Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/31/2013 04:22 amI'm more of a SpaceX fan than a Boeing fan, but I really don't want to see an early down-select. I hope this means it will cause Boeing to lobby against early down-select.Imagine how SpaceX would react if they got frozen out by Boeing. They'd probably fly next year just to show how wrong the decision was.
I'm more of a SpaceX fan than a Boeing fan, but I really don't want to see an early down-select. I hope this means it will cause Boeing to lobby against early down-select.
SpaceX is way ahead with their capsule.Nobody has tested their LAS yet.Boeing is ahead with their laucher until F9 v1.1 actually launches and then they'll be behind because they still need to develop DEC.
We haven't seen semi-flight ready vehicles from any of the 3 competitors. Everyone is performing early testing using crude mockups. You can say that SpaceX's capsule is ahead, but don't base that on the current cargo Dragon. The new capsule is almost as different from the cargo capsule as the F9 V1.1 is from the V1.0, maybe more so.The DEC work is being performed by ULA. I'm sure it will be done well before it's needed. We still don't have any of the launch facilities updated to support crew either.
I would disagree. The heart of the capsule is the pressure vessel, and that is the same. 80% of the reaction thrusters are the same.
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/31/2013 04:25 amImagine how SpaceX would react if they got frozen out by Boeing. They'd probably fly next year just to show how wrong the decision was.No, they won't. SpaceX is very good at making lot's of promises, but they have a lousy track record as to fullfilling those promises.Even if a downselect to just one would be SpaceX I very much doubt SpaceX would be able to make the 2017 deadline.
Imagine how SpaceX would react if they got frozen out by Boeing. They'd probably fly next year just to show how wrong the decision was.
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 07/31/2013 01:42 pmWe haven't seen semi-flight ready vehicles from any of the 3 competitors. Everyone is performing early testing using crude mockups. You can say that SpaceX's capsule is ahead, but don't base that on the current cargo Dragon. The new capsule is almost as different from the cargo capsule as the F9 V1.1 is from the V1.0, maybe more so.The DEC work is being performed by ULA. I'm sure it will be done well before it's needed. We still don't have any of the launch facilities updated to support crew eitherI would disagree. The heart of the capsule is the pressure vessel, and that is the same. 80% of the reaction thrusters are the same.
We haven't seen semi-flight ready vehicles from any of the 3 competitors. Everyone is performing early testing using crude mockups. You can say that SpaceX's capsule is ahead, but don't base that on the current cargo Dragon. The new capsule is almost as different from the cargo capsule as the F9 V1.1 is from the V1.0, maybe more so.The DEC work is being performed by ULA. I'm sure it will be done well before it's needed. We still don't have any of the launch facilities updated to support crew either
Quote from: woods170 on 07/31/2013 07:58 amQuote from: QuantumG on 07/31/2013 04:25 amImagine how SpaceX would react if they got frozen out by Boeing. They'd probably fly next year just to show how wrong the decision was.No, they won't. SpaceX is very good at making lot's of promises, but they have a lousy track record as to fullfilling those promises.Even if a downselect to just one would be SpaceX I very much doubt SpaceX would be able to make the 2017 deadline.Spite is an amazing motivator.
If money was the issue, then why didn't the extra money added to the COTS program get SpaceX to the ISS sooner ? Perhaps having the assured CRS contract (and the pre-payments for future flights) actually reduced the pressure on SpaceX to deliver the product on schedule.
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 07/31/2013 03:53 pmIf money was the issue, then why didn't the extra money added to the COTS program get SpaceX to the ISS sooner ? Perhaps having the assured CRS contract (and the pre-payments for future flights) actually reduced the pressure on SpaceX to deliver the product on schedule. Wasn't the extra money used for additional sub-system testing that NASA wanted? More testing = more time.
Quote from: erioladastra on 07/31/2013 12:42 amQuote from: Wayne Hale on 07/26/2013 01:24 pmTo move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important. For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores. Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.So what do you think of that?That is exactly what I would expect if I wanted one particular company to win the next round.I'm more of a SpaceX fan than a Boeing fan, but I really don't want to see an early down-select. I hope this means it will cause Boeing to lobby against early down-select.
Quote from: Wayne Hale on 07/26/2013 01:24 pmTo move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important. For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores. Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.So what do you think of that?That is exactly what I would expect if I wanted one particular company to win the next round.
To move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important. For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores. Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.So what do you think of that?
We haven't seen semi-flight ready vehicles from any of the 3 competitors. Everyone is performing early testing using crude mockups. You can say that SpaceX's capsule is ahead, but don't base that on the current cargo Dragon. The new capsule is almost as different from the cargo capsule as the F9 V1.1 is from the V1.0, maybe more so.
July 23, 2013 - CCtCap Pre-Solicitation Conference - NASA's CCP will host a Pre-Solicitation Conference and One-on-One sessions on August 1 and 2, 2013, respectively, at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida. The purpose is to present key aspects if the dRFP and solicit feedback from prospective Offerors to support NASA's development of the final RFP.http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=157250
Post-cert missions expected to rotate crews, but may have some overlap with Soyuz depending on timing, so could be different mission.
NASA: final RFP for next commercial crew contract phase expected in Oct; proposals due Dec.; contract awards July.
Interesting to hear talk of Flight Readiness Reviews at L-2 weeks...for missions that may be four years away.
NASA: This is really two contracts in one RFP -- there's an R&D element and a missions element.
CCtCap performance period runs July '14 through Sept. '17, duration depending on partner performance. Awards could run thru '20.
Reporters are allowed to attend but not record the proceedings after the introductory remarks.
Video shows first flight of every U.S. human space vehicle. Mango: People in this room will put the next human vehicle in LEO. (Applause)
Mango: won't predict budget; seeing more congressional support for commercial crew because it is showing progress.
Bob Cabana, Phil McAlister and Ed Mango have opened the CCtCap pre-solicitation conf. at KSC. "Want your feedback."
NASA reporting that it may go down to two competitors for next round.http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36559next-round-of-commercial-crew-round-likely-to-support-only-two-competitors
“I don’t believe we are going to be able to carry three in the next round,” Phil McAlister, NASA’s director of commercial spaceflight development, told the NASA Advisory Council’s (NAC) Human Exploration and Operations Committee during a meeting at NASA headquarters here. “I think two would probably be sufficient to maintain competition.” [...]
“We’re saying at least one to the [international space station] ... in order to get certified,” McAlister said. “I anticipate all the partners will propose additional test flights.”
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 07/31/2013 03:53 pmIf money was the issue, then why didn't the extra money added to the COTS program get SpaceX to the ISS sooner ? Perhaps having the assured CRS contract (and the pre-payments for future flights) actually reduced the pressure on SpaceX to deliver the product on schedule. I agree, which is entirely my point. SpaceX is going as fast as NASA will allow, without NASA in the way we'd see what pure motivation can produce. I've been criticized for being the only person to think SpaceX is going too slow - that's a half truth, I just think they could go faster. I think they think so too.
The competition is open, but boils down to three companies already developing systems with more than $1 billion in NASA support: The Boeing Co. and Sierra Nevada Corp., which plan to launch spacecraft atop United Launch Alliance rockets, and SpaceX. No other major launch provider appeared on a list of meeting attendees NASA provided.
Some industry representatives offered positive initial feedback about the contract’s attempt to build on a successful public-private partnership. “NASA’s made a great effort to try to make this both commercial and safe,” said Adam Harris, SpaceX vice president for government sales.