CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Robotbeat]

Good thing is there are no show stoppers to extending commercial crew to lunar return or even greater.

[James54]

I’m trying to view this announcement with a big picture outlook. Despite the perceived bias or not in the decision, the fact is the U.S. now has 3 (counting Orion) manned spacecraft in various stages of construction and testing. It is exciting for space enthusiasts like us to view the progress as each reaches various milestones.

[GalacticIntruder]

I don't know about anyone else, but my faith in NASA and government contracting is restored!

[zd4]

I realized there was a bit of a reality distortion field going on here at the forums (Apple / Steve Jobs reference intended), when I saw that poll where around 80%+ said SpaceX will most likely win the contract. Boeing wasn't even second!

Companies like Boeing, Lockheed are doing this kind of stuff for decades. Lobbyists aside, think about what that means for the relationship between NASA and people at these companies. And how they have learned to work together, to get things done by NASA's requirements, on time and on budget. SpaceX is a newcomer. In 5  - 10 years if SpaceX is still alive and kicking (which I certainly hope it will), it too will have formed such a relationship, and learned how to work well to NASA's requirements and expectations.

As for the contract, this is actually a huge vote of confidence for SpaceX, the fact NASA gave them a contract on equal grounds with Boeing.

[JimNtexas]

I was involved in awarding contracts when I was in the Air Force.  IIRC, we did debrief the bidders on the findings of the source selection panel and gave them reasons why we selected who we selected.  These findings were not public, and we had to be careful not to share proprietary information from one bidder to the next.

If NASA works like the Air Force, then the selection was made by a panel and then whoever convened the panel (probably General Bolden in this case) either approves the selection or sends it back for a do over.

[Star One]

It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.

Not very surprising, sad to say.

Keyboard warrior mentality in full effect.

Quite annoying the way people like running Boeing down ignoring the fact they employ just as many skilled individuals as everyone else, but of course it can't be their efforts it has to be a fix or something of the ilk.

[topsphere]

The only good thing I can draw from the selection of CST 100 is that it will help support Bigelow and (probably) Blue Origin, that is despite a portion of the money going to Washington lobbyists and the Boeing machine.

I doubt Bigelow has vested interest in Boeing. They're going to go with whoever is the most reliable and cheapest (with those two factors multipled together).

Blue Origin is another story though. I honestly am rather annoyed with BO now. They've turned into a patent troll. I really hope they can still do engineering though. I guess we'll find out.

Bigelow is 'partnering' with Boeing on CST 100. If that's not a vested interest I don't know what is.

Yeah extent of BO's involvement depends on announcement tomorrow.

Edit - correction

[mlindner]

Bigelow is developing CST 100 alongside Boeing. If that's not a vested interest I don't know what is.

Do you have a source? That's the first I've heard of that. I've been out of the loop lately so I likely have obviously missed it.

[Citabria]

So America needs three new capsules?

[deskpro590]

My post regarding naming of capsules gets deleted, but the posts slamming Boeing don't?  Got it.

Well Congrats to Boeing and SpaceX on being selected.  Looking forward to 2017!

[topsphere]

Bigelow is developing CST 100 alongside Boeing. If that's not a vested interest I don't know what is.

Do you have a source? That's the first I've heard of that. I've been out of the loop lately so I likely have obviously missed it.

I don't really mean developing,  sorry wrong word. Bigelow do appear to be very closely linked to the success of the CST100 though : "Bigelow has been partnering with Boeing on the CST-100 program for several years".
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2538/1

Several other things on the interwebz

[R7]

My post regarding naming of capsules gets deleted, but the posts slamming Boeing don't?  Got it.

Newspace wings lost to oldspace capsule. Something must be demonized!

[ChrisWilson68]

Do they really have to attempt to talk about how amazing SLS and Orion are at every press conference they ever make?

They do if they want the SLS juggernaut in Congress not to stomp on Commercial Crew.

[mspacek]

For one, you don't have to go to the "Launch America" press conference and defend launching on Russian engines...

That isn't an issue, just FUD.

You're really taking your curmudgeonly persona to new extremes. Tomorrow's apparent announcement that Blue Origin will be building a replacement engine for Atlas V shows that yes, it is an issue, and not, it's not just FUD:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/16/nasa-awards-space-contract-to-boeing-and-spacex/

[mlindner]

Can anyone say Cost Plus.

There's no cost plus here.

Boeing just gets a crazy motherlode of money of a fixed amount.

[edkyle99]

SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO.  That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?

Er, no.  $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).

Let's please not try and handwave this away.  Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.

SpaceX won $278 million for COTS and $1.6 billion for CRS.  They used that money in part to develop the basic Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1, the factory and test facilities.  That groundwork is directly applied now to Commercial Crew.  It is a well funded head start not given Boeing's CST-100, which is why Boeing needs more money now.

 - Ed Kyle

This is nonsense, considering Boeing got all the money for previous space programs, including the cancelled Constellation, in the billions. The CST-100 is obvious related to the Orion, for example. You can't count one without counting the other.

Constellation has completely different requirements, different tooling, different factories, different launch sites, etc.   Boeing is building SLS rocket stages, not spacecraft.  One does not apply to the other.  SpaceX already has Hawthorne building Falcons and Dragons and McGregor testing the rockets, and all of those also served COTS/CRS.  Boeing has an empty shell of a building at KSC that needs to be tooled up for CST-100, and needs to fund some launch vehicle mods.  They are playing catch up, which is why, in large part, they asked for more money.  Kudos to SpaceX for leveraging their existing assets, much like Korolev did with R-7/Zenit/Voskhod.  And kudos to Boeing for proposing a safe, conservative design that met NASA's requirements.

 - Ed Kyle

[punder]

For one, you don't have to go to the "Launch America" press conference and defend launching on Russian engines...

That isn't an issue, just FUD.

You're really taking your curmudgeonly persona to new extremes. Tomorrow's apparent announcement that Blue Origin will be building a replacement engine for Atlas V shows that yes, it is an issue, and not, it's not just FUD:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/16/nasa-awards-space-contract-to-boeing-and-spacex/

It is pretty amazing that aerospace giants Boeing and Lockheed, in the form of ULA, will contract a startup with no orbital spaceflight experience to build a new engine for national-asset Atlas V.  Am I reading that correctly?

[AnalogMan]

The BBC News site have an article that barely mentions SpaceX winning anything here, and that is was Boeing all the way.

BBC News - Nasa backs Boeing's astronaut crew ship design http://bbc.in/ZosY0y

I'm normally an advocate of the BBC but this article just seems skewed.

Paul

BBC article analyzed by paragraphs relating to each company:

8  Boeing
7  SpaceX
2  Both SpaceX and Boeing
3  SNC
11 None of the front runners

[ChrisWilson68]

I'm very happy Crew Dragon is being funded.

The sad thing, though, is that it's a victory just for SpaceX to get the smaller piece (after Boeing for CST-100/Atlas V) of the smaller piece (after Lockheed Martin, ATK, Huntsville, etc. for Orion/SLS).  Just think how many flights we could be doing for all that money on Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Dragon V2.

[Norm38]

Newspace wings lost to oldspace capsule. Something must be demonized!

Newspace wings??  I'm 38 and a winged spacecraft is the only American manned vehicle I have ever known.

Capsule with chutes landing is old space.

Wings is midlife crisis space.

Vertical landing capsule is new space.