Total Members Voted: 388
Voting closed: 09/02/2014 01:02 pm
Quote from: Mader Levap on 08/26/2014 06:29 pmI prefer SpaceX and SNC, but it will not happen. Such high amount of votes for that combo is just excercise in wishful thinking. As far I am concerned, this is pool about "what will happen", not "what you would want to happen". Tsk, tsk.And you know this for a fact because.......
I prefer SpaceX and SNC, but it will not happen. Such high amount of votes for that combo is just excercise in wishful thinking. As far I am concerned, this is pool about "what will happen", not "what you would want to happen". Tsk, tsk.
I voted all three because it is very hard to choose...Feels like any downselect at this time will be a BIG mistake.I favor a 50% 25% 25% sort of
I chose Boeing. They completed their milestones. They've got lower risk on many fronts. They constructed large parts of ISS already. They designed to the need, not the appeal.
CST-100 and DreamchaserReasons:CST-100 is being developed by the largest company in the market. They have the depth in history, resources and talent to get the work done on time. Without a doubt Boeing is going to deliver, NASA will want 1 of the 2 to be a sure thing. Also, Boeing has been playing the political side game for decades and will have this locked up, count on it.Dreamchaser is sexy, exciting and offers some appealing options capsules do not. It will look and sound great when it comes in for a landing, on a run way, and the media calls it a NASA spacecraft. This will be appealing to NASA, even if Sierra Nevada is lateDragon v2, is a good contender but someone is going to lose and it's going to be SpaceX. Then they will get a big fat cargo contract later. SpaceX has stated they will continue development regardless, I think that is playing their hand before needed. Further with F9, F9R, FH, Raptor and all the other development being done NASA may consider that SpaceX doesn't have the focus or resources to add NASA's human spacecraft.As a bone to SpaceX they may require dual launch vehicle ability.All that said, it is what I think will happen, but I'd prefer Dreamchaser and Dragon.
Well,I voted for SNC and SpaceX, though it was a coin toss on SNC or Boeing.Reason for that angle. Non-commonality. Considering that the most common type of critical failure is not the orbital vehicle but the launch vehicle, I feel it would be highly doubtful that a two winner scenario would have both OVs ride the same launch vehicle. Any failure on the LV would result in a situation where there would be no difference in having chosen a sole source.With that said, to me the unlikely though highly logical scenario would be to Primary SNC and Secondary Boeing. Reason, SpaceX has already stated a firm commitment to completing and flying DragonV2 and has the financial wherewithal to pull it off. SNC has the same commitment, but less financial backing, whereas Boeing has pretty much said no NASA no CT100. This scenario would maximize the Commercial options (NASA could even throw SpaceX a bone by buying a flight or two from them. However, this scenario would be unlikely to meet the time goals as they are currently laid out, though it would be the most in the spirit of the Commercial Crew development concept.
Lots of interesting opinions on this thread. I voted SNC and SpaceX, thinking that my choice was pretty boring, but it's what I think is most likely. That being said, the recent engine change on the Dream Chaser has me thinking less confidently about that vehicle's odds of being chosen. One other point I'd throw out there is that NASA has a history of selecting winners/contracts on what appear to be non-technical or "soft" factors, meaning that the designs/proposals that score highest technically (and may be the superior solution) may not be chosen for other reasons.
Mark Sirangelo stated following from America space interview. http://www.americaspace.com/?p=66192 “We have not announced a change in propulsion systems and that was not a quote from us.”“It was likely meant to refer to our acquisition of Orbitec as we now have an expanded base of propulsion solutions and are exploring their use for future Dream Chaser variants.”“There is no schedule change related to engines.”So the DC is staying with it's existing hybrid engines for the first orbital version at least.
Be patient people, rockets are hard.
Boeing already handed out pink slips to most people in the CST team.
Quote from: king1999 on 08/27/2014 05:16 pmBoeing already handed out pink slips to most people in the CST team.They have not. They have issued warnings (legally required) that they might lay off the team, which must be issued in advance.
Quote from: EE Scott on 08/27/2014 05:06 pmLots of interesting opinions on this thread. I voted SNC and SpaceX, thinking that my choice was pretty boring, but it's what I think is most likely. That being said, the recent engine change on the Dream Chaser has me thinking less confidently about that vehicle's odds of being chosen. One other point I'd throw out there is that NASA has a history of selecting winners/contracts on what appear to be non-technical or "soft" factors, meaning that the designs/proposals that score highest technically (and may be the superior solution) may not be chosen for other reasons.From the DC update thread:Quote from: TrevorMonty on 08/24/2014 05:53 pmMark Sirangelo stated following from America space interview. http://www.americaspace.com/?p=66192 “We have not announced a change in propulsion systems and that was not a quote from us.”“It was likely meant to refer to our acquisition of Orbitec as we now have an expanded base of propulsion solutions and are exploring their use for future Dream Chaser variants.”“There is no schedule change related to engines.”So the DC is staying with it's existing hybrid engines for the first orbital version at least.So, I don't think the engine change is of any major concern to the downselect.