A lot of people appear to be trying to broaden those requirements, presumably so their favourite architecture will fit.
Quote from: kkattula on 06/04/2011 10:02 amA lot of people appear to be trying to broaden those requirements, presumably so their favourite architecture will fit.And some are trying to narrow them/keep them narrow so theirs will, presumably because it's the best way forward.
But surely that's the whole point of this phase? To take the already relatively narrow Authorization requirements and further narrow them down?
It's amusing watching the same people who decried the "Senate Launch System", now trying to claim their clean-sheet designs fit the parameters.
Duh. Because it's not just about cost, it's also about schedule, quality, proven performance, flight history, etc.e.g. What chance Aerojet can design, develop, test and qualify an SSME &/or SRB replacement before a 2014 SLS test flight? Zero. Zip. Nada.
Politics making strange bedfellows, even more so......http://www.teainspace.com/press-release-tea-party-supports-senators-feinstein-and-boxer-demand-for-open-competition-on-sls-contracts/
Obama's plan for mostly private HSF is good:http://rocketforge.org/?p=470--Brian
...congress critters
Quote from: Rabidpanda on 06/03/2011 01:01 am...congress crittersI've started using the term crinoids...
And will NASA have the will—and the funding—to develop and fly the SLS by 2016? Bingham, who said he was speaking for himself and not officially representing the views of the Senate Commerce Committee, said the authorization act supported the development of both the SLS and commercial crew development, but funding could put the two in conflict with each other. “There’s no issue with or conflict with those goals,” he said. “Where it becomes in conflict is in resources. When you only get so big a pie, and you start having to make priorities, that’s where you start having this push-and-shove between commercial and governmental. That shouldn’t be. That’s an artificial conflict that shouldn’t have to be there if we were properly resourced as an agency.”
The only sensible way forward is for NASA to come out with an open tender stating that they need 150 MT in LEO with a description of the realibility required and payload dimensions. Should be about 20 pagesThis would allow best solution to win.If they go with existing contractors they will end up with a cost to develop of $10-20 billion which will be canned by congress or if it isn't is a huge waste of resources in times of tight budgets. Just recently NASA HEFT programme quoted 17.5 bill to develop HLV and $1.2 BILL a launchSpace X have said that they will develop HLV WITH 150 tonne to orbit for $2.5 billion and launch for $300 mill. This sounds ridiculously cheap compared to other quote and might set alarm bells ringing if we didnt know that spacex developed and launched dragon for $250 mill when NASA have managed to spend $8.5 bill on Orion for a craft with similar capabilities.There definitely needs to be a tender process
Quote from: corneliussulla on 06/07/2011 07:21 pmThe only sensible way forward is for NASA to come out with an open tender stating that they need 150 MT in LEO with a description of the realibility required and payload dimensions. Should be about 20 pagesThis would allow best solution to win.If they go with existing contractors they will end up with a cost to develop of $10-20 billion which will be canned by congress or if it isn't is a huge waste of resources in times of tight budgets. Just recently NASA HEFT programme quoted 17.5 bill to develop HLV and $1.2 BILL a launchSpace X have said that they will develop HLV WITH 150 tonne to orbit for $2.5 billion and launch for $300 mill. This sounds ridiculously cheap compared to other quote and might set alarm bells ringing if we didnt know that spacex developed and launched dragon for $250 mill when NASA have managed to spend $8.5 bill on Orion for a craft with similar capabilities.There definitely needs to be a tender processSpaceX also promised Falcon 9 launches for $30 million, which did not happen. And Dragon launches for $80, which also did not happen.The fact is, SpaceX is promising pricing based on the thought that they will be doing dozens of flights per year, something they cannot actually do at this time. As a result, they miss their price targets. This is common in any industry, the Boeing Delta IV had the same issue. The difference here is that SpaceX is promising your dreams to come true, and you want to believe. The cold hard reality is, they cannot deliver what they promise, as anyone with experience in the industry will tell you. Do you honestly see a launch a week of Falcon 9 coming soon? Or two Falcon Heavy a month? Without those flight rates, they will never meet the price target, with those increasing as a result. He cannot deliver his SHLV for the price, history of the industry as well as his own companies history demonstrates that. He is making every mistake in the book. I don't want to see him fail, but if he cannot stop writing checks his company cannot cash, it is the end goal for SpaceX.Incidentally, since when does Dragon offer similar capabilities to Orion? It has 1/3rd the endurance, half the volume, 1/12th the delta-v, and does not have the capability to handle the same level of high speed re-entry that Orion is designed for. Saying it cost less to develop, when it offers so much less capability, is akin to discussing how much my roomates sedan cost vs my truck, when my truck can does things and goes places his sedan just cannot.
Quote from: Downix on 06/07/2011 07:51 pmQuote from: corneliussulla on 06/07/2011 07:21 pmThe only sensible way forward is for NASA to come out with an open tender stating that they need 150 MT in LEO with a description of the realibility required and payload dimensions. Should be about 20 pagesThis would allow best solution to win.If they go with existing contractors they will end up with a cost to develop of $10-20 billion which will be canned by congress or if it isn't is a huge waste of resources in times of tight budgets. Just recently NASA HEFT programme quoted 17.5 bill to develop HLV and $1.2 BILL a launchSpace X have said that they will develop HLV WITH 150 tonne to orbit for $2.5 billion and launch for $300 mill. This sounds ridiculously cheap compared to other quote and might set alarm bells ringing if we didnt know that spacex developed and launched dragon for $250 mill when NASA have managed to spend $8.5 bill on Orion for a craft with similar capabilities.There definitely needs to be a tender processSpaceX also promised Falcon 9 launches for $30 million, which did not happen. And Dragon launches for $80, which also did not happen.The fact is, SpaceX is promising pricing based on the thought that they will be doing dozens of flights per year, something they cannot actually do at this time. As a result, they miss their price targets. This is common in any industry, the Boeing Delta IV had the same issue. The difference here is that SpaceX is promising your dreams to come true, and you want to believe. The cold hard reality is, they cannot deliver what they promise, as anyone with experience in the industry will tell you. Do you honestly see a launch a week of Falcon 9 coming soon? Or two Falcon Heavy a month? Without those flight rates, they will never meet the price target, with those increasing as a result. He cannot deliver his SHLV for the price, history of the industry as well as his own companies history demonstrates that. He is making every mistake in the book. I don't want to see him fail, but if he cannot stop writing checks his company cannot cash, it is the end goal for SpaceX.Incidentally, since when does Dragon offer similar capabilities to Orion? It has 1/3rd the endurance, half the volume, 1/12th the delta-v, and does not have the capability to handle the same level of high speed re-entry that Orion is designed for. Saying it cost less to develop, when it offers so much less capability, is akin to discussing how much my roomates sedan cost vs my truck, when my truck can does things and goes places his sedan just cannot. Wow all good points. NASA has had requirements for projects to meet financial history etc. Think any future contracts should also be looked on the basis of "Contractor history". Did a contractor do his last contract near budget, on time? Why give new more work to contractors who fail?
Quote from: Prober on 06/07/2011 11:08 pmQuote from: Downix on 06/07/2011 07:51 pmQuote from: corneliussulla on 06/07/2011 07:21 pmThe only sensible way forward is for NASA to come out with an open tender stating that they need 150 MT in LEO with a description of the realibility required and payload dimensions. Should be about 20 pagesThis would allow best solution to win.If they go with existing contractors they will end up with a cost to develop of $10-20 billion which will be canned by congress or if it isn't is a huge waste of resources in times of tight budgets. Just recently NASA HEFT programme quoted 17.5 bill to develop HLV and $1.2 BILL a launchSpace X have said that they will develop HLV WITH 150 tonne to orbit for $2.5 billion and launch for $300 mill. This sounds ridiculously cheap compared to other quote and might set alarm bells ringing if we didnt know that spacex developed and launched dragon for $250 mill when NASA have managed to spend $8.5 bill on Orion for a craft with similar capabilities.There definitely needs to be a tender processSpaceX also promised Falcon 9 launches for $30 million, which did not happen. And Dragon launches for $80, which also did not happen.The fact is, SpaceX is promising pricing based on the thought that they will be doing dozens of flights per year, something they cannot actually do at this time. As a result, they miss their price targets. This is common in any industry, the Boeing Delta IV had the same issue. The difference here is that SpaceX is promising your dreams to come true, and you want to believe. The cold hard reality is, they cannot deliver what they promise, as anyone with experience in the industry will tell you. Do you honestly see a launch a week of Falcon 9 coming soon? Or two Falcon Heavy a month? Without those flight rates, they will never meet the price target, with those increasing as a result. He cannot deliver his SHLV for the price, history of the industry as well as his own companies history demonstrates that. He is making every mistake in the book. I don't want to see him fail, but if he cannot stop writing checks his company cannot cash, it is the end goal for SpaceX.Incidentally, since when does Dragon offer similar capabilities to Orion? It has 1/3rd the endurance, half the volume, 1/12th the delta-v, and does not have the capability to handle the same level of high speed re-entry that Orion is designed for. Saying it cost less to develop, when it offers so much less capability, is akin to discussing how much my roomates sedan cost vs my truck, when my truck can does things and goes places his sedan just cannot. Wow all good points. NASA has had requirements for projects to meet financial history etc. Think any future contracts should also be looked on the basis of "Contractor history". Did a contractor do his last contract near budget, on time? Why give new more work to contractors who fail? Has SpaceX failed?VRRE327
Quote from: RocketScientist327 on 06/07/2011 11:29 pmQuote from: Prober on 06/07/2011 11:08 pmQuote from: Downix on 06/07/2011 07:51 pmQuote from: corneliussulla on 06/07/2011 07:21 pmThe only sensible way forward is for NASA to come out with an open tender stating that they need 150 MT in LEO with a description of the realibility required and payload dimensions. Should be about 20 pagesThis would allow best solution to win.If they go with existing contractors they will end up with a cost to develop of $10-20 billion which will be canned by congress or if it isn't is a huge waste of resources in times of tight budgets. Just recently NASA HEFT programme quoted 17.5 bill to develop HLV and $1.2 BILL a launchSpace X have said that they will develop HLV WITH 150 tonne to orbit for $2.5 billion and launch for $300 mill. This sounds ridiculously cheap compared to other quote and might set alarm bells ringing if we didnt know that spacex developed and launched dragon for $250 mill when NASA have managed to spend $8.5 bill on Orion for a craft with similar capabilities.There definitely needs to be a tender processSpaceX also promised Falcon 9 launches for $30 million, which did not happen. And Dragon launches for $80, which also did not happen.The fact is, SpaceX is promising pricing based on the thought that they will be doing dozens of flights per year, something they cannot actually do at this time. As a result, they miss their price targets. This is common in any industry, the Boeing Delta IV had the same issue. The difference here is that SpaceX is promising your dreams to come true, and you want to believe. The cold hard reality is, they cannot deliver what they promise, as anyone with experience in the industry will tell you. Do you honestly see a launch a week of Falcon 9 coming soon? Or two Falcon Heavy a month? Without those flight rates, they will never meet the price target, with those increasing as a result. He cannot deliver his SHLV for the price, history of the industry as well as his own companies history demonstrates that. He is making every mistake in the book. I don't want to see him fail, but if he cannot stop writing checks his company cannot cash, it is the end goal for SpaceX.Incidentally, since when does Dragon offer similar capabilities to Orion? It has 1/3rd the endurance, half the volume, 1/12th the delta-v, and does not have the capability to handle the same level of high speed re-entry that Orion is designed for. Saying it cost less to develop, when it offers so much less capability, is akin to discussing how much my roomates sedan cost vs my truck, when my truck can does things and goes places his sedan just cannot. Wow all good points. NASA has had requirements for projects to meet financial history etc. Think any future contracts should also be looked on the basis of "Contractor history". Did a contractor do his last contract near budget, on time? Why give new more work to contractors who fail? Has SpaceX failed?VRRE327 Unproven might be a better term for SpaceX. However I would not reward them with any more contracts until they start to deliver to the ISS.
And who is proven?VRRE327