-Dragon would handle cargo on Falcon.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 02/04/2014 12:32 pm-Dragon would handle cargo on Falcon.What about Orbital? Your scenario deletes them and they already have an ISS cargo contract.
OK, I'll bite:* Why reduce the only vehicle with flight history to cargo only?* Why award the company with the least amount of "visible vision" with the long stays award. They will not do anything with this experience, while SpaceX might...* Why have the crew rotation vehicle on the more expensive launcher?
-Altlas has a long "proven"flight history, you can't say that "yet" for SpaceX.
I did leave out Orbital as well, back then (they might run out of engines anyway, if I remember correctly).
If SpaceX gets 6 launches this year, 10 the next then 12 in 2016 (reasonable numbers, based on their manifest), it will have overcome Delta IV's total number of launches and will be proportionally (logarithmically) quite close to Atlas V. Atlas V's advantage in number of launches won't be significant for much longer.
So this thread is basically looking for a way to divide the pie so everyone gets a slice.
Quote from: arachnitect on 02/04/2014 08:27 pmSo this thread is basically looking for a way to divide the pie so everyone gets a slice.That just leaves everyone hungry for more pie.
Am I the only one who is somewhat amused by the concept of this thread, where a Commercial Cargo/Crew program is distributed in the fairest way possible to as many organizations a possible, like some Soviet market planning exercise? Thus, in the process guaranteeing that they all have so few missions that they have trouble making a profit. Is that what is the goal here?
Quote from: Lars_J on 02/05/2014 06:09 amAm I the only one who is somewhat amused by the concept of this thread, where a Commercial Cargo/Crew program is distributed in the fairest way possible to as many organizations a possible, like some Soviet market planning exercise? Thus, in the process guaranteeing that they all have so few missions that they have trouble making a profit. Is that what is the goal here? Lars, kind of ironic to make that analogy since even after their collapse of the USSR they continued their human spaceflight program without any downtime and we have to go begging a ride at 70 million a head for what, at least the next four years or so... What have we to show for the past 20 years billions spent on a scrap heap of unfinished projects..? Just sayin’...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 02/05/2014 12:34 pmQuote from: Lars_J on 02/05/2014 06:09 amAm I the only one who is somewhat amused by the concept of this thread, where a Commercial Cargo/Crew program is distributed in the fairest way possible to as many organizations a possible, like some Soviet market planning exercise? Thus, in the process guaranteeing that they all have so few missions that they have trouble making a profit. Is that what is the goal here? Lars, kind of ironic to make that analogy since even after their collapse of the USSR they continued their human spaceflight program without any downtime and we have to go begging a ride at 70 million a head for what, at least the next four years or so... What have we to show for the past 20 years billions spent on a scrap heap of unfinished projects..? Just sayin’...I think my point may just have sailed over your head. What exactly does the continued use of a single launch system that is ~45 years old have to do how contracts would be distributed amongst competing contractors?In addition - You may not have realized that part of the reason the NASA space program is in its current state is because it has been run like a centrally planned government program ever since the Apollo years.