Author Topic: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread (Read 811371 times)

Herb Schaltegger · « **Reply #1480 on:** 09/16/2014 08:19 pm »

Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.

kirghizstan · « **Reply #1481 on:** 09/16/2014 08:20 pm »

$4.2B at 6 flights of 4 is $175M per seat
$2.6B at 6 flights of 4 is $108M per seat

Robert Thompson · « **Reply #1482 on:** 09/16/2014 08:21 pm »

Dream Chaser, I had and have thought that you belong to a future with extremely frequent LEO traffic, and where the options in LEO are so broad that it requires the options of large cross range. Right now, up and down gets it done. I.e., what answers "trampoline". Answering that foundational issue is paramount. imo we'll cul8r.

newpylong · « **Reply #1483 on:** 09/16/2014 08:21 pm »

Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 09/16/2014 08:19 pm

Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.

I wish I had a block of chedder to go with all the wine.

ThereIWas3 · « **Reply #1484 on:** 09/16/2014 08:21 pm »

I worry about that "the same vigorous safety standards" phrase they keep using.

And I wonder if there will be manned missions without any NASA astronauts taking place before all these reviews are finished.

mfck · « **Reply #1485 on:** 09/16/2014 08:24 pm »

They all seem like they wanna go home...

Brovane · « **Reply #1486 on:** 09/16/2014 08:24 pm »

Quote from: ThereIWas3 on 09/16/2014 08:21 pm

I worry about that "the same vigorous safety standards" phrase they keep using.

And I wonder if there will be manned missions without any NASA astronauts taking place before all these reviews are finished.

I noted the discussion about making the Capsule's as safe as the Shuttle. Well I hope the Capsules are safer than the Shuttle. They at least have a better abort scenario than the Shuttle.

Lars-J · « **Reply #1487 on:** 09/16/2014 08:24 pm »

Quote from: newpylong on 09/16/2014 08:21 pm

Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 09/16/2014 08:19 pm
Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.

I wish I had a block of chedder to go with all the wine.

To go with the whine, or the whine about the whining?

ThereIWas3 · « **Reply #1488 on:** 09/16/2014 08:25 pm »

I wonder what research needed for BEO missions can now be completed on board ISS, that they could not do before due to not having enough people on board.

abaddon · « **Reply #1489 on:** 09/16/2014 08:25 pm »

So does this mean the contracts are now signed? I assume so.

Looks like we'll have to wait for more details to come out, I really want to see the reports on how the selections were made.

Q&A time!

vt_hokie · « **Reply #1490 on:** 09/16/2014 08:27 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 09/16/2014 08:12 pm

Quote from: Citabria on 09/16/2014 08:11 pm
So it's Dragon and DreamKiller.

Nonsense. The loser was pipe dream

Perhaps this is a conversation for another time, but I'd be curious to know why. And I wonder if we'll still get to see the OTV be completed and flown.

Robert Thompson · « **Reply #1491 on:** 09/16/2014 08:28 pm »

Aside from cross range, what options now get postponed? I heard someone say, validly I thought, that cross range allowed pinpoint landing of time-sensitive science specimens. Any others?

veblen · « **Reply #1492 on:** 09/16/2014 08:29 pm »

Selection process people not the folks making the announcement.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #1493 on:** 09/16/2014 08:29 pm »

$4.2 billion Boeing. $2.6 billion SpaceX. Includes development, certification, one crewed demo flight, and two to six missions.

Hauerg · « **Reply #1494 on:** 09/16/2014 08:30 pm »

The contract includes $$ for "special studies".
Ha!

ThereIWas3 · « **Reply #1495 on:** 09/16/2014 08:32 pm »

Quote from: veblen on 09/16/2014 08:29 pm

Selection process people not the folks making the announcement.

These senior NASA managers seem awfully out of touch with what is really going on,
like who made the decisions and using what criteria. Bolden in particular spouts whatever
talking point gets triggered by some keyword in the question.

Silmfeanor · « **Reply #1496 on:** 09/16/2014 08:32 pm »

Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/16/2014 08:29 pm

$4.2 billion Boeing. $2.6 billion SpaceX. Includes development, certification, one crewed demo flight, and two to six missions.

Well, there we see the difference between SpaceX and Boeing - SpaceX is about 1.6 billion dollar cheaper for the same result.

CriX · « **Reply #1497 on:** 09/16/2014 08:33 pm »

Why does Boeing get more? Her answer further supported the confusing nature of the reward. I sure wish SpaceX had an extra billion to throw at the BFR / MCT.

Herb Schaltegger · « **Reply #1498 on:** 09/16/2014 08:34 pm »

Quote from: ThereIWas3 on 09/16/2014 08:32 pm

Quote from: veblen on 09/16/2014 08:29 pm
Selection process people not the folks making the announcement.

These senior NASA managers seem awfully out of touch with what is really going on,
like who made the decisions and using what criteria. Bolden in particular spouts whatever
talking point gets triggered by some keyword in the question.

They're not. As they said at the outset, they are not going to comment on the specifics. That selection criteria and data will be provided later.

This is just a public announcement of information passed to the winners and losers earlier today.

abaddon · « **Reply #1499 on:** 09/16/2014 08:34 pm »

Quote from: CriX on 09/16/2014 08:33 pm

Why does Boeing get more? Her answer further supported the confusing nature of the reward. I sure wish SpaceX had an extra billion to throw at the BFR / MCT.

Because they asked for/required more. It's really that simple.

What would be interesting to know is what SNC would have required if they had been awarded a contract.