Author Topic: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1  (Read 640991 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #260 on: 10/15/2014 12:10 am »

wov ULA complete victory

Wrong, Boeing and Lockheed do not build launch vehicles.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #261 on: 10/15/2014 12:11 am »
Read the whole article - Smith and Pallazo (sp?) are saying replace one of the Commercial Crew vehicles with Orion. Then read Gerst's document - would they replace the "clearly superior" bid, regardless of cost? I am just old enough and cynical enough to think that this may be the opening shot in the battle for the ultimate dream of Congress (and some at NASA, and some on this site): two ways to get into space - in a Boeing capsule on top of a Lockheed launch vehicle, or in a Lockheed capsule on top of a Boeing launch vehicle.

Nonsense and what Lockheed launch vehicle?

Offline mkent

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 118
  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #262 on: 10/15/2014 12:32 am »
3/Boeing spacecraft will not force them go farther, and let them focus on unmanned probes.
4/Spacex is building real hardware to leave Earth orbit and build it cheap. I think it scares lot of folks in NASA management.
5/Boeing spacecraft is paper craft. Spacex is real hardware that will be launch this month.
6/If Pad abort and January inflight abort will be successful, Spacex will have system ready to flight in February 2015.
7/If Boeing to start build today they will have something in 2-3 years.
8/Strange that NASA prefer paper before real hardware flying and testing.

3/ Boeing's CST-100 is nearly as capable BLEO as SpaceX's Dragon 2.  The only difference is Dragon 2's thicker heat shield, which is irrelevant to the CCtCap contract.  Boeing could easily thicken the heat shield on the CST-100 were it not for the dead weight and the fact that it's completely unnecessary.

4/ Both Dragon 2 and CST-100 will need significant (and almost identical) modifications to go BLEO.

5/ Boeing's design has passed CDR, something SpaceX's design has yet to do.  Sierra Nevada's design is years away from that milestone.  That puts Boeing ahead of SpaceX and Sierra Nevada in this competition.  SpaceX has no plans to launch anything this month.

6/ No, it will not.  Elon Musk himself has stated that Dragon 2 won't take its first manned flight until late 2016, though he said with the usual delays it may slip to mid 2017.

7/ Mid 2017 is the same time as Boeing.

8/ Boeing has tested more real hardware than Sierra Nevada.  Sierra had one flight of their Engineering Test Article to test its landing characteristics, and that ended badly.  They are now about 1-1/2 years late on their additional flight tests.  Boeing, meanwhile, completed their landing tests years ago.  They are the only one of the three competitors to have done so.

Boeing completed all of its milestones and did so on time.  That's why they won and why they were rated the highest by NASA.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #263 on: 10/15/2014 12:36 am »
1/NASA wants to do same thing that is doing last 40 years to fly to Earth orbit, it is safe who is going to send astronauts on long trip without  assurance to bring them back.
2/NASA has plans for Mars trip but hopes it will be cancel, because it will be safer for NASA reputation not to do risky human endeavor  and blame congress for canceling mission because the cost  overrun.
3/Boeing spacecraft will not force them go farther, and let them focus on unmanned probes.
4/Spacex is building real hardware to leave Earth orbit and build it cheap. I think it scares lot of folks in NASA management.
5/Boeing spacecraft is paper craft. Spacex is real hardware that will be launch this month.
6/If Pad abort and January inflight abort will be successful, Spacex will have system ready to flight in February 2015.
7/If Boeing to start build today they will have something in 2-3 years.
8/Strange that NASA prefer paper before real hardware flying and testing.

Also odd that the only other conmpetator, who actually has a flight tested article, (Although not into orbit yet) was the one who got shafted, as Boeing has mockups, but no real flight testable article.

Hmmm, could it be possible that Boeing focused on what was critical to advance the program and not a test that looked cool (and admittedly captured a lot of people's imagination) but maybe not as critical to achieving their goal?  And which, if people will recall did not end well.  And recall one of the milestones of CCDev2 was to test the landing gear.  So what confidence does that provide? 

Offline mkent

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 118
  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #264 on: 10/15/2014 12:36 am »
You will not find such project.

I found ten (maybe 12).

You must be using some definition of "on budget" that the rest of us are not privy to. Boeing and Lockheed wouldn't agree with your list, they regularly talk about the losses they took on some of those projects for going overbudget.

If you disagree with my list, then name a program on that list that is over budget.  I bet you can't (except for the ones I weaseled with a "believe.")

Hint: Most of these, if not all of them, were firm, fixed-price contracts.

Edited to add hint (and to test the editing process).
« Last Edit: 10/15/2014 01:09 am by mkent »

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #265 on: 10/15/2014 12:37 am »

Also odd that the only other conmpetator, who actually has a flight tested article, (Although not into orbit yet) was the one who got shafted, as Boeing has mockups, but no real flight testable article.

Wrong.  Boeing did parachute drops.  Just drop the bias, SNC is way behind Boeing.

.. of a Styrofoam and plywood mockup. Don't forget, their subcontractor also dropped it off the back of a pickup truck to test the airbags. Soooo much more impressive than a glide test.

I assume you are being facetious, but it was a full boilerplate, not plywood.

Offline mkent

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 118
  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #266 on: 10/15/2014 12:40 am »
Also odd that the only other conmpetator, who actually has a flight tested article, (Although not into orbit yet) was the one who got shafted, as Boeing has mockups, but no real flight testable article.

Hmmm, could it be possible that Boeing focused on what was critical to advance the program and not a test that looked cool (and admittedly captured a lot of people's imagination) but maybe not as critical to achieving their goal?  And which, if people will recall did not end well.  And recall one of the milestones of CCDev2 was to test the landing gear.  So what confidence does that provide?

Exactly.  The purpose of the CCiCap contract was to take an integrated crew launch / return capability through CDR.  That's exactly what Boeing did and their competitors did not by the the time of contract award.  SpaceX almost did, which is why they got the second award.

Offline raketa

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #267 on: 10/15/2014 12:44 am »
You are right,but tell me any big old company(Boeing, Lockheed,.ATK,..) got it project from NASA and defense budget and was done on budget.

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
E/A-18G Growler
C-17 Globemaster III for the last 20 years modified YC-15
CH-47F Chinook
AH-64 Block III Apache
JDAM
SDB
Atlas V
Delta IV Heavy
WGS

I believe these were as well:

GPS IIF
TDRS

You will not find such project.

I found ten (maybe 12).
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet ... modified F18(not new airplane)
E/A-18G Growler           ... modified F18(not new airplane)
C-17 Globemaster III for the last 20 years, modify YC-15
CH-47F Chinook was not develop in last 35 years
AH-64 Block III Apache..upgrade of original vehicle(not new aircraft)
JDAM..not aircraft, dumb munition
SDB...not aircraft, dumb munition
Atlas V...... cost launch is more than was promise
Delta IV Heavy...... cost launch is more than was promise
WGS...not aircraft,
GPS IIF..upgraded GPS satellite
TDRS.. it was upgrade satellite for NASA purposes
Even if you find some example ratio will be at least 10 overruns for 1 program une budget.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #268 on: 10/15/2014 12:45 am »
I assume you are being facetious, but it was a full boilerplate, not plywood.

Actually no. I know the people who did it. They've made no secret of the fact that it was just a mockup. Boeing has yet to build an integrated vehicle. I keep asking for people who think Boeing has done more than component level testing to show us some evidence but they haven't so far. They certainly haven't been paid for any such work yet under a NASA contract.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline raketa

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #269 on: 10/15/2014 12:47 am »

You are right,but tell me any big old company(Boeing, Lockheed,.ATK,..) got it project from NASA and defense budget and was done on budget. You will not find such project. 

You are very mistaken and must be overlooking data that greatly conflicts with your incorrect statement.
give me at least one new aircraft or spacecraft they deliver under original budget, I gave my list and if have time I will give very long list.  Please make facts decide merit.

Offline Atomic Walrus

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #270 on: 10/15/2014 01:02 am »
What was the last complex new aerospace vehicle built by anybody that was delivered on time and on budget?  You've been presented with a list of projects that Boeing has completed on time and budget, which under any reasonable standard represents a degree of competency in engineering management.  How do SpaceX and SNC fare under your standard?

Offline raketa

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #271 on: 10/15/2014 01:09 am »
3/Boeing spacecraft will not force them go farther, and let them focus on unmanned probes.
4/Spacex is building real hardware to leave Earth orbit and build it cheap. I think it scares lot of folks in NASA management.
5/Boeing spacecraft is paper craft. Spacex is real hardware that will be launch this month.
6/If Pad abort and January inflight abort will be successful, Spacex will have system ready to flight in February 2015.
7/If Boeing to start build today they will have something in 2-3 years.
8/Strange that NASA prefer paper before real hardware flying and testing.

3/ Boeing's CST-100 is nearly as capable BLEO as SpaceX's Dragon 2.  The only difference is Dragon 2's thicker heat shield, which is irrelevant to the CCtCap contract.  Boeing could easily thicken the heat shield on the CST-100 were it not for the dead weight and the fact that it's completely unnecessary.

4/ Both Dragon 2 and CST-100 will need significant (and almost identical) modifications to go BLEO.

5/ Boeing's design has passed CDR, something SpaceX's design has yet to do.  Sierra Nevada's design is years away from that milestone.  That puts Boeing ahead of SpaceX and Sierra Nevada in this competition.  SpaceX has no plans to launch anything this month.

6/ No, it will not.  Elon Musk himself has stated that Dragon 2 won't take its first manned flight until late 2016, though he said with the usual delays it may slip to mid 2017.

7/ Mid 2017 is the same time as Boeing.

8/ Boeing has tested more real hardware than Sierra Nevada.  Sierra had one flight of their Engineering Test Article to test its landing characteristics, and that ended badly.  They are now about 1-1/2 years late on their additional flight tests.  Boeing, meanwhile, completed their landing tests years ago.  They are the only one of the three competitors to have done so.

Boeing completed all of its milestones and did so on time.  That's why they won and why they were rated the highest by NASA.
3/...
heat shield, which is irrelevant to the CCtCap contract.  Boeing could easily thicken the heat shield on the CST-100 were it not for the dead weight and the fact that it's completely unnecessary.
They will testing power landing  in every landing event . Great exercise for Mars landing

4/ Both Dragon 2 and CST-100 will need significant (and almost identical) modifications to go BLEO.
Purpose of these spacecraft is not to fly 100 days and keep crew alive, but to land on Earth and on Mars. To keep alive crew on the way will be something more fit for that purpose, something like Bigelow modules.

5/ Boeing's design has passed CDR, something SpaceX's design has yet to do.  Sierra Nevada's design is years away from that milestone.  That puts Boeing ahead of SpaceX and Sierra Nevada in this competition.  SpaceX has no plans to launch anything this month.
What is better CDR or real hardware flying and testing capabilities?

6/ No, it will not.  Elon Musk himself has stated that Dragon 2 won't take its first manned flight until late 2016, though he said with the usual delays it may slip to mid 2017.
I said if inflight aboard will be successfully, the could fly Dragon 2 any day, if Falcon 9 available.

7/ Mid 2017 is the same time as Boeing.
If Boeing plan 2017, my calculated ration for their slip will be 2019.

8/ Boeing has tested more real hardware than Sierra Nevada.  Sierra had one flight of their Engineering Test Article to test its landing characteristics, and that ended badly.  They are now about 1-1/2 years late on their additional flight tests.  Boeing, meanwhile, completed their landing tests years ago.  They are the only one of the three competitors to have done so.
Landing of mockup you try to compare landing real hardware?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #272 on: 10/15/2014 01:10 am »
There was never going to be a CC winner that “didn’t” have the name Boeing on it...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #273 on: 10/15/2014 01:11 am »

give me at least one new aircraft or spacecraft they deliver under original budget, I gave my list a

Your list is bogus and wrong, so why should I bother?  Your mind is made up and facts won't change it.  You really don't know what you are talking about.
« Last Edit: 10/15/2014 01:13 am by Jim »

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #274 on: 10/15/2014 01:11 am »

Boeing completed all of its milestones and did so on time.  That's why they won and why they were rated the highest by NASA.

To be fair we don't know who was rated highest since we haven't seen the complete report which would show the overall scoring.  What has been partially leaked is more of the subjective parts like management competence etc.  I say partially because it seems like the leaks seem to be center around the subjective parts which leads me to believe that either Boeing or someone aligned with Boeing is doing the leaking.  SpaceX has been unusually quiet as this process unfolds. However the overall scoring would also take into account pricing.  I have not seen anything released that shows how pricing impacts the scoring.  Some people have interpreted that because Boeing got more money they won, which isn't really the case with this type of contract.   
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #275 on: 10/15/2014 01:12 am »
What was the last complex new aerospace vehicle built by anybody that was delivered on time and on budget?  You've been presented with a list of projects that Boeing has completed on time and budget, which under any reasonable standard represents a degree of competency in engineering management.  How do SpaceX and SNC fare under your standard?

Welcome to the forum!

No-one is making this claim about SpaceX or SNC. They are making the claim about Boeing, as the primary reason why they were chosen over SNC. Apparently it's even non-controversial enough to be written into an official NASA document intended for public consumption. Doesn't seem too unreasonable to ask for a relevant example or two. That list of projects is, as I've already said, not even something Boeing with agree with, let alone relevant. If the Delta IV is anything to go by, and it's probably the most relevant example here as the same subcontractor/subsidiary is involved, we can expect a double blowout in budget, significant schedule slip and perhaps a corporate espionage case.
 
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #276 on: 10/15/2014 01:13 am »
There was never going to be a CC winner that “didn’t” have the name Boeing on it...

Unsubstantiated

Offline raketa

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #277 on: 10/15/2014 01:15 am »
What was the last complex new aerospace vehicle built by anybody that was delivered on time and on budget?  You've been presented with a list of projects that Boeing has completed on time and budget, which under any reasonable standard represents a degree of competency in engineering management.  How do SpaceX and SNC fare under your standard?
There is no aerospace project deliver on time. But we have two spacecraft Cygnus and Dragon deliver on budget.
Could you imagine if Boeing/Lockheed/.... will be solo contender, they will ask NASA for billions more and we will probably still not have commercial vehicle for ISS at this time.

Offline raketa

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #278 on: 10/15/2014 01:17 am »

give me at least one new aircraft or spacecraft they deliver under original budget, I gave my list a

Your list is bogus and wrong, so why should I bother?  Your mind is made up and facts won't change it.  You really don't know what you are talking about.
Show me facts and save the word of condemnation.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #279 on: 10/15/2014 01:19 am »

There is no aerospace project deliver on time.

False, there are many on that list.
« Last Edit: 10/15/2014 01:20 am by Jim »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0