What would you say the odds are of commercial service per each contender?

[PeterAlt]

Here's my unscientific on a hunch listing of the odds of each CCDev contender actual making it into commercial flight service with actual launches over several years:

SpaceX - 100% (unless something unforeseeable goes wrong)

Boeing - 90% (my gut tells me Boeing would fast pull the plug if Congress drastically cuts the CCDev funding level)

Sierra Nevada - 30%

Blue Origin - 10%

How would you place those odds?

[manboy]

Don't mean to be rude but there's already a topic on this

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25788.0

[PeterAlt]

Don't mean to be rude but there's already a topic on this

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25788.0

No rudeness taken - input appreciated. Looking at that thread, it's related, but is not specifically about guessing the odds. I'm trying to wager the odds with numbers - unscientifically, like betting on horses. Of course everyone will have different numbers and reasons for it, which would be interesting to see. As time progresses, it will be interesting to see who was closest to reality.

[mmeijeri]

SpaceX - 80%
Boeing - 70% (not driven to open up space like Musk, more dependent on NASA funding)
Sierra Nevada - 30%
Blue Origin - 95% (Bezos has deeper pockets than Musk and is as driven)

[Jorge]

Cool, a thread where we can all pull numbers out of our butts.

[mmeijeri]

You say that as if it were a bad thing! 

[PeterAlt]

SpaceX - 80%
Boeing - 70% (not driven to open up space like Musk, more dependent on NASA funding)
Sierra Nevada - 30%
Blue Origin - 95% (Bezos has deeper pockets than Musk and is as driven)

I didn't know much of anything concerning Blue Origin, which is why I put its odds at 10%. Everything you said about them I did not know. One thing I did know is that Alan Stern, the former Deputy Administrator for the Science Directorate and the principle scientist of the New Frontiers flyby mission to Pluto, is now working for them. Stern is also a vocal critic of NASA management of HSF programs. President Obama at one point considered him for the NASA Administrator position, before deciding on Bolden, though he claims never wanting the job. I found it curious that he would take a job in the private sector for a HSF project, while also criticizing NASA for its management of HSF programs, like SLS. This tells me that Blue Origin has something up its sleeves that could impress NASA HSF critics (like Stern), or Stern wants to embarass NASA management by developing more with less faster. Either possibility give Blue Origin greater credibility, in my mind, and deepens the mystery of what they're up to.

[kch]

Cool, a thread where we can all pull numbers out of our butts.

Well, one more thread where we can do that, anyway ...

(the thing is, some numbers have points and corners -- they hurt!  That's why it's such a relief to get 'em out of there)

[Hauerg]

SpaceX - 90% (not flying only if company folds)
Boeing - 60% (not committed to go on their own)
Sierra Nevada - 20% (is there enough business for 3?)
Blue Origin - 50% (and years later than SpaceX and Boeing)

[PeterAlt]

Cool, a thread where we can all pull numbers out of our butts.

Well, one more thread where we can do that, anyway ...

(the thing is, some numbers have points and corners -- they hurt!  That's why it's such a relief to get 'em out of there)

And this isn't completely random guesses. These guesses are based on what we know about these companies, their proposals, progress thus far, the political environment, the economy, NASA's track record, the science and engineering of their designs, personal discriminations and/or favoritisms, competing ideologies, the weather, and the price of tea in China.

[vt_hokie]

The important thing is that none of 'em are 100% until they're flying, and we should not have retired the shuttle until that point.  The clock is ticking (and the ISS is aging)....I think a question we may well be faced with is what happens when delays cause the overlap between commercial crew service entry and ISS retirement to evaporate?

[PeterAlt]

The important thing is that none of 'em are 100% until they're flying, and we should not have retired the shuttle until that point.  The clock is ticking (and the ISS is aging)....I think a question we may well be faced with is what happens when delays cause the overlap between commercial crew service entry and ISS retirement to evaporate?

I just hope this isn't like the gap between Apollo and shuttle. At least we still have a manned spacecraft flying this time in the form of the ISS. You can counter that we were flying Skylab back then, but we didn't keep Skylab flying manned. Ironically, our last use of the Apollo capsule was the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project; the same Russian vehicle that will get our astronauts to the station this time around. If the political back then were better, I wonder if we would have asked the USSR to sell us rides on Soyuz in order for us to keep Skylab manned until shuttle was ready.

[aquanaut99]

The important thing is that none of 'em are 100% until they're flying, and we should not have retired the shuttle until that point.  The clock is ticking (and the ISS is aging)....I think a question we may well be faced with is what happens when delays cause the overlap between commercial crew service entry and ISS retirement to evaporate?

What happens if something breaks down on ISS in the near future and the station has to be evacuated? Considering the mess the USA and Europe are in right now, that would probably be a perfect opportunity to pull the plug for good.

Without ISS, no CCDev. Without CCDev, none of these will ever fly manned, IMO. And no more HSF, except in China (Russia will probably also fold if ISS goes).

[alexw]

At least we still have a manned spacecraft flying this time in the form of the ISS. You can counter that we were flying Skylab back then, but we didn't keep Skylab flying manned. Ironically, our last use of the Apollo capsule was the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project; the same Russian vehicle that will get our astronauts to the station this time around. If the political back then were better, I wonder if we would have asked the USSR to sell us rides on Soyuz in order for us to keep Skylab manned until shuttle was ready.

     It's been said around here, I think, that Soyuz could not have reached Skylab's higher orbit. Zenit wasn't ready yet. Zond might've been possible.
     -Alex

[AlexCam]

A reliable and sustainable commercial crew service? Not higher than 50-50 for any company.

And to say SpaceX is somehow more likely to accomplish reliable and sustainable crewed spaceflight than Boeing is really, really strange.

[grr]

Here's my unscientific on a hunch listing of the odds of each CCDev contender actual making it into commercial flight service with actual launches over several years:

SpaceX - 100% (unless something unforeseeable goes wrong)

Boeing - 90% (my gut tells me Boeing would fast pull the plug if Congress drastically cuts the CCDev funding level)

Sierra Nevada - 30%

Blue Origin - 10%

How would you place those odds?

SpaceX will depend on CONgress and Bigelow. Assuming that CONgress does not pass a law that says that NASA can not use new private space OR that Bigelow  gets his private space station off the ground AND that SpaceX does not have a failure, then SpaceX is 100%.
The fact is, that once COTS is done, then SpaceX is flying a capsule that is nearly ready to handle humans. In fact, I would imagine that if our partnership with Russia fell apart, we would simply add the seats and life support and simply launch without the ABAS.

Boeing is hard. They are not committed to private funding.  I suspect that if Boeing were to lose funding from NASA, they would in fact quit unless they were near the end. But I will go with better than 95%. The reason is that NASA NEEDS multiple systems and on different launch vehicles.

SNC is the fun one. ISS does not have enough to support 3 launchers/vehicles.  However, as long as ISS does private space AND Bigelow happens with at least one space station, then it can in fact support 3 vehicles. And I suspect that with SNC being supposedly ready in early 2014 and being a lifting body, they will have missions.
If BA really does the 2100 around 2015-2016 to build another station, then no doubt there will be plenty of work.

Better than 75% for at least 2 years (though longer may be a real issue unless BA expands beyond 1 station ).

Blue Origin is the interesting one. As others have mentioned, Bezo has DEEP pockets and a CONTINUAL source of deep funding.  Interestingly, his VTVL sub-orbital will not only generate money for them, but I suspect that the tech is designed for the moon. IOW, he is trying to build the whole gamet for going to the moon. 
I will say that IFF we multiple private space station vendors, we can easily support 4 different human launchers. Keep in mind that IDC is looking at an inflatable system as well, though I notice that they do not talk much about it.

Considering how much is dependent out there and how little info they give, I would say that Blue Origin can not even be intelligently SWAGGED.


What is really interesting is that the above is going to lead to a unique situation. We finally have REAL competition coming (barring CONgress getting in the way), and I think that prices WILL drop.  I also think that Bigelow and these LVs will push to go to the moon ASAP. They know that if a small base is built there, that all of the nations lining up for BA's leo stations, will likely pay big bucks to be in the first 10 nations on the moon.
I also note that if CONgress messes with things the way that they want to, then NASA pulling back from private space or BA not getting off the ground, then it will be a disaster. I could see CONgress being dump enough to say that ONLY Boeing can launch.

[PeterAlt]

A reliable and sustainable commercial crew service? Not higher than 50-50 for any company.

And to say SpaceX is somehow more likely to accomplish reliable and sustainable crewed spaceflight than Boeing is really, really strange.

If you look at the manifest, you'd see that the SpaceX is planning on using the scheduled COTS Dragon launches as an opportunity to launch commercial satellites with a single launch opportunity, increasing the economics of the Falcon 9-Dragon system.

NASA is just one customer. Other customers could be commercial satellites, as I mentioned above. Eventually other customers will join NASA for Dragon's unique cargo and HSF features. Seeing it this way, makes the economics of it a bit more sane.

[peter-b]

And to say SpaceX is somehow more likely to accomplish reliable and sustainable crewed spaceflight than Boeing is really, really strange.

It is, isn't it? But that's my gut feeling as well. 

It's hard to figure out why (hence the thread I started).

I think for me it's the fact that SpaceX, as a company, has "reliable and sustainable and inexpensive crewed spaceflight" as it's corporate mission.  It's the reason the company exists, it's totally focussed on that goal, and the structure and operation of the company reflects that. I think it's fair to say that that doesn't apply to Boeing. Maybe that's colouring my opinion.

(TBH I think NASA should have "reliable and sustainable crewed spaceflight" as a stated goal, but that's off topic).

CONgress

Do you write it with that capitalization in order to contrast with PROgress? :-P

[AlexCam]

A reliable and sustainable commercial crew service? Not higher than 50-50 for any company.

And to say SpaceX is somehow more likely to accomplish reliable and sustainable crewed spaceflight than Boeing is really, really strange.

If you look at the manifest, you'd see that the SpaceX is planning on using the scheduled COTS Dragon launches as an opportunity to launch commercial satellites with a single launch opportunity, increasing the economics of the Falcon 9-Dragon system.

NASA is just one customer. Other customers could be commercial satellites, as I mentioned above. Eventually other customers will join NASA for Dragon's unique cargo and HSF features. Seeing it this way, makes the economics of it a bit more sane.

Plans and execution are different things. Boeing has for decades proven that it is able to achieve success in complicated programs. SpaceX has unfortunately proven (once again in the history of modern aerospace) that for a smaller company it is extremely difficult to solve complicated tasks in a reliable and sustainable fashion.

I am not diminishing SpaceX's successes until now, I am merely pointing out that they have extreme cost overruns and schedule delays. Boeing on the other hand might be an old-space company, but they have a record of delivering within budgets (if those are realistic) and within schedule.

Having said that, any speculation which company will ultimately succeed in crewed spaceflight is just that - speculation. However, to give SpaceX a higher chance in succeeding than Boeing ignores everything that has happened in spaceflight in the US until now.

[mmeijeri]

I am not diminishing SpaceX's successes until now, I am merely pointing out that they have extreme cost overruns and schedule delays.

Huh? Delays yes, like everybody else, but cost overruns?

Boeing on the other hand might be an old-space company, but they have a record of delivering within budgets (if those are realistic) and within schedule.

What about Dreamliner? What about KC-46? I think you are pulling this "information" from your nether regions.

[AlexCam]

I am not diminishing SpaceX's successes until now, I am merely pointing out that they have extreme cost overruns and schedule delays.

Huh? Delays yes, like everybody else, but cost overruns?

The original COTS schedule was for 3 years with the demo flights in 2008. It has since been long extended and there has been quite a lot of money injected into their developing program as well.

When SpaceX was awarded its COTS contract in 2006, the stated goal of the company was to not exceed a certain number of employees in order to control costs (at some point they mentioned 800, then 1000), currently their employee count is in the region beyond 1250 and rising.

Boeing on the other hand might be an old-space company, but they have a record of delivering within budgets (if those are realistic) and within schedule.

What about Dreamliner? What about KC-46? I think you are pulling this "information" from your nether regions.
[/quote][/quote]

With "record" I did not mean they have always been on schedule and within budgets, I said that they have accomplished some projects in the past on schedule and on budget, which is something SpaceX - sorry to say - has not been able to do.

[grr]

I am not diminishing SpaceX's successes until now, I am merely pointing out that they have extreme cost overruns and schedule delays.

Huh? Delays yes, like everybody else, but cost overruns?

The original COTS schedule was for 3 years with the demo flights in 2008. It has since been long extended and there has been quite a lot of money injected into their developing program as well.

When SpaceX was awarded its COTS contract in 2006, the stated goal of the company was to not exceed a certain number of employees in order to control costs (at some point they mentioned 800, then 1000), currently their employee count is in the region beyond 1250 and rising.

Boeing on the other hand might be an old-space company, but they have a record of delivering within budgets (if those are realistic) and within schedule.

What about Dreamliner? What about KC-46? I think you are pulling this "information" from your nether regions.

[/quote]

With "record" I did not mean they have always been on schedule and within budgets, I said that they have accomplished some projects in the past on schedule and on budget, which is something SpaceX - sorry to say - has not been able to do.
[/quote]


That is interesting thing to say.

SpaceX started a new company basically at the same time that Constellation was started.  Ares I and V had massive head starts in that companies were already created, core equipment was in place, R&D teams had been around for some time, and they had received more than 30x in money what SpaceX got from the feds.

SpaceX built a new company, delivered 2 different rockets,  created 3 different engines, and 1 capsule.

So far, Neither Orion is completed (which was dominatly L-Marts work), nor was Ares I (of which Boeing was the prime for stage 2 which was massively behind).  Worse, it was on a massive cost overrun and Ares I (which originally was supposed to be ready by 2011, then 2014, then 2015, then 2016 and was about to be shifted to 2017) was still not going to be ready for another 5-7 years.

Now, as somebody who has worked with NASA, several TLAs, Boeing, along with other R&D places, I would have to say that I am AMAZED at what SpaceX has done  on a shoe string. Even with the issues on F1, they are only 2 years behind on F9. Heck Ares I is anywhere from 4 to 7 years behind with so much more money thrown at it. 
They have the typical attitude of a good silicon valley start-up. They want to accomplish GREAT things, not just get a paycheck or get options to cash out on. The fact is that future companies are going to follow in the footsteps of SpaceX and possibly Blue Origin.

Offhand, I would say that the hardest thing that they have to accomplish is simply the next step every time. ANd SpaceX has the great attitude of 'we can do it'.

[M_Puckett]

SpaceX=90%

Boeing=65%

SNC=45%

Blue Origin=99% because Bezos is worth 18BN. 

He can pretty much brute force his way into making it work with that kind of money.

[AlexCam]

Offhand, I would say that the hardest thing that they have to accomplish is simply the next step every time. ANd SpaceX has the great attitude of 'we can do it'.

Their philosophy is great, but they still have not delivered the results that they promised: frequent launches, on schedule, at a price point below what the current market prices are worldwide.

As to "shoestring budgets", the development costs of two rocket families with various versions (Delta IV and Atlas V) were not much higher than the costs for the development of Falcon 1 (discontinued) and Falcon 9.

[aquanaut99]

Blue Origin=99% because Bezos is worth 18BN. 

Sorry, but that's a pretty naive argument. That's like saying because Bill Gates is worth XX billions, he can design a Microsoft rocket and it will assuredly fly.

Money alone does not make a design work.

Also, nobody, not even Bezos, has claimed he is investing his entire fortune into this. You claim he is a spaceflight fanatic but, so far, he has not done anything to prove this. I'm sure he also has other interests/hobbies that require his attention, and they may well be more important to him than a space vehicle that has little chance of success or even use once ISS goes away...

[InvalidAttitude]

In the current volatile US economy all worth 0%. What if the cuts reach the CCDEV? The space start-ups much harder can raise money than before 

[Blackjax]

A reliable and sustainable commercial crew service? Not higher than 50-50 for any company.

And to say SpaceX is somehow more likely to accomplish reliable and sustainable crewed spaceflight than Boeing is really, really strange.

If you look at the manifest, you'd see that the SpaceX is planning on using the scheduled COTS Dragon launches as an opportunity to launch commercial satellites with a single launch opportunity, increasing the economics of the Falcon 9-Dragon system.

NASA is just one customer. Other customers could be commercial satellites, as I mentioned above. Eventually other customers will join NASA for Dragon's unique cargo and HSF features. Seeing it this way, makes the economics of it a bit more sane.

Plans and execution are different things. Boeing has for decades proven that it is able to achieve success in complicated programs. SpaceX has unfortunately proven (once again in the history of modern aerospace) that for a smaller company it is extremely difficult to solve complicated tasks in a reliable and sustainable fashion.

I am not diminishing SpaceX's successes until now, I am merely pointing out that they have extreme cost overruns and schedule delays. Boeing on the other hand might be an old-space company, but they have a record of delivering within budgets (if those are realistic) and within schedule.

Having said that, any speculation which company will ultimately succeed in crewed spaceflight is just that - speculation. However, to give SpaceX a higher chance in succeeding than Boeing ignores everything that has happened in spaceflight in the US until now.

I think you are ignoring the reason why people have concerns Boeing.  There are 3 components and consequent risk areas to whether a given company ultimately delivers:

Funding - Whether enough funds are available from any source the company has the ability and willingness to tap to drive the development effort to a successful completion.

Motivation - The degree of internal drive the company has to to push the development effort to a successful completion regardless of external drivers.

Technical & Project Management Capability - The technical and management ability to develop the necessary design and get it flying successfully.

You seem to be focused mainly on the last one whereas most people with doubts about Boeing question the second one and its impact on the first one.  Boeing could come up with the money regardless of whether congress funds it, but they have publically expressed that they are unlikely to.  So the doubts about Boeing aren't whether they could do the job, but about CCDev funding making it through to Boeing such that they will choose to.

It is entirely debateable where SpaceX scores in relation to Boeing on #3 but I think it is fair to say that they have at least adequate scores in all three areas which lead most people to see them as the frontrunner.

SNC is more of a question mark on the second and third ones and I personally am most concerned about them in relation to the funding question.  If CCDev funding does not come through, do they have access to the resources needed to finish?

Blue Origin I believe scores lowest for most people not necessarily because they are actually lacking in any of these areas, but simply because most of us lack the information needed to really make an educated guess.  They are secretive and nobody (who will speak publicly on it) really knows the specifics.  We all know that Bezos has the money to drive this but would he be willing to tap it?  Is his motivation towards all this more similar to Musks or is it more similar to say Beals?  Will he put it all on the line or will he fold when trouble arises?  All we have is WAGs.  I don't know if anyone else knows, but personally I don't have a feel for the technical or management talent of the team he has put together either.  They may be the best ever assembled or a bunch or posers who will be fumbling aimlessly for years while they burn through Bezos' cash.

I'd propose that rather than simply assigning a % value to peoples rankings, they should score each company independently in each of these areas.

[Patchouli]

Spacex around 90% because they flew hardware already.
Their biggest issue right now is getting a working LAS.
I consider the vertical landing feature to be a bit unlikely to be ready anytime soon which means for the near term Dragon will likely be a vehicle that splashes down.

This will make Boeing and SNC's vehicles ability to land on land a great marketing feature which means it's unlikely Spacex will have a monopoly for more then a year or two.

SNC Maybe 60% the company has experience with space systems and they're testing hardware.
http://www.sncorp.com/news/press/pr10/snc_ccdev_milestone.shtml
 Because it's similar to the shuttle Dream Chaser is probably going to be the star of the commercial vehicles.
The partnership with Virgin Galactic is one reason I give it a pretty good chance as it helps with funding.

Boeing 70% because of past experience and they're willing to pay for the funding themselves if needed.
Like DC there has been a test of the important LAS propulsion system.

The only strikes I have against it is it uses an expendable service module and it's yet another capsule.
Boeing may have done better to choose a space plane to farther differentiate their vehicle from Dragon and Orion.
Though using X-37 data could mean being subject to ITAR controls.

Blue Origin 40% because I have very little information on what they're doing.

Money is only part of the equation motivation also is very important see Beal.
He had money but lacked motivation and vision.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

SpaceX 99%: It’s not a question of if it’s a question of when. With CCDev funding they will be able to develop and deliver NET 2014 and probably NLT 2016, but without funding expect a NET date of 2017 because they could only fund the project at half the level doubling or more the development time from 3 years to 6+. The reason it’s not 100% is because like all companies there is a chance that the company could fold or run into financial difficulties that would end development projects, case in point GM and its cancelation of entire product lines.

SNC 85%: SNC is a strong innovator and sound business. It’s biggest problem is the technical challenges and the associated costs associated with overcoming those challenges. SNC has a decently broad set of products that generate revenue so as long as costs are controlled they like SpaceX it’s not a matter of if but when. SNC already see’s their vehicle as the NASA preferred vehicle and will charge along as long as that perception remains even if funding doesn’t.

Boeing 85%: Boeing is a large company but depending on the project staff, the project can be wildly successful or be very costly. For the CST-100 design to be as far along as it is there must have been a great deal of legacy design data, possible from the Orion competition in early 2000’s, which already existed. So far Boeing is approaching the CST-100 as a low corporate risk enterprise, so if CCDev funding dries up the likely hood of Boeing continuing funding all on their own is questionable. But if Boeing determines that there is still money to be made they will continue.

Blue Origin 25%: The dark horse in this race. Insufficient information or demonstration of engineering capability to say more.

[M_Puckett]

Blue Origin=99% because Bezos is worth 18BN. 

Sorry, but that's a pretty naive argument. That's like saying because Bill Gates is worth XX billions, he can design a Microsoft rocket and it will assuredly fly.

Money alone does not make a design work.

That's a blatant strawman.  Bezos doesn't design rockets, he writes checks for other people to do it for him.  People who have previously done it for a living. 

Arguing it won't work because money does not guarentee Mircosoft can design a rocket is as relevant as arguing Boeing will try to design a desktop OS.