Boeing also play their cards close to their chest, after all the only people they really need to keep appraised of their progress is NASA not people on the internet.
Quote from: Star One on 10/03/2014 02:14 pmBoeing also play their cards close to their chest, after all the only people they really need to keep appraised of their progress is NASA not people on the internet.So.. you're suggesting that they've done work that isn't in the contracts now?That's pretty far fetched for Boeing.
Here's a list of Boeing's CST-100 milestones for CCiCap. I've said a number of times that Boeing has yet to build any integrated hardware or software systems. They've done component level hardware testing and software demonstrations for the ascent phase only. If anyone would care to dispute this, please do so by addressing the milestones. I'm happy to be wrong, but you have to show me.
Here's a list of Boeing's CST-100 milestones for CCiCap. I've said a number of times that Boeing has yet to build any integrated hardware or software systems. They've done component level hardware testing and software demonstrations for the ascent phase only.
If I was a billionaire and wanted to make a SAFE bet on success, I'd go with the company that's been stretching the realms of "possible" - and making a profit doing it! - since 1917.
Quote from: QuantumG on 10/03/2014 12:17 amHere's a list of Boeing's CST-100 milestones for CCiCap. I've said a number of times that Boeing has yet to build any integrated hardware or software systems. They've done component level hardware testing and software demonstrations for the ascent phase only.So? Boeing as an organization (even disregarding the former competitors they've absorbed over the last 25 or so years of American aerospace industry contraction) has successfully designed, built, tested, flown and sold at a profit many dozens - if not hundreds - of specific designs of aircraft and spacecraft systems for commercial and government operators. Of all the organizations around the world offering spaceflight services, they are the ones LEAST likely to eff it all up due to "unknown unknowns", especially with something as generally-conservative as a capsule design.Biplane aircraft? Check.Monoplane pursuit fighter? Check.Multi-engine monoplane transport? Check.Multi-engine piston bomber? Check and check.Turboprop bomber/transport/tanker? Check/check/check.Turbojet bomber? Check and check.Solid-fueled intercontinental ballistic missile program management? Check.Intercontinental multi-engine jet commercial transport? Check.Regional multi-engine jet commercial transport? Check.Permanently-manned low-Earth orbit space station design, construction and long-term operational management? Check, check and check.Kerolox heavy rocket booster stage? Check.Integration services and program management for heavy lunar-capable booster? Check.If I was a billionaire and wanted to make a SAFE bet on success, I'd go with the company that's been stretching the realms of "possible" - and making a profit doing it! - since 1917.
As to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.
An ascent abort demonstration originally planned using a third Atlas 5 rocket has been removed from the Boeing test manifest, according to Mulholland
Flawlessly creating powerpoint slides and Microsoft Word documents.
Perfection by moving the goalposts?
Also, they cancelled their in-flight abort all together
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 10/04/2014 03:55 amIf I was a billionaire and wanted to make a SAFE bet on success, I'd go with the company that's been stretching the realms of "possible" - and making a profit doing it! - since 1917.For me at least, I have no doubt that Boeing can build a safe, workable spacecraft. What they are capable of doing is not in dispute.
I agree. It's funny that the X-37 doesn't get mentioned much in spite of it being a Boeing project. And pretty cool!
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/04/2014 05:10 amAs to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.Yes, Boeing's CCiCap goals were more conservative. Yes, they got more money. However, Boeing's CCiCap execution was near faultless...
...with an arguable delay of a couple months (give or take): 22-25 months actual vs. 22-25 month original plan (depending on what and how you count). In the end Boeing did what they said they were going to do, and as importantly did it when they said they were going to do it. The same cannot be said of SpaceX or SNC, altho I'm sure both will eventually make good on their CCiCap milestones.