So the CST-100-200 comes with a reusable service module? Or if not, in what other ways does it remain competitive vs. a Dragon 2?I suppose in my fictional account Boeing's HL-20 derived bid is perceived to be worth it to NASA despite it being more expensive than Dragon - due to dev costs you noted. (In CC1 Boeing's higher price was justified because they offered a conservative design/program. Apparently in 2020 they get the extra $ by offering unique capabilities NASA wants.*) * Jim has argued there are few or none.
The evidence is on your side when you consider the Commercial Crew program. But if you want to make your arguments from historical NASA interest then you have to account for the money spent on the NASA HL-20 and X-38 in the 1990s/2000s, and the STS before that. Can we really say that all of NASA now agrees that work on HL-20, X-38 and STS was all a mistake in retrospect?
Gest said a couple of weeks ago that a winged vehicle that lands on a runway "would be nice to have"...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 07/28/2015 02:10 amGest said a couple of weeks ago that a winged vehicle that lands on a runway "would be nice to have"...The words "nice to have" seldom equate to "I am willing to spend an extra billion dollars or two to get".Anyway, NASA is bound by law to follow the selection criteria they laid out in the CRS-2 RFP. I don't think "winged vehicle", "lands on runway", or "low-g cargo return" were in the list. They gave themselves some wiggle room with something about "other factors", but if they give enough weight to "other factors" that it overrides the clear advantages in the explicit criteria the other proposals very likely have, there will be an immediate protest, and the protest will succeed. The whole point of RFPs is to make it clear what the selection criteria are. If there is a secret factor that wasn't listed explicitly that is important, that defeats the whole purpose of having an RFP.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 07/28/2015 02:32 amQuote from: Rocket Science on 07/28/2015 02:10 amGest said a couple of weeks ago that a winged vehicle that lands on a runway "would be nice to have"...The words "nice to have" seldom equate to "I am willing to spend an extra billion dollars or two to get".Anyway, NASA is bound by law to follow the selection criteria they laid out in the CRS-2 RFP. I don't think "winged vehicle", "lands on runway", or "low-g cargo return" were in the list. They gave themselves some wiggle room with something about "other factors", but if they give enough weight to "other factors" that it overrides the clear advantages in the explicit criteria the other proposals very likely have, there will be an immediate protest, and the protest will succeed. The whole point of RFPs is to make it clear what the selection criteria are. If there is a secret factor that wasn't listed explicitly that is important, that defeats the whole purpose of having an RFP.That's exactly what NASA did for CCtCap. Cost was supposed to be the main criteria but NASA changed it to value to the government. Value to the government wasn't on the RFP but NASA still based their decision on it. The GAO didn't have any problems with this.
Considering the loss of the DC-X and the rejection of any shuttle like craft, I almost suspect that NASA, et al, are deliberately rejecting any sort of technologies that would lead to a completely reusable SSTO type space craft.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/28/2015 02:49 amQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 07/28/2015 02:32 amQuote from: Rocket Science on 07/28/2015 02:10 amGest said a couple of weeks ago that a winged vehicle that lands on a runway "would be nice to have"...The words "nice to have" seldom equate to "I am willing to spend an extra billion dollars or two to get".Anyway, NASA is bound by law to follow the selection criteria they laid out in the CRS-2 RFP. I don't think "winged vehicle", "lands on runway", or "low-g cargo return" were in the list. They gave themselves some wiggle room with something about "other factors", but if they give enough weight to "other factors" that it overrides the clear advantages in the explicit criteria the other proposals very likely have, there will be an immediate protest, and the protest will succeed. The whole point of RFPs is to make it clear what the selection criteria are. If there is a secret factor that wasn't listed explicitly that is important, that defeats the whole purpose of having an RFP.That's exactly what NASA did for CCtCap. Cost was supposed to be the main criteria but NASA changed it to value to the government. Value to the government wasn't on the RFP but NASA still based their decision on it. The GAO didn't have any problems with this.I disagree. It's not the same at all. Cost was always supposed to be only one of several listed criteria, and CST-100 was rated higher on several of those other listed criteria.There is no listed criterion for CRS-2 on which a cargo Dream Chaser could reasonably be expected to outperform the leading contenders.
2- As far as DC is concerned, they might be competitive on costs for CRS2. They were more competitive than Boeing for CCtCap and it will be interesting to see how competitive they are with OrbitalATK for CRS2. The selection criteria for CRS2 are very similar to the ones for CCtCap. Cost is also supposed to be the main criteria for CRS2.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/28/2015 05:18 pm2- As far as DC is concerned, they might be competitive on costs for CRS2. They were more competitive than Boeing for CCtCap and it will be interesting to see how competitive they are with OrbitalATK for CRS2. The selection criteria for CRS2 are very similar to the ones for CCtCap. Cost is also supposed to be the main criteria for CRS2.DC in CCtCap was vastly different from DC in CRS2 because in CCtCap it was up against competitors that also needed to have their development costs paid for by the contract. That's not the case with CRS2, which puts them at an enormous disadvantage. Boeing, Orbital, and SpaceX all have far more modest development costs to adapt existing systems for CRS2 than SNC would have to make a cargo Dream Chaser a reality. And it doesn't look like they could make it up by having lower recurring costs by being reusable because their CRS2 proposal has a huge non-reusable module on each flight.
Through the Dream Chaser-Preferred Landing Site Program, SNC is offering three different levels of designation, with the highest level culminating in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issuing a re-entry license to SNC for the designated spaceport or airport. This program was created based on similar work currently being done with Ellington Spaceport in Houston, Texas and the Huntsville International Airport Authority (HIA) in Huntsville, Alabama.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/10/2015 04:38 pmThrough the Dream Chaser-Preferred Landing Site Program, SNC is offering three different levels of designation, with the highest level culminating in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issuing a re-entry license to SNC for the designated spaceport or airport. This program was created based on similar work currently being done with Ellington Spaceport in Houston, Texas and the Huntsville International Airport Authority (HIA) in Huntsville, Alabama.Huh? What use would any of the other two lower designations be to anyone? I suppose one of the three levels could be launch capability, but not reentry. And the lowest level is simply a paved runway 10,000 feet or longer.
I'm actually a little more convinced that DC still has a fighting chance. NASA's solicitation said they wanted to reduce the number of visiting vehicles, and with ATV done and HTV's future a bit fuzzy NASA would need to select a proposal that can carry a lot more mass/volume uphill. SNC and LM had to two proposals for big haulers and with scuttlebutt that LM may already be out of the contest it leaves SNC with the only proposal that can carry a large volume in a single flight. Even if they aren't the cheapest I think if SNC submitted a bid that's at least somewhat competitive then they genuinely may still be able to see Dream Chaser fly.
I agree with Jim on this. I haven't seen any evidence of NASA really wanting anything only Dream Chaser could provide.If there was a need for such capabilities, NASA would have selected Dream Chaser for CCtCap.And even farther back, if there were such a need by NASA, then Boeing, SpaceX, and/or others likely would have submitted different commercial crew bids to begin with.