Author Topic: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1  (Read 467603 times)

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3128
  • Liked: 874
  • Likes Given: 444
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1320 on: 10/04/2018 11:28 pm »
Boeing has a contract for a small fraction of the the expected Commercial Crew launches. Another small fraction are contracted to SpaceX. The majority of CC flights will be competitively bid between SpaceX and Boeing in the future, and Starliner is unlikely to be competitive on price with Crew Dragon.

Point taken, but I don't think I would call a guaranteed 1/3 of the missions (minimum of 2 out of a maximum of 6) a "small fraction".  If ISS CCtCap demand extends ~+6 years after CCtCap IOC, both Boeing and SpaceX will max out their awards.  Only after that, or after issuance of another award in the interim (doubtful?), are we likely to see head-to-head CCtCap competition between Boeing and SpaceX.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3128
  • Liked: 874
  • Likes Given: 444
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1321 on: 10/04/2018 11:44 pm »
Fine, but what is an op-ed now going to do for a competition that doesn't even exist yet?  Furthermore, since when do selection authorities take their data from op-eds written in newspapers?  As someone who works in the industry, I don't trust most newspapers to get even basic facts about space flight correct.

Agree.  At a nominal rate of one flight/yr per provider (2 crew flights/yr to ISS), and a guarantee of two post-certification missions per provider, any real competition is at minimum 2 years after CCtCap starts post-certification missions.  At that point the providers will have proved themselves (or not).  The path has already been set and the decisions made.  These sorts of op-eds count for squat.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2426
  • California
  • Liked: 1990
  • Likes Given: 5506
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1322 on: 10/05/2018 12:02 am »
Fine, but what is an op-ed now going to do for a competition that doesn't even exist yet?  Furthermore, since when do selection authorities take their data from op-eds written in newspapers?  As someone who works in the industry, I don't trust most newspapers to get even basic facts about space flight correct.

Agree.  At a nominal rate of one flight/yr per provider (2 crew flights/yr to ISS), and a guarantee of two post-certification missions per provider, any real competition is at minimum 2 years after CCtCap starts post-certification missions.  At that point the providers will have proved themselves (or not).  The path has already been set and the decisions made.  These sorts of op-eds count for squat.

Personally, I don't think this has much to do with CCtCap specifically but rather see it as more of a response to recent statements/comments/potential moves towards NASA embracing the use of commercial launchers (and most specifically SpaceX's offerings) instead of SLS for things like LOP-G supply.  That's got to be seen as just a stepping stone.  The goal being not to try to directly affect a specific program that's already been, more or less, awarded but rather to stop a potential change in NASA direction that would reduce the reliance on the program of record.  Stopping such a change in its tracks, at this point in time, would be made easier by "changing the narrative" around SpaceX (and other commercial upstarts).
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11662
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8779
  • Likes Given: 7382
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1323 on: 10/05/2018 03:47 am »
The SLS defense theory?

(mod) some posts were moved here from another thread where they did not belong. If you think I moved one by mistake, report to mod...
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Semmel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1657
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1551
  • Likes Given: 4215
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1324 on: 10/05/2018 06:46 am »
Too bad that Ars brought in Boeing as a suspect in this. It makes itself an op-ed. Without that statement, it was very informative and well researched. I would not be surprised to see similar attempts in the future.

On the whole pointing fingers though... It seems unlikely that aerospace companies smear each other in public news. Just like they dont shoot each others rockets on the launch pad. I hope all remember that debate as a particular negative example of unfunded speculation. Please stay away from unfunded speculation.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9045
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6455
  • Likes Given: 2210
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1325 on: 10/05/2018 07:27 am »
It's pathetic and sad. Now there's a real possibility we'll celebrate 50 years of Apollo 11 without having the ability to send a human to LEO.

Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

Offline Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1365
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1326 on: 10/05/2018 08:06 am »
Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care :)

Okay, my answer goes like that: I (just like you) am an European. As an European, I belong to the Western part of the World, just like the USA. To me, it's very important the Western world to have independent transportation systems to sub-orbit (VG, BO), or to orbit (SX, Boe). As for interplanetary manned missions, ESA will already play a bigger role next decade with Orion.

This is not to say I don't admire Russian, Chinese, Indian or Japanese missions. It's just that it's closer for me to relate to Westen missions. It's not entirely rational. It's more like having a favorite sports team.

Part of my preference also comes from the argument of openness. If the USA (and ESA) are those who first send people to lunar orbit, the missions will be much more open. In democracy, public relations come first.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2018 08:07 am by Svetoslav »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9045
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6455
  • Likes Given: 2210
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1327 on: 10/05/2018 09:15 am »
Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care :)

If that is your line of reasoning than I counter with "We have Soyuz to get to LEO".

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Liked: 657
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1328 on: 10/05/2018 09:22 am »
Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care :)

If that is your line of reasoning than I counter with "We have Soyuz to get to LEO".

He doesn't count Russia/China as on his team. The only countries with HSF capability being authoritarian/aggressively expansionist powers is...a problem. Anyways, democracies will soon have 4+ seperate independant systems. So, the situation is being remedied.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19590
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 7451
  • Likes Given: 996
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1329 on: 10/05/2018 10:20 am »
It's pathetic and sad. Now there's a real possibility we'll celebrate 50 years of Apollo 11 without having the ability to send a human to LEO.

Well, it will have only taken 30 years since NASA first began looking at a separate crew return system for the space station. You can't expect miracles! :-) So why has it taken so long? Politics (turf fight with with Space Shuttle and lack of funding), the continual cancellation of one program after another (HL-20 PLS, ACRV, Lifeboat Alpha, X-38, OSP, Orion), bad design decisions (10 t Orion capsule and development of Ares I) and now NASA having to supervise three different capsules, putting a high workload on its plate.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline jtrame

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • W4FJT
  • Knoxville, TN
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 341
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1330 on: 10/05/2018 11:01 am »
I'll counter with the possibility that Dragon 2 Crewed will have flown and that CST-100 crewed will be in the final stages of readiness on July 20, 2019.  It's possible.  It's capability.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2018 11:02 am by jtrame »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9045
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6455
  • Likes Given: 2210
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1331 on: 10/05/2018 11:27 am »
Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care :)

If that is your line of reasoning than I counter with "We have Soyuz to get to LEO".

He doesn't count Russia/China as on his team. The only countries with HSF capability being authoritarian/aggressively expansionist powers is...a problem. Anyways, democracies will soon have 4+ seperate independant systems. So, the situation is being remedied.


Two things:

- "All of mankind" includes China and Russia. Like it or not.
- Assuming that India is a democracy is far-fetched.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1050
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 231
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1332 on: 10/05/2018 12:24 pm »
You’re never going to find out who paid for these op-eds as these kind of companies pride themselves on their confidentiality. Companies wouldn’t use them if they couldn’t keep a secret.

OP-ED's aren't paid for, in fact many major newspapers pay writers a nominal fee for content (usually less than $100). Anyone can contact a newspaper and submit a one-off opinion piece.

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1804
  • Liked: 1320
  • Likes Given: 1298
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1333 on: 10/05/2018 02:39 pm »
It seems unlikely that aerospace companies smear each other in public news.
You're right, they don't.  They contribute to think-tanks that do the dirty work for them.  I'm not pointing a finger at Boeing in this case.  But let's not be naive about how this game works, either.

The original op-ed and the later flurry of reprintings in various other cities look like spadework for possible future use in discrediting Musk and SpaceX.  Op-eds like this are written to lay the groundwork for later citation by a congressperson to throw shade behind a fig leaf of non-partisonship.  Congressional concern trolling at its finest.

And if it doesn't work?  Well you can always save it for later, or not.
You’re never going to find out who paid for these op-eds as these kind of companies pride themselves on their confidentiality. Companies wouldn’t use them if they couldn’t keep a secret.

OP-ED's aren't paid for, in fact many major newspapers pay writers a nominal fee for content (usually less than $100). Anyone can contact a newspaper and submit a one-off opinion piece.
Op-Ed's aren't paid (much) for by the newspaper, sure.  That doesn't mean the author wasn't paid to write it.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2018 05:16 am by Lar »

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1421
  • Liked: 678
  • Likes Given: 1509
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1334 on: 10/05/2018 04:39 pm »
... It seems unlikely that aerospace companies smear each other in public news.

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Liked: 657
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1335 on: 10/05/2018 04:44 pm »
Trash talk is part of the business. SpaceX does it too.

Quote
"If they do somehow show up in the next 5 years with a vehicle qualified to NASA's human rating standards that can dock with the Space Station, which is what Pad 39A is meant to do, we will gladly accommodate their needs," writes Musk. "Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct."
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-accuses-blue-origin-of-blocking-spacex-2013-9

Blue Origin didn't show up with a vehicle within 5 years, but neither did SpaceX.

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1421
  • Liked: 678
  • Likes Given: 1509
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1336 on: 10/05/2018 04:49 pm »
Trash talking is a little different than taking out full page advertisements.
Quote
Florida Today says the ads “have been running for about six weeks in Washington, D.C.-based political media outlets, directed toward policy makers in Congress and the Obama administration. The president’s proposed 2013 budget will be unveiled early next month.”
    http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/01/22/pratt-whitney-rocketdyne-takes-shot-at-spacex/

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4897
  • California
  • Liked: 4713
  • Likes Given: 2828
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1337 on: 10/05/2018 05:15 pm »
Too bad that Ars brought in Boeing as a suspect in this. It makes itself an op-ed. Without that statement, it was very informative and well researched. I would not be surprised to see similar attempts in the future.

Facts are facts. And when Boeing is touted as the #1 client of this... organization, that needs to be stated. The conclusion is obvious.

On the whole pointing fingers though... It seems unlikely that aerospace companies smear each other in public news. Just like they dont shoot each others rockets on the launch pad. I hope all remember that debate as a particular negative example of unfunded speculation. Please stay away from unfunded speculation.

That is quite a naive world view, not backed up by recent history. The smearing through official and unofficial channels happens all the time.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10322
  • UK
  • Liked: 2095
  • Likes Given: 208
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1338 on: 10/05/2018 05:52 pm »
Too bad that Ars brought in Boeing as a suspect in this. It makes itself an op-ed. Without that statement, it was very informative and well researched. I would not be surprised to see similar attempts in the future.

Facts are facts. And when Boeing is touted as the #1 client of this... organization, that needs to be stated. The conclusion is obvious.

On the whole pointing fingers though... It seems unlikely that aerospace companies smear each other in public news. Just like they dont shoot each others rockets on the launch pad. I hope all remember that debate as a particular negative example of unfunded speculation. Please stay away from unfunded speculation.

That is quite a naive world view, not backed up by recent history. The smearing through official and unofficial channels happens all the time.

I don’t believe they were touted as number one client just as one amongst a small group of prominent clients.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4897
  • California
  • Liked: 4713
  • Likes Given: 2828
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #1339 on: 10/05/2018 05:53 pm »
Too bad that Ars brought in Boeing as a suspect in this. It makes itself an op-ed. Without that statement, it was very informative and well researched. I would not be surprised to see similar attempts in the future.

Facts are facts. And when Boeing is touted as the #1 client of this... organization, that needs to be stated. The conclusion is obvious.

I don’t believe they were touted as number one client just as one amongst a small group of prominent clients.

True, but if you are listed first... That implies it. Heavily.
« Last Edit: 10/05/2018 05:54 pm by Lars-J »

Tags: