I'm sad the Dream Chaser won't be getting the money, at least there are two company's fully funded. (Looking for the silver lining) I suppose that this is a good result for Bigalow Aerospace who were involved with the CST-100? It's in Boeing interest to have a commercial 330 space station as an extra destination for CST-100 (other than the ISS). I hope that Boeing will now use some of the money (and it's political clout) to help get the Bigalow 330 Station in orbit.
@ LourensSo you would rather a rapid and risky development process which has a 50/50 chance of scrapping US human space flight for at least another decade (the consequence of people being killed in todays environment) because "Establising routine access to LEO" isnt enough vision?
Been lurking here for a few years but new to posting. I know very little about the relative technical merits of the various commercial crew options, but am personally disappointed that SNC was left out. I was a big fan of Shuttle, because even though it was strictly a LEO ride it had so much more versatility than a capsule. Not saying that Dream Chaser would have had anywhere near those capabilities, but I would have liked for a lifting body spacecraft carry forward the Shuttle legacy in some form. Now it appears that we'll have capsules and only capsules for the foreseeable future.CST-100 will probably get the job done, but on the inspiration scale I think it's down there with Soyuz. I know that there is a lot more love for SpaceX and Dragon around here, but I'm not sure the general public will be inspired by that either. Does the inspiration factor of the general public matter? Maybe not, but IMO the best hope for any substantial budget increase that would allow SLS to get proper funding, missions and launch rate is for the general public to get engaged/inspired about space again. It was interesting how a lot of folks (again talking general public here) seemed to only realize what they were losing with Shuttle when it was already retired and orbiters were being ferried to museum sites.Would SNC/Dream Chaser have been any more inspirational? Seems unlikely at this point that we will ever know.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 09/17/2014 12:48 pmIt seems to me that having three different capsule designs for just two to three missions total a year is not a good way to run a cost effective program. If the CCtCAP vehicles are to help with costs, then surely only going with the cheaper option and saving $4.2B, that could be used for other actual missions beyond LEO, like building a large upper stage, cryogenic propulsion stage and Lunar lander, seems to me to be a better way to use the available money.Personally, I wanted Sierra Nevada to win so as to give someone else a chance, just like NASA gave SpaceX a chance. Anyways, here's a summary of the total program costs.CCDEV CCDEV1 CCDEV2 CCDEV2+ CCiCap CPC CCiCap2 CCtCAP Total------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Boeing $18.0 $92.3 $20.6 $460.0 $10.0 $20.0 $4200 $4820.9SpaceX $0.0 $75.0 $0.0 $440.0 $9.6 $20.0 $2600 $3144.6Sierra Nevada Corporation $20.0 $80.0 $25.6 $212.5 $10.0 $15.0 $363.1Blue Origin $3.7 $22.0 $25.7ULA $6.7 $6.7Paragon $1.4 $1.4------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total $49.8 $269.3 $46.2 $1112.5 $29.6 $55.0 $6800 $8362.4Tapatalk really screws that up on mobile - doesn't honour the fixed-width font.Let's see if this is any better:-CCDEV CCDEV1 CCDEV2 CCDEV2+ CCiCap CPC CCiCap2 CCtCAP Total Boeing $18.0 $92.3 $20.6 $460.0 $10.0 $20.0$4200$4820.9SpaceX $0.0 $75.0 $0.0 $440.0 $9.6 $20.0$2600$3144.6Sierra Nevada Corporation $20.0 $80.0 $25.6 $212.5 $10.0 $15.0 $363.1Blue Origin $3.7 $22.0 $25.7ULA $6.7 $6.7Paragon $1.4 $1.4Total $49.8 $269.3 $46.2$1112.5 $29.6 $55.0$6800$8362.4cheers, MartinEdit: nope. Epic fail there, TT.
It seems to me that having three different capsule designs for just two to three missions total a year is not a good way to run a cost effective program. If the CCtCAP vehicles are to help with costs, then surely only going with the cheaper option and saving $4.2B, that could be used for other actual missions beyond LEO, like building a large upper stage, cryogenic propulsion stage and Lunar lander, seems to me to be a better way to use the available money.Personally, I wanted Sierra Nevada to win so as to give someone else a chance, just like NASA gave SpaceX a chance. Anyways, here's a summary of the total program costs.CCDEV CCDEV1 CCDEV2 CCDEV2+ CCiCap CPC CCiCap2 CCtCAP Total------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Boeing $18.0 $92.3 $20.6 $460.0 $10.0 $20.0 $4200 $4820.9SpaceX $0.0 $75.0 $0.0 $440.0 $9.6 $20.0 $2600 $3144.6Sierra Nevada Corporation $20.0 $80.0 $25.6 $212.5 $10.0 $15.0 $363.1Blue Origin $3.7 $22.0 $25.7ULA $6.7 $6.7Paragon $1.4 $1.4------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Total $49.8 $269.3 $46.2 $1112.5 $29.6 $55.0 $6800 $8362.4
Would SNC/Dream Chaser have been any more inspirational? Seems unlikely at this point that we will ever know.
So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?
...CST-100 will probably get the job done, but on the inspiration scale I think it's down there with Soyuz. I know that there is a lot more love for SpaceX and Dragon around here, but I'm not sure the general public will be inspired by that either. ...
Good post. I was showing my son (13) an animation of Dragon 2 returning and his reaction was "that's so cool". I guarantee you the first powered landing (without chutes) that Dragon makes will get the public's attention. It's what they see in the movies and it's what they expect to see in real life but only get chutes and water most of the time. It will be look mom, no chute needed! That's what I like about SpaceX above Boeing. It's that they are willing to not stay with the present but to ask questions and change things up. Boeing is a good company and will "get the job done" but they won't inspire the next generation of space engineers. Space X might.
Quote from: DavisSTS on 09/17/2014 03:07 pmSo the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?IMO? Boeing's continued involvement was critical to stop Congress defunding the whole program for being 'without credibility'. Not funding SpaceX, a company actually already flying the vehicle to the ISS, would instantly fail the laugh test and not even SpaceX's most vituperative Congressional enemy would want to be associated with such a decision. Only two vehicles were going to be funded. The rest is just math.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 09/17/2014 03:11 pmQuote from: DavisSTS on 09/17/2014 03:07 pmSo the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?IMO? Boeing's continued involvement was critical to stop Congress defunding the whole program for being 'without credibility'. Not funding SpaceX, a company actually already flying the vehicle to the ISS, would instantly fail the laugh test and not even SpaceX's most vituperative Congressional enemy would want to be associated with such a decision. Only two vehicles were going to be funded. The rest is just math.You are probably right, but I am just so sick and tired of politics being used to evaluate an engineering program...
What is it about government contracting people do not understand? Request for proposals (RFP's) are put out, companies bid on those proposals (and all that paperwork really costs), government teams assess those proposals against criteria (legally they can not spill the details outside the assessment team) and a decision is finally made.Boeing's bid cost more than SpaceX but outside the assessing team that would not have been known. So, it is not about Boeing getting more than SpaceX, it is rather that Boeing priced their RFP response higher. The bid assessment team would have had a huge matrix of criteria to work through - technical, schedule and financial risk assessments would have been in the mix as well. In the end they had to choose two players and the two that scored higher would have won.
I'm not seeing people running around with CST-100 baseball caps and "Capsules 4 EVA!" T-shirts this morning.
Exploration is not a continuum it is a stop start thing.
