Chris do we have any details on what this non-abandonment will consist of?
Quote from: Rocket Science on 09/19/2014 03:33 pmChris 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.
Chris do we have any details on what this “non-abandonment” will consist of?
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.
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?
Quote from: Hernalt on 09/16/2014 10:42 pmDo 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.
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.
Quote from: erioladastra on 09/19/2014 11:15 pmSpaceX, 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.
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.
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.