It will fly on Atlas and/or delta if need be. It will never fly on Falcon 9. Ever. I could say "oh its this thread again" considering how many times I have seen this thread re-posted in the last 9 months but I won't. Doesn't matter how many times people bring this up it will not happen. The most direct competitor to SpaceX is not going to fly on SpaceX.
Business is business. Boeing is selling a service not a launcher. ULA is not Boeing and vice-versa. If it's a matter of executing their contract, you better believe they'll use an F9 as a back-up.
Quote from: rcoppola on 11/12/2014 09:23 pmBusiness is business. Boeing is selling a service not a launcher. ULA is not Boeing and vice-versa. If it's a matter of executing their contract, you better believe they'll use an F9 as a back-up.Assuming SpaceX business case is aided by allowing them to ride their vehicle. SpaceX may decide it's not in THEIR best interest.
Quote from: oiorionsbelt on 11/13/2014 09:43 pmQuote from: rcoppola on 11/12/2014 09:23 pmBusiness is business. Boeing is selling a service not a launcher. ULA is not Boeing and vice-versa. If it's a matter of executing their contract, you better believe they'll use an F9 as a back-up.Assuming SpaceX business case is aided by allowing them to ride their vehicle. SpaceX may decide it's not in THEIR best interest.How would it not be? Not only would there be profit involved, but the kind of triumphant PR one-upsmanship that money just can't buy.
Remember, we're talking about the case where Atlas V is unavailable for an extended period. If SpaceX refused to put CST-100 on Falcon 9, it's certainly reasonable to assume CST-100 couldn't fly at all. So then NASA would have little choice but to buy more Dragon flights from SpaceX. I think SpaceX would rather have 100% market share in commercial crew than triumphant PR.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/14/2014 08:09 amRemember, we're talking about the case where Atlas V is unavailable for an extended period. If SpaceX refused to put CST-100 on Falcon 9, it's certainly reasonable to assume CST-100 couldn't fly at all. So then NASA would have little choice but to buy more Dragon flights from SpaceX. I think SpaceX would rather have 100% market share in commercial crew than triumphant PR.No, we are talking about Boeing using the cheaper ride than Atlas V. That is what Boeing gave as the possible reason to fly Falcon 9.
If for whatever reason, and for an undetermined amount of time, Atlas was unable to launch CST, the next most logical option would be to use the ONLY other NASA certified launcher for crewed services. And that's the Falcon 9v1.1. Business is business. Boeing is selling a service not a launcher. ULA is not Boeing and vice-versa. If it's a matter of executing their contract, you better believe they'll use an F9 as a back-up.
Quote from: llanitedave on 11/11/2014 04:54 amThe Falcon 9 shown looks like the old 1.0 model, so it doesn't seem to reflect any recent movement.Right, that's pretty clear. Atlas V was their preferred option from the beginning. But they did air the possibility.
The Falcon 9 shown looks like the old 1.0 model, so it doesn't seem to reflect any recent movement.
Although it is reasonable and logical for Boeing to consider using Falcon9 to launch CST-100, I consider it to be very unlikely. If it were likely, we would already be hearing about it due to the necessity of linking up CST-100's abort systems with the Falcon9's. Something that has not been discussed anywhere as yet. Even as an 'oops, Atlas is on stand-down' option.Switching launchers for a manned capsule will be a MUCH more involved process than switching launchers for Cygnus.
Quote from: Cherokee43v6 on 11/14/2014 04:37 pmAlthough it is reasonable and logical for Boeing to consider using Falcon9 to launch CST-100, I consider it to be very unlikely. If it were likely, we would already be hearing about it due to the necessity of linking up CST-100's abort systems with the Falcon9's. Something that has not been discussed anywhere as yet. Even as an 'oops, Atlas is on stand-down' option.Switching launchers for a manned capsule will be a MUCH more involved process than switching launchers for Cygnus.I will point out, again, that because you don't hear about it in the public does not mean it is not an option. Right now, of course, focus is on the test flights. As it should be. This is likely mainly what we will hear about in the near future.
Quote from: erioladastra on 11/15/2014 02:55 pmQuote from: Cherokee43v6 on 11/14/2014 04:37 pmAlthough it is reasonable and logical for Boeing to consider using Falcon9 to launch CST-100, I consider it to be very unlikely. If it were likely, we would already be hearing about it due to the necessity of linking up CST-100's abort systems with the Falcon9's. Something that has not been discussed anywhere as yet. Even as an 'oops, Atlas is on stand-down' option.Switching launchers for a manned capsule will be a MUCH more involved process than switching launchers for Cygnus.I will point out, again, that because you don't hear about it in the public does not mean it is not an option. Right now, of course, focus is on the test flights. As it should be. This is likely mainly what we will hear about in the near future.Boeing is a publicly traded company and this is NOT a 'Black Project'. Money spent for this purpose would have to be justified to the shareholders via the board. Therefore, something would have been said about it.SpaceX, being privately owned, I could more easily see being silent at a customer's request.Again, I personally think it would be a good idea, and money well spent on Boeing's part, to set up the necessary pre-reqs, just in case. But if they were doing that, since it would be an added layer of redundancy for their OV, why would we not hear anything about it???