Author Topic: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18  (Read 56126 times)

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1931
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #160 on: 04/18/2011 10:36 pm »
Well clearly Orbital and SNC were very close in the evaluations.  If there is no "agenda" and the evaluations prove my point, then why is "who is further along" relevent and not a consideration for capsule-based designs?

The point is to get commercal crew in 2016. Thoose who have done some work will be ahead of thoose who have just plans.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #161 on: 04/18/2011 10:37 pm »
Why is "who is further along" relevant and not a consideration for capsule-based designs?

What makes you think it wasn't?

Spacex is obviously further along than the rest, and Boeing seems to be ahead of the other competitors too.

Well because there are *two* capsules (3 if you count Blue Origins secretive bi-conic capsule) who won........
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #162 on: 04/18/2011 10:40 pm »
Well clearly Orbital and SNC were very close in the evaluations.  If there is no "agenda" and the evaluations prove my point, then why is "who is further along" relevent and not a consideration for capsule-based designs?

The point is to get commercal crew in 2016. Thoose who have done some work will be ahead of thoose who have just plans.

Wrong.  The point is to create a commercial space industry that open up an entirely new segment of the economy, that creates 1000's of jobs, fosters competition and innovation and provides a service NASA can take advantage of along with an industry in parallel to and independent of NASA.  These are supposed to be the goals, getting them as soon as possible is an important consideration. 
« Last Edit: 04/18/2011 10:43 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28850
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9025
  • Likes Given: 5793
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #163 on: 04/18/2011 10:41 pm »
Can this thread be locked?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: CCDev-2 Awards PRE-Announcement Discussion - April 18
« Reply #164 on: 04/18/2011 10:47 pm »
Why is "who is further along" relevant and not a consideration for capsule-based designs?

What makes you think it wasn't?

Spacex is obviously further along than the rest, and Boeing seems to be ahead of the other competitors too.

Well because there are *two* capsules (3 if you count Blue Origins secretive bi-conic capsule) who won........

The three entries that were the furthest ahead. That those were two capsules and a lifting body doesn't mean that capsules are biased.

But I agree with Robotbeat.
This thread is a PRE-Announcement Discussion.
JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Tags: