And the WSJ is reporting that "Boeing Takes Lead to Build Space Taxi." It is from Andy Pasztor, so also take it with a grain of salt.http://online.wsj.com/articles/boeing-takes-lead-to-build-space-taxi-1410820865QuoteBoeing Co. appears positioned to beat out two smaller rivals for the bulk of a multibillion-dollar NASA contract to ferry astronauts to and from orbit, according to government and aerospace-industry officials.
Boeing Co. appears positioned to beat out two smaller rivals for the bulk of a multibillion-dollar NASA contract to ferry astronauts to and from orbit, according to government and aerospace-industry officials.
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 09/15/2014 10:57 pmAnd the WSJ is reporting that "Boeing Takes Lead to Build Space Taxi." It is from Andy Pasztor, so also take it with a grain of salt.http://online.wsj.com/articles/boeing-takes-lead-to-build-space-taxi-1410820865QuoteBoeing Co. appears positioned to beat out two smaller rivals for the bulk of a multibillion-dollar NASA contract to ferry astronauts to and from orbit, according to government and aerospace-industry officials.The quote I find the most interesting is:"The officials cautioned that a last-minute shift by NASA chief Charles Bolden, who must vet the decision, could change the result of the closely watched competition."Seems like Andy Pasztor is setting up a scenario that if Boeing doesn't win it's because of political intervention, not because Boeing is not the better choice. Nice job Andy, nice job.Also, Mr. Pasztor included this comment that I thought was pretty funny:"For virtually the first time in its history, NASA is also seeking to reduce risk and keep a lid on prices by maintaining competition involving a major program."Sure there is truth to it, but it's just funny that it has to be mentioned as the exception, and not the rule.
Interviews with numerous space experts from industry, government and elsewhere—all of whom have been monitoring developments closely—reveal a growing consensus that Boeing is likely to emerge as the big winner to develop and operate the nation's replacement for the space-shuttle fleet, which was retired in 2011.
One of the two other bidders—SpaceX or Sierra Nevada Corp.—is expected to obtain a smaller contract as a second source, these experts said. SpaceX is in a very strong position to get the nod, the experts added.
Going on record here before the awards that of the three competitors, Boeing is the least deserving to win. It has put the smallest amount of its own money into the project, preferring instead to let the USGov pay for the lion's share of its "Commercial" Crew entry. The other two both committed much more of their own money, demonstrating a much greater commitment to the project than Boeing. 1. SNC brings a spacecraft to the table that is a true successor to Shuttle, with enormous cross range and far gentler re-entry g-stress. It is the only entry that is capable of returning payload or persons who desperately require a "gentle" return.2. SpaceX brings a spacecraft that is actually designed for BEO missions but is capable of LEO service without wasting any of its true capabilities. It introduces a completely powered descent and landing, a true innovation. It also is capable of actually landing on both the lunar and Martian surfaces.3. Boeing brings a spacecraft that is essentially an upgraded Apollo with air bag landing, its only innovative contribution. While all three would be capable of providing crew rotation to the ISS, only Boeing has said that its Business Plan cannot close without a CCtCap win. That makes it the weaker of the three financially. Boeing's CST-100 is also the only entry that has not "flown". SpaceX's Dragon is actually providing cargo services to the ISS and DreamChaser has had an actual flight test, although unpowered. It has however, already paid for and scheduled its 1st space launch on an Atlas-V. Boeing has yet to show that level of commitment.
I would also like to know the names of those "experts".
Going on record here before the awards that of the three competitors, Boeing is the least deserving to win. It has put the smallest amount of its own money into the project, preferring instead to let the USGov pay for the lion's share of its "Commercial" Crew entry. The other two both committed much more of their own money, demonstrating a much greater commitment to the project than Boeing.
Quote from: clongton on 09/15/2014 11:18 pmGoing on record here before the awards that of the three competitors, Boeing is the least deserving to win. It has put the smallest amount of its own money into the project, preferring instead to let the USGov pay for the lion's share of its "Commercial" Crew entry. The other two both committed much more of their own money, demonstrating a much greater commitment to the project than Boeing. ---------------------I won't weigh in on the merits of any of the partners, but I will make something clear. You folks have no idea how much any of the companies have really put in. None.
I won't weigh in on the merits of any of the partners, but I will make something clear. You folks have no idea how much any of the companies have really put in. None.
So who has veto over Charlie and is going to use it??
Quote from: Rocket Science on 09/16/2014 12:06 amSo who has veto over Charlie and is going to use it??He doesn't have veto power. He is not the selecting officer.
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 01:41 amQuote from: Rocket Science on 09/16/2014 12:06 amSo who has veto over Charlie and is going to use it??He doesn't have veto power. He is not the selecting officer.From that WSJ article:"The officials cautioned that a last-minute shift by NASA chief Charles Bolden, who must vet the decision, could change the result of the closely watched competition."So what does that mean?