Quote from: llanitedave on 01/21/2015 12:37 amIt's tough for me to argue with that decision!I don't argue with the decision as much as the structure of this program. Seems to me Sierra Nevada never had a realistic chance, so why did we throw away money on a charade that was destined to lead HL-20 to yet another dead end?
It's tough for me to argue with that decision!
why did we throw away money on a charade
I don't argue with the decision as much as the structure of this program. Seems to me Sierra Nevada never had a realistic chance, so why did we throw away money on a charade that was destined to lead HL-20 to yet another dead end?
Quote from: vt_hokie on 01/21/2015 02:56 amI don't argue with the decision as much as the structure of this program. Seems to me Sierra Nevada never had a realistic chance, so why did we throw away money on a charade that was destined to lead HL-20 to yet another dead end?As has been said innumerable times before, if Boeing or SpaceX hadn't executed as well as they did, then Sierra Nevada would definitely have had a chance. It's easy to look back in hindsight after Boeing and SpaceX got where they did and say it was a waste. But you're just applying hindsight.
Quote from: abaddon on 01/21/2015 01:52 pmQuote from: vt_hokie on 01/21/2015 02:56 amI don't argue with the decision as much as the structure of this program. Seems to me Sierra Nevada never had a realistic chance, so why did we throw away money on a charade that was destined to lead HL-20 to yet another dead end?As has been said innumerable times before, if Boeing or SpaceX hadn't executed as well as they did, then Sierra Nevada would definitely have had a chance. It's easy to look back in hindsight after Boeing and SpaceX got where they did and say it was a waste. But you're just applying hindsight.I知 going to repeat myself one final time and put this to rest... The CST-100 should have been flying before wheels stop of STS-135. The CC competition should have been open to new players in the field who have never fielded a spacecraft before, thus jump-starting a new industry sector... This was all bogus...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 01/21/2015 02:18 pmQuote from: abaddon on 01/21/2015 01:52 pmQuote from: vt_hokie on 01/21/2015 02:56 amI don't argue with the decision as much as the structure of this program. Seems to me Sierra Nevada never had a realistic chance, so why did we throw away money on a charade that was destined to lead HL-20 to yet another dead end?As has been said innumerable times before, if Boeing or SpaceX hadn't executed as well as they did, then Sierra Nevada would definitely have had a chance. It's easy to look back in hindsight after Boeing and SpaceX got where they did and say it was a waste. But you're just applying hindsight.I知 going to repeat myself one final time and put this to rest... The CST-100 should have been flying before wheels stop of STS-135. The CC competition should have been open to new players in the field who have never fielded a spacecraft before, thus jump-starting a new industry sector... This was all bogus...Huh? You are contradicting yourself. You demand that CST-100 should have been flying years ago (basically pre-ordaining Boeing as NASA contractror) yet you say the competition should have been opened to new entrants. (But if Boeing was to win, why?) You can't have it both ways.
Quote from: Lars-J on 01/21/2015 07:41 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 01/21/2015 02:18 pmQuote from: abaddon on 01/21/2015 01:52 pmQuote from: vt_hokie on 01/21/2015 02:56 amI don't argue with the decision as much as the structure of this program. Seems to me Sierra Nevada never had a realistic chance, so why did we throw away money on a charade that was destined to lead HL-20 to yet another dead end?As has been said innumerable times before, if Boeing or SpaceX hadn't executed as well as they did, then Sierra Nevada would definitely have had a chance. It's easy to look back in hindsight after Boeing and SpaceX got where they did and say it was a waste. But you're just applying hindsight.I知 going to repeat myself one final time and put this to rest... The CST-100 should have been flying before wheels stop of STS-135. The CC competition should have been open to new players in the field who have never fielded a spacecraft before, thus jump-starting a new industry sector... This was all bogus...Huh? You are contradicting yourself. You demand that CST-100 should have been flying years ago (basically pre-ordaining Boeing as NASA contractror) yet you say the competition should have been opened to new entrants. (But if Boeing was to win, why?) You can't have it both ways.It would have given NASA assured access to ISS replacing that Ares-1 nightmare... Any industry incentive to spur new entrants would be for follow on vehicles without such tight time constraints till scheduled end of ISS. Or do you prefer what we got 9B on Ares and money still being sent to Russia for their good graces? Anyway, I知 done with this...
No, of course I don't prefer Ares. That would be a dark timeline. :) No, I'm just pointing out that NASA already having CST-100 at Shuttle Retirement would give it much less chance of actually funding a commercial crew program at all. If CC currently has a hard time getting funded by Congress, it's chances in such a timeline would be far less.
I’m going to repeat myself one final time and put this to rest... The CST-100 should have been flying before wheels stop of STS-135. The CC competition should have been open to new players in the field who have never fielded a spacecraft before, thus jump-starting a new industry sector... This was all bogus...
Folks, this thread is about SNC Dream Chaser, not Orion, nor CST-100. Shall we stick to the subject of this thread please?Thank you.
Quote from: woods170 on 01/23/2015 09:15 amFolks, this thread is about SNC Dream Chaser, not Orion, nor CST-100. Shall we stick to the subject of this thread please?Thank you.No problem.So, what's the latest news from SNC? Are they still going to try to sell the full scale DreamChaser or go with only the 75% version?It'd be a shame to see them give up now after all their work, on the full sized bird. After all, one could augment the other, especially once the Bigelow Stations start coming on line. (NASA's already discussing their use for ISS v2).
Dream Chaser's fighting spirit paid off for CRS-2!! So much for the naysayers...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 01/25/2016 12:56 pmDream Chaser's fighting spirit paid off for CRS-2!! So much for the naysayers... They said that the protest helped them figure out what was wrong with their CCtCap proposal and correct it for CRS2.