the can do attitude of SpaceX, since SpaceX has a mission much larger than manned ISS flights, SpaceX will tend to accommodate any logical requests to improve on the design, since they are very likely to be needed for the Mars missions SpaceX aims to execute prior to the full blown MCT goal.

I'm going to sound like a Soviet functionary but this is a political issue. I can't see the political alliance supporting NASA funding surviving SLS being replaced by Dragon/Falcon Heavy. I'm not even sure if adding a 'sweetener' in the form of some evolved Legacy-space system (maybe EELV Phase 1) being added to the proposal making it acceptable. The existing political alliance would want the lion's share of the funding to go to Boeing and LockMart.

[edit]
Fixed quote tag
« Last Edit: 09/17/2014 11:21 AM by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #158 on: 09/17/2014 02:36 PM »
Agree, although I would note that CCtCap selection has implications well beyond this CR and for the next several years).  While current budget issues may have an impact on CCtCap award timing, I hope and expect that it has little bearing on the actual awards.

CCtCap as written does not allow for fractional awards.  On CCtCap award, each CCtCap awardee is committed to complete certification, and guaranteed a minimum of two post-certification ISS crew flights.*  On CCtCap award, NASA is committed to funding every awardee through certification and a minimum of two post-certification ISS crew flights.*

* Assuming the awardee wants those flights.

You could still have one company that gets more money and another one that gets less funding. You would just have to adjust the timeline.

Don't think we have lessons of Constellation.   

My read from yesterdays announcement and in the words of Bolden, was that this program was all approved by the Obama administration.  Did they even get a long term commitment in real number from Congress?  Don't think so, as they said as much. 

I'll stand with what I said about Crew in L2 on future funding.


 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7837
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2108
  • Likes Given: 4962
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #159 on: 09/19/2014 03:33 PM »
Chris do we have any details on what this “non-abandonment” will consist of?
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10272
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2036
  • Likes Given: 624
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #160 on: 09/19/2014 03:51 PM »
Chris do we have any details on what this “non-abandonment” will consist of?

I believe the 1st paragraph of Chris's story describes what's called an unfunded SAA.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7837
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2108
  • Likes Given: 4962
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #161 on: 09/19/2014 04:20 PM »
Chris do we have any details on what this “non-abandonment” will consist of?

I believe the 1st paragraph of Chris's story describes what's called an unfunded SAA.
Thanks Chuck, I went back to looked at a couple of articles. I assume SNC will still have access to wind tunnels, the Armstrong flight test range and other facilities...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #162 on: 09/19/2014 04:29 PM »
Contrary to popular belief, Ariane 5 isn't "man-rated". Any provisions for crew launches were abandoned when Hermes were cancelled, well before the Ariane 5 development phase.

All of this was discussed in depth in the Liberty threads.  I think the consensus was that ATK was not completely crazy.

Quote
Off the top of my head, manned flights on Ariane would require:
- Expensive redesign work on Ariane, which is unlikely at this point in the launcher's lifecycle.

Man-rating Ariane 5 would be similar in cost to man-rating Atlas V.  The majority of the expense lies in the development of the crewed portion, which in this case has been funded by NASA and Sierra Nevada.

Quote
- Construction of manned operations facilities at Kourou.
- Modifications to the launch pad, including a new launch tower and escape capability.
- Deployment of search and rescue forces for abort situations.

None of those are significant expenses compared to the overall Dream Chaser development cost.

Quote
ESA really doesn't have much interest in manned spaceflight. I don't see ESA or European governments justifying the expense at this stage.

While I agree that ESA has never shown any committed interest in manned spaceflight, I think partnering with Sierra Nevada is a bargain opportunity compared to what it would cost to develop a new vehicle.  Realistically, the current odds of a European crew carrier being developed to completion are absolutely dismal.   For not much more than the cost of a few buildings and a gantry modification, i.e. less than Europe's current manned space budget, it would bring Europe's crew launches over to Ariane and bring a big leap to Europe's LEO space launch capability.

I'm not privy to ESA's accounting practices with regard to launch services, but my bemused outsider's take is that more launches for Ariane would be considered attractive, not to mention no longer depending on the American space agency.

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #163 on: 09/19/2014 04:45 PM »
Do you know if DC is going to have its development funded by ESA or DLR? If DC did get picked up it'd be great. The numbers that just got awarded could indicate that the remaining development cost for DC is substantial. Any info on that?

I would expect that DC could be completed for well under $100M at this point, based on the cost of other manned vehicles over the past couple of decades.  The DC milestones were structured to retire the majority of DC's risk, and what remains is not that substantial.  Remember that the current CC awards are not only for vehicle completion.

SN has, up until now, pursued a strategy closer to Boeing's than that of SpaceX.  The SpaceX strategy was bargain-basement prices, while the Boeing/SN strategy has been to spread development costs over many states by using many levels of subcontractors, thus providing incentives for Congressional support.

That approach is always far more expensive than the SpaceX approach of consolidating everything under one roof.  I don't know what Mark Sirangelo is planning right now, but he has to have reweighed political considerations against cutting DC's remaining R&D costs and getting it operational.  Sierra Nevada is absolutely capable of building DC in-house.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #164 on: 09/19/2014 11:15 PM »
Do you know if DC is going to have its development funded by ESA or DLR? If DC did get picked up it'd be great. The numbers that just got awarded could indicate that the remaining development cost for DC is substantial. Any info on that?

I would expect that DC could be completed for well under $100M at this point, based on the cost of other manned vehicles over the past couple of decades. 

This shows that you, and I mean this in a nice way, don't understand what is involved.  Just going through NASA's process of certification will take that much.  SpaceX, which many on this board (incorrectly) state is the most ahead is not even close to being within a few hundred million dollars of being complete based on their own budget/award.  DC hasn't even completed a full and formal CDR.  I don't know the amount it would need to complete, but I know it is WAAAAY more than $100M.

Offline AJW

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 590
  • Liked: 487
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #165 on: 09/19/2014 11:41 PM »
SpaceX, which many on this board (incorrectly) state is the most ahead is not even close to being within a few hundred million dollars of being complete based on their own budget/award. 

I haven't followed CST-100 development as closely as DV2 and from your statement you appear to assert that CST-100 development is ahead of DV2.  I would be interested to hear your assessment of why you believe that this is the case.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #166 on: 09/20/2014 04:02 AM »
SpaceX, which many on this board (incorrectly) state is the most ahead is not even close to being within a few hundred million dollars of being complete based on their own budget/award. 

I haven't followed CST-100 development as closely as DV2 and from your statement you appear to assert that CST-100 development is ahead of DV2.  I would be interested to hear your assessment of why you believe that this is the case.

Nope, I don't mean to imply CST-100 is ahead.  My contention is you can't easily evaluate that.   SpaceX has a big advantage with the fact they are flying Dragons.  But there is a lot of work in designing for crew ahead.  Some ways you could measure (e.g., Critical Design Review) you could maybe say they are behind (look at NASA milestones).  Integration with NASA for this program is going to be HUGE.  I would have to say that Boeing is significantly ahead there and SpaceX doesn't quite see the bus about to hit them (hey, not saying this is good, just that is the way it is).  Cargo is/was handled differently.  So my point is you can't just look and clearly state one or another is ahead.  However, I think Boeing would likely agree, that have to move quickly (and by all measures they have mnoved VERY fast the last few years).

Offline AJW

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 590
  • Liked: 487
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #167 on: 09/20/2014 05:13 AM »
We do see very different futures and fortunately we won't have to be too patient before we start to see some key trends develop. 

I was very surprised and disappointment last year when NASA extended the Roscosmos contract through 2017 since the SpaceX CC progress with 5 F9 launches already made 2016 and possibly late 2015 appear achievable.  I would certainly rather have seen the $424M go to accelerate the US launch providers including DC development.   The timing of this, like the EELV Block Buy, seemed odd, since delaying the need for CC to 2017 appears to benefit Boeing, and there does not appear to have been a real benefit to rush this contract through.

Based on their development approach, I do have confidence that SpaceX will dodge any incoming bus you describe, but I don't know if their competition can avoid the backlash over significantly higher taxpayer costs for the same service.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #168 on: 09/20/2014 01:21 PM »
We do see very different futures and fortunately we won't have to be too patient before we start to see some key trends develop. 

I was very surprised and disappointment last year when NASA extended the Roscosmos contract through 2017 since the SpaceX CC progress with 5 F9 launches already made 2016 and possibly late 2015 appear achievable.  I would certainly rather have seen the $424M go to accelerate the US launch providers including DC development.   The timing of this, like the EELV Block Buy, seemed odd, since delaying the need for CC to 2017 appears to benefit Boeing, and there does not appear to have been a real benefit to rush this contract through.


You asked a lot of the right questions.   Questions that still need to be looked at.   Sadly, several possibilities could that $424M been used to prop up partner Roscosmos?   I doubt another extension like this would be possible for 2018 given the current "political" nature of things.   There are way, way too many questions that could be asked but the mods would trash this post or I'd tick off Chris. >:(
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17772
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 440
  • Likes Given: 3276
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #169 on: 09/20/2014 05:56 PM »
We do see very different futures and fortunately we won't have to be too patient before we start to see some key trends develop. 

I was very surprised and disappointment last year when NASA extended the Roscosmos contract through 2017 since the SpaceX CC progress with 5 F9 launches already made 2016 and possibly late 2015 appear achievable.  I would certainly rather have seen the $424M go to accelerate the US launch providers including DC development.   The timing of this, like the EELV Block Buy, seemed odd, since delaying the need for CC to 2017 appears to benefit Boeing, and there does not appear to have been a real benefit to rush this contract through.

Based on their development approach, I do have confidence that SpaceX will dodge any incoming bus you describe, but I don't know if their competition can avoid the backlash over significantly higher taxpayer costs for the same service.

It would be different if SpaceX, Boeing, or SNC had one crew launch under their belt, even if it didn't make it to the ISS. When one talks about managing risk, ensuring one still has a working option trumps all. NASA really had no choice, and congress wasn't helping them all that much.

Regardless, this is where we are, and hopefully they can get those successful flights in before NASA needs to give money to Russia (any more than they have to) to buy seats on a Soyuz.
« Last Edit: 09/20/2014 05:57 PM by robertross »
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Tags: