I assume the relative positions haven't changed since the last selection statement, where Boeing was further along in design but SpaceX was willing to invest more.
Boeing picked more conservative milestones than SpaceX did. Boeing picked more analysis and paper studies for their milestones, SpaceX picked pad abort and an in-flight abort. Is Ed honestly saying these are comparable /at all/??
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/14/2014 12:19 pmBoeing picked more conservative milestones than SpaceX did. Boeing picked more analysis and paper studies for their milestones, SpaceX picked pad abort and an in-flight abort. Is Ed honestly saying these are comparable /at all/??I wonder if he's saying they haven't done those things yet?
All we have seen are hardware mock-ups of the SpaceX crew capsule as well.Stop comparing it to the cargo vehicle.
According to this:http://www.spacenews.com/article/boeing-nears-selection-rocket-initial-flights-cst-100-crew-capsule"Ultimately, Elbon said, Boeing expects to conduct a pad abort test of the CST-100 crew escape system in 2013 followed by two unmanned flight tests the following year."...Boeing planned the pad abort test last year. Didn't happen, yet. Of course, it wasn't set as a milestone, either.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/14/2014 04:54 pmAccording to this:http://www.spacenews.com/article/boeing-nears-selection-rocket-initial-flights-cst-100-crew-capsule"Ultimately, Elbon said, Boeing expects to conduct a pad abort test of the CST-100 crew escape system in 2013 followed by two unmanned flight tests the following year."...Boeing planned the pad abort test last year. Didn't happen, yet. Of course, it wasn't set as a milestone, either. Then again, pad abort for the SpaceX vehicle was originally planned for late 2013 as well. Didn't happen, yet.
>At the recent Space Tech Expo in Long Beach, Calif., he said CST-100 “can be operational as soon as 2016. >"....We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”>
There is also Boeing saying they're talking to SpaceX about using Falcon 9 after their contracted Atlas V HR flights (2?) Business case v. price. ISTM this wouldn't indicate a closed business case, and if so why would SpaceX help them close it?http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_01_2013_p26-589690.xml{snip}
Good point. But it may happen soon, and almost surely before the CST-100 pad abort (which isn't scheduled?).I'm merely saying that Boeing really /doesn't/ appear to be ahead....Additionally, I expect both Boeing and SpaceX to suffer slips. The question is who will slip more.
Looking at the CCiCap milestone schedule that was released when the contract was announced, Boeing had just one vehicle hardware milestone ("Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control Engine Development Development Test"), whereas Sierra Nevada had their "Engineering Test Article Flight Testing" and end their contract with "Main Propulsion and RCS Risk Reduction and TRL Advancement Testing". SpaceX ends their contract with a "Pad Abort Test", "Dragon Primary Structure Qualification", and an "In-Flight Abort Test".At the end of the CCiCap contract it appears that Boeing will have demonstrated the least amount of real hardware progress. Of course that may not be an indication of the real level of progress that they will have made, just that they haven't demonstrated whatever they do have.Just from a demonstration standpoint though, it would almost seem like Boeing is behind both SpaceX AND Sierra Nevada, which would be surprising given how little funding Sierra Nevada was provided. And now that ESA is interested in helping out Sierra Nevada, I'd say that any lead Boeing had going into the CCiCap contract has either been reduced or gone away.It will be interesting to see what happens when they award CCtCap.
And now that ESA is interested in helping out Sierra Nevada, I'd say that any lead Boeing had going into the CCiCap contract has either been reduced or gone away.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 02/15/2014 03:13 am And now that ESA is interested in helping out Sierra Nevada, I'd say that any lead Boeing had going into the CCiCap contract has either been reduced or gone away.Was money ever part of the "help"?
... it doesn't appear SpaceX will have actually demonstrated much more than Boeing at that point.