Only three years away! (and always will be?)
I'm hoping to see Blue Origin go suborbital soon, and I would be pleasantly surprised if the are the first to orbit a manned commercial spacecraft on their own booster.
I actually agree that is a good way forward. It does presuppose however that the non-chosen company wishes to continue. I would hope that they do so choose. If the commercial HSF program grows, all three will be needed. It would be a shame to see one or two fold up because they weren't chosen. They have all come so far, and I know that all three do have the financial where-with-all to continue without NASA funding.
I'll keep my eyes out for those dancing unicorns...
If the commercial HSF program grows, all three will be needed. It would be a shame to see one or two fold up because they weren't chosen.
Quote from: rcoppola on 08/18/2014 01:52 amI'll keep my eyes out for those dancing unicorns...That's an understandable PoV but consider BO have developed a 100 000lb LO2/LH2 engine.No one does that (especially the LH2 part) just as a pleasant diversion to pass away the afternoons. Something is in the works, the question is what (and when)?
I love the fact that you use Boeing's capsule as the thumbnail for that article *hint hint* lol.
I advise extreme caution when "hinting" at who is in and who is out. Wait for the announcement please, then we shall see.
It could be argued if you can only fund 1 then that should be Boeing, as they have had the most full awards and are least likely to continue on their own funding.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 08/18/2014 07:03 amQuote from: rcoppola on 08/18/2014 01:52 amI'll keep my eyes out for those dancing unicorns...That's an understandable PoV but consider BO have developed a 100 000lb LO2/LH2 engine.No one does that (especially the LH2 part) just as a pleasant diversion to pass away the afternoons. Something is in the works, the question is what (and when)?I've always found it curious that BO have felt the need to be so secretive about things, other than occasional public missives they really don't say much about their progress or otherwise.
In the end, they become as know to the general public as Sea Launch sad to say. Without manned flights, SpaceX looses it's appeal.
I didn't say Boeing would be interested in that. I agree they wouldn't be. They have stated quite clearly they have no intention of self-fundning this without a clear path to an ROI. Which they don't have without NASA.
I'm expecting SpaceX to be the odd man out. Boeing has flight heritage...
...and big lobbyists.
Sierra Nevada has wings and that's something NASA wants it seems.
That leaves SpaceX holding the bag.
Without manned flights, SpaceX looses it's appeal.
What flight heritage? The last spacecraft they designed and built was last century. I'd be surprised if any of those employees even work on the CST-100.
Interesting that you claim Boeing has some sort of flight heritage, but forget that SpaceX is the only contender flying human-rated and NASA certified spacecraft that they designed and built.
Not sure how it makes sense to reward the company that has received the most money but is the least committed to creating a critical service.
Quote from: mr. mark on 08/19/2014 01:33 amI'm expecting SpaceX to be the odd man out. Boeing has flight heritage...What flight heritage? The last spacecraft they designed and built was last century. I'd be surprised if any of those employees even work on the CST-100.Quote...and big lobbyists.You must be assuming that NASA awards contracts based on bribes? That technical merit and superior business models have no influence? If that were true then Boeing deserves to be chosen...QuoteSierra Nevada has wings and that's something NASA wants it seems.I do agree with that, and I think most of us want Sierra Nevada to get fully funded.QuoteThat leaves SpaceX holding the bag.Interesting that you claim Boeing has some sort of flight heritage, but forget that SpaceX is the only contender flying human-rated and NASA certified spacecraft that they designed and built.QuoteWithout manned flights, SpaceX looses it's appeal. Not sure if you've heard of this Elon Musk guy, and his goal to reach Mars? And how he is currently dominating the news without having flown any humans?
I am pretty sure Boeing will be one of the two. As for Elon Musk, a tiger's bite only hurts if he has teeth. Not many people are going to have Occupy Mars shirts if it takes SpaceX five years or more just to fly their capsule to orbit. Losing the NASA contract would be a HUGE blow to their plans. I think Musk is talking it down but, we all know how hard it would be to field a capsule without adequate funding from NASA.
I am pretty sure Boeing will be one of the two.
As for Elon Musk, a tiger's bite only hurts if he has teeth.
I'm expecting SpaceX to be the odd man out.
Boeing has flight heritage and big lobbyists.
Sierra Nevada has wings and that's something NASA wants it seems. That leaves SpaceX holding the bag. I am one of SpaceX's biggest supporters but, I'm not sure that this wind is blowing in their direction. If not, they'll stay busy with cargo, commercial satellite launches and reuse for now. In the end, they become as know to the general public as Sea Launch sad to say. Without manned flights, SpaceX looses it's appeal.
Haha, makes me think of when I tell people I worked for Loral and the usual response is, the cosmetics company?
And wouldn't the flip side of that be that NASA would be able to spend less to create the same level of service with one of the other competitors?
It is not human rated. It can be human occupied.
Quite wrong. X-37 and ISS and they did Shuttle sustaining engineering. They have quite a lot of experience. Not to mention leftovers from OSP and Spacehab.
So no actual capsule design experience for several decades but quite a lot of sub systems work?
If closing the 'gap' and stopping the $70M/seat payments are NASA (political) goals near the top of the list, wouldn't significant criteria be who will be ready first and cost the least? SpaceX seems to win in both categories, and has a really nice pad being developed at the Cape to ice the deal. Not a great time for a NASA slapdown/footshot by selecting all but SpaceX.
Boeing has expressed doubts about moving forward if they are not selected. SNC will probably move forward if not selected, but probably needs the money more than SpaceX. SpaceX has stated they are moving forward no matter what happens.
If a NASA long term goal is to maximize competition to create a variety of capabilities and across the board cost reduction, wouldn't SpaceX be the obvious one to drop if NASA can't take all three forward?
Quote from: Scylla on 08/19/2014 04:57 pmIf a NASA long term goal is to maximize competition to create a variety of capabilities and across the board cost reduction, wouldn't SpaceX be the obvious one to drop if NASA can't take all three forward?Not sure I understand your logic.
IOW's Dragon 1 has cracked the core issues of building a vehicle solid enough and safe enough to be coupled to the ISS for the standard period of time. I'm sure Boeing and SNC can be made to do so also but the fact remains they have not done so yet.
TBH that sounds like they are on an equal footing with SNC, without the flight tests.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 08/19/2014 05:22 pmQuote from: Scylla on 08/19/2014 04:57 pmIf a NASA long term goal is to maximize competition to create a variety of capabilities and across the board cost reduction, wouldn't SpaceX be the obvious one to drop if NASA can't take all three forward?Not sure I understand your logic.Scylla's point was that if SpX is the most willing to continue without funding, then NASA could get that bit of competition for "free" if it funds the other two companies instead.
Quote from: dcporter on 08/19/2014 05:32 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 08/19/2014 05:22 pmQuote from: Scylla on 08/19/2014 04:57 pmIf a NASA long term goal is to maximize competition to create a variety of capabilities and across the board cost reduction, wouldn't SpaceX be the obvious one to drop if NASA can't take all three forward?Not sure I understand your logic.Scylla's point was that if SpX is the most willing to continue without funding, then NASA could get that bit of competition for "free" if it funds the other two companies instead.That would encourage companies not to put any skin in the game. For CCtCap, NASA has specifically stated that putting skin in the game would be considered a positive.
Actually, Boeing has essentially said recently that it would continue its program at least until CRS2 is awarded:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1244429#msg1244429
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/19/2014 05:32 pmActually, Boeing has essentially said recently that it would continue its program at least until CRS2 is awarded:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1244429#msg1244429A few points.Hinted rather than said outright I think from that article.It pre-dates the AWST article saying the business case would be difficult.
Will the launch vehicle(s) be specified in the awards?
I see it this way:A. Dream Chaser + Dragon = 2 different launch vehicles and 2 different spacecraft types with unique advantagesB. Dragon + CST-100 = 2 different launch vehicles but both vehicles are capsules that don't provide cross-range and low g-force advantages of the Dream ChaserC. Dream Chaser + CST-100 = 1 launch vehicle and 2 different spacecraft types with unique advantagesSo for the most redundancy in launch vehicles "A & B" would be the choices, and for the most diversity in generic vehicle abilities "A & C" would be the choices. The best combination of the two would be "A", which is Dream Chaser and Dragon.No doubt other factors play into the ultimate decision, but I think this highlights some of the important ones.
Likelier to put _cautious_ bet on SNC in CCtCap than whether SpaceX or Boeing wins other contract. Dream Chaser a 'fan favorite' at NASA/ULA
CCtCap: Boeing CST-100 called 'simpler' - but a "powerpoint tiger?:" SpaceX way ahead on design and test of real hardware for Dragon V2.
Conflicting reports tonight - CCtCap announcement on 22 August or slip to September for Congress notification requirements./I ask:or other?
Forgive a non-US person for not knowing what the process is. Assume for a moment that the NASA public announcement is the end of this week.Is the NASA public announcement the first time anyone outside of NASA (and the hill) gets to hear who has been selected, or would the relevant companies already have confidential/embargoed briefings?
CCtCap announcement: Contractors will get 2 day warning of the event tho not of the results. So should hear if in Aug by end of Weds.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/26/2014 11:57 amForgive a non-US person for not knowing what the process is. Assume for a moment that the NASA public announcement is the end of this week.Is the NASA public announcement the first time anyone outside of NASA (and the hill) gets to hear who has been selected, or would the relevant companies already have confidential/embargoed briefings?Not a US person either, but somewhere else on this forum somebody mentioned that the relevant companies find out during the public announcement. Apparently part of the application process involves compiling all the necessary paperwork so that only NASA signatures are needed to finalize the contract. That's the way I understood it anyway.No idea if Congress or the White House are in the loop. They might unofficially know, but there's probably some impartiality/separation of powers required that keeps them away. Just shooting from the hip here, to see if I can provoke a better-informed reply.
Unless very tightly controlled, notifying Congress and the WH will leak this info. It won't go public, but whispers will get out. If sufficiently plugged-in, the contractors will know prior to the formal announcement.
When I was reading this discussion, I was remembering watching this same video on television and to me it was obvious that both companies knew in advance who would win. Starting at 42:00, the winning company had a large number of smiling employees in a big open area ready to celebrate and the other had two unhappy looking executives sitting in a small conference room. They knew, although it may have been unofficial.
Heck, we're already getting leaks, and we have no financial stakes in the outcome...
Big differences between leaks and rumors. One has to consider where the whispers are coming from and what agendas are at work. And if it is all so obvious, why is an announcement still pending, nearly two weeks after some leakers called it all over for their favorite contender. Even that message has morphed, which generally would lend more doubt to its veracity. And why are all parties still talking, lobbying as if the contest is still on? Leakers and rumormongers often are persons who want to "prove" they are in the know...and often aren't. They just like being considered "insiders." And some real insiders leak falsities to try to influence the real outcome, or position themselves to claim unsavory influences "changed" the outcome away from a merit selection.
Dragon V2 update:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parachutes-landing/
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 08/28/2014 02:52 pmDragon V2 update:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parachutes-landing/Great read Chris, thanks!
Quote from: robertross on 08/28/2014 03:21 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 08/28/2014 02:52 pmDragon V2 update:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/dragon-v2-rely-parachutes-landing/Great read Chris, thanks!Mr. Bergin often doesn't like to give complete sources on his articles. here is one source on this article. http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Reisman_8-27-14/Reisman.mp3
noted the former Shuttle astronaut to Future In-Space Operations (FISO) Working Group this week.
Heads up: policy sites are reporting the budget CR may be delayed due to Obama's request for "War on IS" funding.
Quote from: docmordrid on 09/11/2014 10:36 pmHeads up: policy sites are reporting the budget CR may be delayed due to Obama's request for "War on IS" funding.Just to remind folks.... that may, or may not, have nothing to do with the delays. IMHO, I suspect it does because I think NASA's selection is likely that the number picked is based on money available. With NASA maximizing number despite the reality of the money.
Agree, although I would note that CCtCap selection has implications well beyond this CR and for the next several years). While current budget issues may have an impact on CCtCap award timing, I hope and expect that it has little bearing on the actual awards.CCtCap as written does not allow for fractional awards. On CCtCap award, each CCtCap awardee is committed to complete certification, and guaranteed a minimum of two post-certification ISS crew flights.* On CCtCap award, NASA is committed to funding every awardee through certification and a minimum of two post-certification ISS crew flights.** Assuming the awardee wants those flights.
Quote from: docmordrid on 09/11/2014 10:36 pmHeads up: policy sites are reporting the budget CR may be delayed due to Obama's request for "War on IS" funding.Just to remind folks.... that may, or may not, have nothing to do with the delays.IMHO, I suspect it does because I think NASA's selection is likely that the number picked is based on money available. With NASA maximizing number despite the reality of the money.
Here is the text of the CR released by the House a few hours ago. I don't see anything specific to NASA (other than the fact that spending levels will remain the same as FY 2014):http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140908/BILLS-113hjres124-IH.pdfHere is a summary:http://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=392934See also this article:http://thehill.com/policy/finance/217198-house-spending-chief-unveils-clean-plan-to-avoid-government-shutdown
NASA SpX-4 advisory says "NASA senior leaders will host a briefing Sept. 19 at 9 a.m." Could be about the CRS mission… or something else?
Since the launch is now the 20th, and this says "senior leaders"... seems plausible. OTOH the launch is really early in the morning on the 20th, so maybe not.I hope it is CCtCAP announcement, waiting is getting really dull.
Reads more like payload discussion panels on the 18th and 19th,
You could still have one company that gets more money and another one that gets less funding. You would just have to adjust the timeline.
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/12/2014 08:00 pmYou could still have one company that gets more money and another one that gets less funding. You would just have to adjust the timeline.There is no provision in CCtCap for "less funding [for less performance]" for one company vs. another, or for one company receiving "more money [for more performance]" than another. All CCtCap awardees will and must receive funding sufficient to achieve certification+ and will be obligated to do so [perform equally].edit: clarify "performance".
The performance would be the same for both companies but the timeline would be different (e.g., 2017 for the first crewed flight for one company but 2019 for the other). In any case, according to Charles Lurio, two fully funded companies will be selected.
By the sme token, NASA will be obligated to fund all CCtCap awardees through cerifiation+. CCtCap does not allow for anything less.
@TheLurioReport Yet another item: Supposedly someone saw a poster just delivered KSC re CCtCap - included SNC/SpaceX, not Boeing. But I advise caution.
Boeing Co. appears positioned to beat out two smaller rivals for the bulk of a multibillion-dollar NASA contract to ferry astronauts to and from orbit, according to government and aerospace-industry officials.
And the WSJ is reporting that "Boeing Takes Lead to Build Space Taxi." It is from Andy Pasztor, so also take it with a grain of salt.http://online.wsj.com/articles/boeing-takes-lead-to-build-space-taxi-1410820865QuoteBoeing Co. appears positioned to beat out two smaller rivals for the bulk of a multibillion-dollar NASA contract to ferry astronauts to and from orbit, according to government and aerospace-industry officials.
Recent signals from the Obama administration, according to the officials, indicate that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's leadership has concluded on a preliminary basis that Boeing's proposed capsule offers the least risky option, as well as the one most likely to be ready to transport U.S. crews to the international space station within three years.
Could anyone with WSJ website access condense the main points in that article? ^
Quote from: RedLineTrain on 09/15/2014 10:57 pmAnd the WSJ is reporting that "Boeing Takes Lead to Build Space Taxi." It is from Andy Pasztor, so also take it with a grain of salt.http://online.wsj.com/articles/boeing-takes-lead-to-build-space-taxi-1410820865QuoteBoeing Co. appears positioned to beat out two smaller rivals for the bulk of a multibillion-dollar NASA contract to ferry astronauts to and from orbit, according to government and aerospace-industry officials.The quote I find the most interesting is:"The officials cautioned that a last-minute shift by NASA chief Charles Bolden, who must vet the decision, could change the result of the closely watched competition."Seems like Andy Pasztor is setting up a scenario that if Boeing doesn't win it's because of political intervention, not because Boeing is not the better choice. Nice job Andy, nice job.Also, Mr. Pasztor included this comment that I thought was pretty funny:"For virtually the first time in its history, NASA is also seeking to reduce risk and keep a lid on prices by maintaining competition involving a major program."Sure there is truth to it, but it's just funny that it has to be mentioned as the exception, and not the rule.
Interviews with numerous space experts from industry, government and elsewhere—all of whom have been monitoring developments closely—reveal a growing consensus that Boeing is likely to emerge as the big winner to develop and operate the nation's replacement for the space-shuttle fleet, which was retired in 2011.
One of the two other bidders—SpaceX or Sierra Nevada Corp.—is expected to obtain a smaller contract as a second source, these experts said. SpaceX is in a very strong position to get the nod, the experts added.
Going on record here before the awards that of the three competitors, Boeing is the least deserving to win. It has put the smallest amount of its own money into the project, preferring instead to let the USGov pay for the lion's share of its "Commercial" Crew entry. The other two both committed much more of their own money, demonstrating a much greater commitment to the project than Boeing. 1. SNC brings a spacecraft to the table that is a true successor to Shuttle, with enormous cross range and far gentler re-entry g-stress. It is the only entry that is capable of returning payload or persons who desperately require a "gentle" return.2. SpaceX brings a spacecraft that is actually designed for BEO missions but is capable of LEO service without wasting any of its true capabilities. It introduces a completely powered descent and landing, a true innovation. It also is capable of actually landing on both the lunar and Martian surfaces.3. Boeing brings a spacecraft that is essentially an upgraded Apollo with air bag landing, its only innovative contribution. While all three would be capable of providing crew rotation to the ISS, only Boeing has said that its Business Plan cannot close without a CCtCap win. That makes it the weaker of the three financially. Boeing's CST-100 is also the only entry that has not "flown". SpaceX's Dragon is actually providing cargo services to the ISS and DreamChaser has had an actual flight test, although unpowered. It has however, already paid for and scheduled its 1st space launch on an Atlas-V. Boeing has yet to show that level of commitment.
I would also like to know the names of those "experts".
Going on record here before the awards that of the three competitors, Boeing is the least deserving to win. It has put the smallest amount of its own money into the project, preferring instead to let the USGov pay for the lion's share of its "Commercial" Crew entry. The other two both committed much more of their own money, demonstrating a much greater commitment to the project than Boeing.
Quote from: clongton on 09/15/2014 11:18 pmGoing on record here before the awards that of the three competitors, Boeing is the least deserving to win. It has put the smallest amount of its own money into the project, preferring instead to let the USGov pay for the lion's share of its "Commercial" Crew entry. The other two both committed much more of their own money, demonstrating a much greater commitment to the project than Boeing. ---------------------I won't weigh in on the merits of any of the partners, but I will make something clear. You folks have no idea how much any of the companies have really put in. None.
I won't weigh in on the merits of any of the partners, but I will make something clear. You folks have no idea how much any of the companies have really put in. None.
So who has veto over Charlie and is going to use it??
Quote from: Rocket Science on 09/16/2014 12:06 amSo who has veto over Charlie and is going to use it??He doesn't have veto power. He is not the selecting officer.
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/16/2014 01:41 amQuote from: Rocket Science on 09/16/2014 12:06 amSo who has veto over Charlie and is going to use it??He doesn't have veto power. He is not the selecting officer.From that WSJ article:"The officials cautioned that a last-minute shift by NASA chief Charles Bolden, who must vet the decision, could change the result of the closely watched competition."So what does that mean?
This might be why Boeing would be presumed by WSJ, etc., to be the leader in the competition."Boeing is the first, and thus far only one of the three competitors (including Sierra Nevada Corp. and SpaceX) to complete all their assigned milestone task requirements under NASA’s Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative funded under the auspices of the agency’s Commercial Crew Program."http://www.universetoday.com/114097/boeing-completes-all-cst-100-commercial-crew-ccicap-milestones-on-time-and-on-budget-for-nasa-ahead-of-competitors/ - Ed Kyle
That would be because a lot of Boeing's milestones were "studies" and "reports". Boeing did not push the envelope one iota. Both SpaceX and SNC on the other hand selected milestones that were much harder and have nearly completed them all, putting their programs, in my opinion, much further ahead than Boeing. So many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.
It means that Pasztor is making up stuff again.
Charles Lurio writes: "Companies will be told results tomorrow morning; public announcement likely to follow shortly after."https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/511637156746768384Edit: Added link
So many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.
Quote from: clongton on 09/16/2014 01:56 amSo many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements.
The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 02:05 amQuote from: clongton on 09/16/2014 01:56 amSo many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements. Sure. In the concrete form of actual hardware assembled from actual legacy systems.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/16/2014 02:16 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 02:05 amQuote from: clongton on 09/16/2014 01:56 amSo many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements. Sure. In the concrete form of actual hardware assembled from actual legacy systems.Boeing, and the others, completed hardware testing milestones and critical design reviews, but only Boeing completed all of its milestones. That could be important tomorrow, but we'll see. I'm guessing two winners. http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20140912-ccicap-milestone-list.html - Ed Kyle
Sorry if this is obvious to others, I'm just curious.
Where does it say in the CCtCap selection criteria that CCiCap milestone completion is a metric that will be part of the evaluation?
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 04:09 amQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/16/2014 02:16 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 02:05 amQuote from: clongton on 09/16/2014 01:56 amSo many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements. Sure. In the concrete form of actual hardware assembled from actual legacy systems.Boeing, and the others, completed hardware testing milestones and critical design reviews, but only Boeing completed all of its milestones. That could be important tomorrow, but we'll see. I'm guessing two winners. http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20140912-ccicap-milestone-list.html - Ed KyleBut the milestones are different for each. Isn't this apples to oranges, then?For example, two of the incomplete SpaceX milestones are Pad Abort and In-Flight Abort.Those are not listed on the Boeing or SNC milestone list.Given that these are some of the most significant tests/validations of a manned system, how can the milestones list be used as an apples to apples comparison?Sorry if this is obvious to others, I'm just curious.
How about this? Only one CCtCap award and that goes to Boeing or Sierra Nevada.SpaceX as the clear fronrunner gets a contract outside CCtCap limitations for fasttracking crew to the ISS? Conceivable?
Quote from: AS-503 on 09/16/2014 04:25 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 04:09 amQuote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/16/2014 02:16 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 02:05 amQuote from: clongton on 09/16/2014 01:56 amSo many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements. Sure. In the concrete form of actual hardware assembled from actual legacy systems.Boeing, and the others, completed hardware testing milestones and critical design reviews, but only Boeing completed all of its milestones. That could be important tomorrow, but we'll see. I'm guessing two winners. http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20140912-ccicap-milestone-list.html - Ed KyleBut the milestones are different for each. Isn't this apples to oranges, then?For example, two of the incomplete SpaceX milestones are Pad Abort and In-Flight Abort.Those are not listed on the Boeing or SNC milestone list.Given that these are some of the most significant tests/validations of a manned system, how can the milestones list be used as an apples to apples comparison?Sorry if this is obvious to others, I'm just curious.Competitors entered CCiCAP on the basis that their milestones would take them substantially towards the final system. NASA would not have accepted them into the programme unless they agreed that those milestones would achieve that.
Quote from: guckyfan on 09/16/2014 07:42 amHow about this? Only one CCtCap award and that goes to Boeing or Sierra Nevada. SpaceX as the clear fronrunner gets a contract outside CCtCap limitations for fasttracking crew to the ISS? Conceivable?No, not conceivable. It's illegal for NASA to give SpaceX an uncompeted award. CCtCap was a competition open to anyone who wanted to bid.
How about this? Only one CCtCap award and that goes to Boeing or Sierra Nevada. SpaceX as the clear fronrunner gets a contract outside CCtCap limitations for fasttracking crew to the ISS? Conceivable?
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 09/16/2014 10:50 amQuote from: guckyfan on 09/16/2014 07:42 amHow about this? Only one CCtCap award and that goes to Boeing or Sierra Nevada. SpaceX as the clear fronrunner gets a contract outside CCtCap limitations for fasttracking crew to the ISS? Conceivable?No, not conceivable. It's illegal for NASA to give SpaceX an uncompeted award. CCtCap was a competition open to anyone who wanted to bid.Simple. NASA puts out a separate Request for Bid for emergency crewed access to the ISS with a crewed demonstration flight to ISS 12 months from the date of the award. Everybody that wants to gets to take a shot at it.
Wow...so that turned as I expected and not as all the polls on various Space websites thought...
A space plane's day will come. imo
Quote from: Darkseraph on 09/16/2014 09:15 pmWow...so that turned as I expected and not as all the polls on various Space websites thought...I don't know if that warrants a smiley. But let's keep this discussion on-topic; what will happen to SNC now? Various predictions seen across the 2 threads discussing / updates on the rewards:-SNC will have the option to bid later on, after initial service contracts are up for renewal-SNC will continue to work on Dream Chaser on a slower pace-and that might end in final cancellation after a drawn-out battle. Or not.What seems likely?
Quote from: Silmfeanor on 09/16/2014 09:19 pmQuote from: Darkseraph on 09/16/2014 09:15 pmWow...so that turned as I expected and not as all the polls on various Space websites thought...I don't know if that warrants a smiley. But let's keep this discussion on-topic; what will happen to SNC now? Various predictions seen across the 2 threads discussing / updates on the rewards:-SNC will have the option to bid later on, after initial service contracts are up for renewal-SNC will continue to work on Dream Chaser on a slower pace-and that might end in final cancellation after a drawn-out battle. Or not.What seems likely?Oh, I means Boeing is a kind of boring choice, but it sounded like the more likely one. Most people were stridently predicting SpaceX and SNC because that's who they wanted to see win rather than what was actually likely. I feel good to have gone with my head instead of my heart in predictions.I feel bad for Dreamchaser...I'm not sure how they can continue it without NASA as a customer.
Quote from: Darkseraph on 09/16/2014 10:52 pmQuote from: Silmfeanor on 09/16/2014 09:19 pmQuote from: Darkseraph on 09/16/2014 09:15 pmWow...so that turned as I expected and not as all the polls on various Space websites thought...I don't know if that warrants a smiley. But let's keep this discussion on-topic; what will happen to SNC now? Various predictions seen across the 2 threads discussing / updates on the rewards:-SNC will have the option to bid later on, after initial service contracts are up for renewal-SNC will continue to work on Dream Chaser on a slower pace-and that might end in final cancellation after a drawn-out battle. Or not.What seems likely?Oh, I means Boeing is a kind of boring choice, but it sounded like the more likely one. Most people were stridently predicting SpaceX and SNC because that's who they wanted to see win rather than what was actually likely. I feel good to have gone with my head instead of my heart in predictions.I feel bad for Dreamchaser...I'm not sure how they can continue it without NASA as a customer.There was that interest from ESA in a europeanized Dream Chaser.
...There was news about that...I'd love that, but I am not sure they would pay up. Unless its launched on an Ariane rocket, it's not really employing European industry and workers...and ESA is very about that. Also they have had trouble just trying to agree on which rocket they were going to build next while the rest of the industry marches on. ESA's crew requirements for ISS are very low, so the flight rate would be appalling unless they sent it on other missions. Europes economic problems as a whole are only going to get much worse...so I think appetite for human spaceflight funding will go down for most of the rest of the decade.
Quote from: Burninate on 09/16/2014 10:55 pmQuote from: Darkseraph on 09/16/2014 10:52 pmQuote from: Silmfeanor on 09/16/2014 09:19 pmQuote from: Darkseraph on 09/16/2014 09:15 pmWow...so that turned as I expected and not as all the polls on various Space websites thought...I don't know if that warrants a smiley. But let's keep this discussion on-topic; what will happen to SNC now? Various predictions seen across the 2 threads discussing / updates on the rewards:-SNC will have the option to bid later on, after initial service contracts are up for renewal-SNC will continue to work on Dream Chaser on a slower pace-and that might end in final cancellation after a drawn-out battle. Or not.What seems likely?Oh, I means Boeing is a kind of boring choice, but it sounded like the more likely one. Most people were stridently predicting SpaceX and SNC because that's who they wanted to see win rather than what was actually likely. I feel good to have gone with my head instead of my heart in predictions.I feel bad for Dreamchaser...I'm not sure how they can continue it without NASA as a customer.There was that interest from ESA in a europeanized Dream Chaser.There was news about that...I'd love that, but I am not sure they would pay up. Unless its launched on an Ariane rocket, it's not really employing European industry and workers...and ESA is very about that. Also they have had trouble just trying to agree on which rocket they were going to build next while the rest of the industry marches on. ESA's crew requirements for ISS are very low, so the flight rate would be appalling unless they sent it on other missions. Europes economic problems as a whole are only going to get much worse...so I think appetite for human spaceflight funding will go down for most of the rest of the decade.
I'm expecting SpaceX to be the odd man out. Boeing has flight heritage and big lobbyists. Sierra Nevada has wings and that's something NASA wants it seems. That leaves SpaceX holding the bag. I am one of SpaceX's biggest supporters but, I'm not sure that this wind is blowing in their direction. If not, they'll stay busy with cargo, commercial satellite launches and reuse for now. In the end, they become as know to the general public as Sea Launch sad to say. Without manned flights, SpaceX looses it's appeal.
Dragon V2 + Falcon Heavy are an alternate to some SLS/Orion missions.
Dragon V2 + Raptor rockets should provide an alternate to all SLS/Orion missions.
Plus a part of NASA likes the can do attitude of SpaceX, since SpaceX has a mission much larger than manned ISS flights, SpaceX will tend to accommodate any logical requests to improve on the design, since they are very likely to be needed for the Mars missions SpaceX aims to execute prior to the full blown MCT goal.
Quote from: joek on 09/12/2014 06:27 pmAgree, although I would note that CCtCap selection has implications well beyond this CR and for the next several years). While current budget issues may have an impact on CCtCap award timing, I hope and expect that it has little bearing on the actual awards.CCtCap as written does not allow for fractional awards. On CCtCap award, each CCtCap awardee is committed to complete certification, and guaranteed a minimum of two post-certification ISS crew flights.* On CCtCap award, NASA is committed to funding every awardee through certification and a minimum of two post-certification ISS crew flights.** Assuming the awardee wants those flights.You could still have one company that gets more money and another one that gets less funding. You would just have to adjust the timeline.
Chris do we have any details on what this non-abandonment will consist of?
Quote from: Rocket Science on 09/19/2014 03:33 pmChris do we have any details on what this “non-abandonment” will consist of?I believe the 1st paragraph of Chris's story describes what's called an unfunded SAA.
Chris do we have any details on what this “non-abandonment” will consist of?
Contrary to popular belief, Ariane 5 isn't "man-rated". Any provisions for crew launches were abandoned when Hermes were cancelled, well before the Ariane 5 development phase.
Off the top of my head, manned flights on Ariane would require:- Expensive redesign work on Ariane, which is unlikely at this point in the launcher's lifecycle.
- Construction of manned operations facilities at Kourou.- Modifications to the launch pad, including a new launch tower and escape capability.- Deployment of search and rescue forces for abort situations.
ESA really doesn't have much interest in manned spaceflight. I don't see ESA or European governments justifying the expense at this stage.
Do you know if DC is going to have its development funded by ESA or DLR? If DC did get picked up it'd be great. The numbers that just got awarded could indicate that the remaining development cost for DC is substantial. Any info on that?
Quote from: Hernalt on 09/16/2014 10:42 pmDo you know if DC is going to have its development funded by ESA or DLR? If DC did get picked up it'd be great. The numbers that just got awarded could indicate that the remaining development cost for DC is substantial. Any info on that?I would expect that DC could be completed for well under $100M at this point, based on the cost of other manned vehicles over the past couple of decades.
SpaceX, which many on this board (incorrectly) state is the most ahead is not even close to being within a few hundred million dollars of being complete based on their own budget/award.
Quote from: erioladastra on 09/19/2014 11:15 pmSpaceX, which many on this board (incorrectly) state is the most ahead is not even close to being within a few hundred million dollars of being complete based on their own budget/award. I haven't followed CST-100 development as closely as DV2 and from your statement you appear to assert that CST-100 development is ahead of DV2. I would be interested to hear your assessment of why you believe that this is the case.
We do see very different futures and fortunately we won't have to be too patient before we start to see some key trends develop. I was very surprised and disappointment last year when NASA extended the Roscosmos contract through 2017 since the SpaceX CC progress with 5 F9 launches already made 2016 and possibly late 2015 appear achievable. I would certainly rather have seen the $424M go to accelerate the US launch providers including DC development. The timing of this, like the EELV Block Buy, seemed odd, since delaying the need for CC to 2017 appears to benefit Boeing, and there does not appear to have been a real benefit to rush this contract through.
We do see very different futures and fortunately we won't have to be too patient before we start to see some key trends develop. I was very surprised and disappointment last year when NASA extended the Roscosmos contract through 2017 since the SpaceX CC progress with 5 F9 launches already made 2016 and possibly late 2015 appear achievable. I would certainly rather have seen the $424M go to accelerate the US launch providers including DC development. The timing of this, like the EELV Block Buy, seemed odd, since delaying the need for CC to 2017 appears to benefit Boeing, and there does not appear to have been a real benefit to rush this contract through.Based on their development approach, I do have confidence that SpaceX will dodge any incoming bus you describe, but I don't know if their competition can avoid the backlash over significantly higher taxpayer costs for the same service.