Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport · 5mCCtCap rumor2: ULA stunned at Boeing selection-based on proposal, had concluded dead in water. Again:No disrespect Boeing but what happened?
Wow, wonder if that's why Bolden's press conference was so weird and devoid of any real enthusiasm.
Not a total disaster, but very easily could have been. I think SpaceX was lucky to get in at all. The fix is definitely in and the only reason SpaceX made the cut, instead of just rewarding the whole thing to Boeing is optics. It would have caused an uproar if the whole deal was rewarded to Boeing straight out. Can't be too obvious with the graft. Too bad DC got the shyt end of the stick here. The have a very nice forward looking vehicle that hopefully will get put to use somewhere.
Quote from: mijoh on 09/17/2014 06:03 pmNot a total disaster, but very easily could have been. I think SpaceX was lucky to get in at all. The fix is definitely in and the only reason SpaceX made the cut, instead of just rewarding the whole thing to Boeing is optics. It would have caused an uproar if the whole deal was rewarded to Boeing straight out. Can't be too obvious with the graft. Too bad DC got the shyt end of the stick here. The have a very nice forward looking vehicle that hopefully will get put to use somewhere.I disagree about the reason that SpaceX got in. The reason that it made the cut was the Falcon 9. The launch vehicle isn't dependent on Russian Rocket engines. By choosing SpaceX you get two different Capsules and two different launch vehicles. I would be interested to know what was SNC's bid on the contract. Will we ever get that information?
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport 6mCCtCap rumor1: Was to be SpaceX/SNC at about $5b total until the announcement delay about 2 wks ago. No disrespect Boeing but what happened?
The reason that it made the cut was the Falcon 9.
Remember Boeing can launch on Falcon 9. It may have been part of Boeing's plan all along to have a co provider that can launch their capsule as well. With both in the game and Falcon 9 man rated to NASA standards, it makes for a double punch for CST-100 and an obvious advantage. Wonder if Boeing reps made this known as a favorable co partner in commercial crew for them? In other words, Boeing said if we are chosen, We'd like to have SpaceX chosen as the co participant in order to have guaranteed dual launcher access. We will never know but, there was a meeting between SpaceX and Boeing sometime ago. Maybe this was talked about by the two companies.
Quote from: ugordan on 09/17/2014 05:43 pmCharles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport · 5mCCtCap rumor2: ULA stunned at Boeing selection-based on proposal, had concluded dead in water. Again:No disrespect Boeing but what happened?Here's my theory on how the rumors turned out wrong: Boeing had the lowest risk assessment. Spacex and SNC were riskier, but well within what most people considered acceptable (based on experience with COTS for example). Spacex and SNC were cheaper and looked cooler too.At the last minute, the administration looked at the international political scene and the tight schedule* and decided that the risks and consequences of a delay were unacceptable and must be minimized at any cost. What's the lead time to order more Soyuz seats? Who wants that on their hands right now?Another thing is the 4.2 and 2.6 figures are the maximum possible amount. My theory is that the certification costs for Boeing and Spacex are closer than the numbers suggest, with the primary difference being in the cost of the post certification missions. (complete guesswork): certification + 2 PCMs for Spacex: ~1.5B, Boeing: ~2.2B.*the margins to make 2017 are razor thin. If nothing else everyone should agree on this.
Quote from: brovane on 09/17/2014 06:17 pmThe reason that it made the cut was the Falcon 9.I would instead say it was Dragon and the flight experience it has, at least some portion of which will translate to Dragon V2. Whether the engines below are Russian or not, Atlas is currently a much better-proven vehicle than F9 v1.1. The latter isn't even up to 10 flights and is not "out of the woods yet". NASA might have even identified the F9 baseline as a risk and SpaceX quite likely presented contingency plans on Dragon on Atlas as part of their program risk mitigation steps.
Some people still do not get it. This decision was not a couple of good 'ol boys sitting around the table grumbling about how little kick back was coming their way from those fancy pants new boys not was it a bunch of heavy weight politicians threating to cut funding if the decision did not cut their way. It was the product of a months long process by an army of experts forensically examining the bids submitted and scoring them against the requirements NASA set. If there is any biasing in the outcome it came from the requirements NASA formulated and against which the bids were scored.This is standard government stuff. It is certainly not visionary and it can be as boring as hell. The vision comes from above, the product comes from an interminable paperwork process. Apollo was built the same way, so was Shuttle.
What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle? Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights?
Quote from: Dasun on 09/17/2014 06:41 pmSome people still do not get it. This decision was not a couple of good 'ol boys sitting around the table grumbling about how little kick back was coming their way from those fancy pants new boys not was it a bunch of heavy weight politicians threating to cut funding if the decision did not cut their way. It was the product of a months long process by an army of experts forensically examining the bids submitted and scoring them against the requirements NASA set. If there is any biasing in the outcome it came from the requirements NASA formulated and against which the bids were scored.This is standard government stuff. It is certainly not visionary and it can be as boring as hell. The vision comes from above, the product comes from an interminable paperwork process. Apollo was built the same way, so was Shuttle. Then why there were strong rumors that as late as two weeks ago, it was supposed to be SNC/SpaceX, and at a much lower total cost?
Bunch of nonsense and BS. Not one bit of truth in this post
Then why there were strong rumors that as late as two weeks ago, it was supposed to be SNC/SpaceX, and at a much lower total cost?
