CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Mongo62]

What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle?  Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights?

One flight more than however many they've flown at that point in time, it appears.

[chuck34]

IIRC - and do not hold me to it - but Boeing made an appeal against Airbus being selected for the airborne tanker currently being built by Boeing and won.

THIS, In my humble opinion, is more apt to this situation that you think.  You do realize that Airbus actually did win that contract based on the merits?  But then some "good 'ole boys in the back room" got together and politics trumped the decision of the selection board.  Now I personally believe those political considerations had valid weight to them (US Defense shouldn't be reliant on foreign nations when there is a US alternative).  And maybe there are good political reasons for Boeing to be included at the last minute here (if that's true, and I have no idea). 

But please realize that, by your own example, the selection board is not always 100% apolitical, nor are they immune from outside influence. 

[Brovane]

Stepping back a little, does the $6.8 billion price tag for this phase in CC tell us anything about how successful this public/private-commercial experiment is going?

Total CC bill seems to be getting high to me, but I've never built a spacecraft before... At some point it would have cost fewer tax dollars if NASA had gone to Boeing or LM in 2010 and said "please build us a spaceship, you know the drill: cost-plus".

In theory freeing up companies to design to specs, coupled with competition should have kept prices low. Is there evidence this has happened? To amateur eyes the disparity in what Boeing is charging for the same work as SpaceX suggests they have not been phased by the presence of SNC and SpaceX in the competition. But others may know differently.

Remember that is just not buying a new spacecraft.  It is also buying 12 crew launches plus test launches.  I don't see how for 6.8 Billion under cost plus you would have gotten 12 crew launches and full development paid for a single new capsule.  Not even mentioning that 6.8 Billion you are getting two new capsules. 

[Rocket Science]

Stepping back a little, does the $6.8 billion price tag for this phase in CC tell us anything about how successful this public/private-commercial experiment is going?

Total CC bill seems to be getting high to me, but I've never built a spacecraft before... At some point it would have cost fewer tax dollars if NASA had gone to Boeing or LM in 2010 and said "please build us a spaceship, you know the drill: cost-plus".

In theory freeing up companies to design to specs, coupled with competition should have kept prices low. Is there evidence this has happened? To amateur eyes the disparity in what Boeing is charging for the same work as SpaceX suggests they have not been phased by the presence of SNC and SpaceX in the competition. But others may know differently.

Heh Adrian, you pretty much said what I said 5 pages back. They could of just cut a check to Boeing several years back and we wouldn't be on Soyuz today or needing to ride trampolines...

[Dasun]

Chuck34 - I have forgotten most of the details regarding the overturning of Airbus's selection but as far as I recall it was done in the public space.  For political reasons - and I think sound -the Airbus selection was challenged and the competition rerun.  It was not done in the dark via back room deals - it was announced, protested, rerun and awarded to Boeing - exactly as the process is meant to happen.  I am guessing the new selection board had different criteria to score against! But this is off topic.

Jim has a better handle on this than me - check a few posts down.

[Jim]

In my humble opinion, is more apt to this situation that you think.  You do realize that Airbus actually did win that contract based on the merits?

No, they won at first because the source selection criteria was changed mid stream.  Exceeding requirements wasn't supposed to be a factor.  See the GAO report.

But please realize that, by your own example, the selection board is not always 100% apolitical, nor are they immune from outside influence. 

Yes, they are .  Your example is wrong.

[chuck34]

In my humble opinion, is more apt to this situation that you think.  You do realize that Airbus actually did win that contract based on the merits?

No, they won at first because the source selection criteria was changed mid stream.  Exceeding requirements wasn't supposed to be a factor.  See the GAO report.

But please realize that, by your own example, the selection board is not always 100% apolitical, nor are they immune from outside influence. 

Yes, they are .  Your example is wrong.

Quick Google search.  Sounds eerily familiar.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/business/25tanker.html?_r=0

Boeing, its supporters in Congress and independent analysts were all surprised by the outcome, because in recent days, the Chicago-based company seemed to have given up hope of winning.

[bad_astra]

I don't really understand the anti-Boeing negativity, and I really like Dream Chaster.

CST-100 is a sound design that can do the job it was designed for. That's whats needed. Maybe I am not jaded enough, but I am excited about any human carrying spacecraft.

Whoever you like, the issue of all issues is that Congress is almost certainly not going to give NASA the money it needs to do this by 2017, and that is unfortunately. I hope I am wrong, but of all the entrants capable, if funded, of delivering on time, the CST-100 makes sense.

And frankly, if I were going up there, I'd want to be on the best funded, most conservative design. A vehicle like CST-100 is something I wish we had come out of from OSP.

[punder]

Being somewhat familiar with human nature, I would be very afraid to make a blanket statement that NASA or DOD selection boards are always apolitical and immune to outside influence.

Certainly not saying that's the case here... but every human on the planet can be manipulated.

[Davinator]

Thread trim due to low quality posts.

[raketa]

I think NASA prefer choose just Boeing, but  they were worry about Boeing coming back asking for more money, until project is canceled by Congress, I think  they choose Spacex to keep Boeing on leash.
I think NASA is becoming worry about Spacex, make NASA purpose on Space exploration obsolete.
What you need to explore solar system and land on Mars  and what NASA and Spacex are doing:
BFR
NASA  - will have something around 2025, but probably get cancel because money overrun
Spacex - will probably have BFR after 2020, if they will be able  due to reusability rocket took at least 50 % launch market($35B with their discount revenue could be around $15-20B)

Land big rocket propulsively with precision
To land rocket with capsule to bring back people on the Mars orbit
- NASA not even planing such tests
-Spacex already testing rocket landing(around 2024, they could hundred landing on earth and will be ready to try on Mars)

Landing on Mars
NASA- system to land on Mars couldn't be used to land crew due weight limits, they have to invent new system
Spacex - will soon test propulsive landing from the orbit, suitable also for Mars landing. Around 2024 will have tons landing on the Earth ready to do it on Mars.
Life support system                
NASA- have lot of experiences, will test 3 D printing
Spacex - not sure, but 3D printing could change ball game

MTV
NASA - Orion is not suitable for Mars trip
Spacex-not sure how far they are with MCT

Mars Habitat
NASA - not know
Spacex - not know

Rovers:
NASA - have rower that could be modify and use
Spacex - not know


In the most expensive items(BFR,Propulsive landing,capsule)  Spacex is ahead of NASA or NASA even didn't try included in their preparation for Mars exploration.

[jongoff]

Bigelow are a *long* way from being able to free-fly anything for a paying customer. I don't expect them to be providing an alternate destination for the CC providers in 2017 or 2018.

While I like Bigelow, I agree with this assessment. They've got a lot of work to do, and it's far from unclear that they have a lead that couldn't be surmounted by a competitor--inflatable modules aren't the only way to do large commercial space stations...

~Jon

[jongoff]

I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...

~Jon

The odds of at least one of SpaceX or Boeing succeeding at this point (maybe later but succeeding) are extremely high.  You effectively said Bigelow is not a sure bet.  Which doesn't exactly seem like going out on a limb to me...

I was trying to be nice. Bigelow has a long way to go before they have either the technology or the engineering organization capable of doing what he wants to do. They might make it, but I only give them a little higher odds than I do SNC for making Dreamchaser work without a CCtCap award.

~Jon

[Brovane]

I don't really understand the anti-Boeing negativity, and I really like Dream Chaster.

CST-100 is a sound design that can do the job it was designed for. That's whats needed. Maybe I am not jaded enough, but I am excited about any human carrying spacecraft.

Whoever you like, the issue of all issues is that Congress is almost certainly not going to give NASA the money it needs to do this by 2017, and that is unfortunately. I hope I am wrong, but of all the entrants capable, if funded, of delivering on time, the CST-100 makes sense.

And frankly, if I were going up there, I'd want to be on the best funded, most conservative design. A vehicle like CST-100 is something I wish we had come out of from OSP.

The problem with that is that Dragon v1 is already flying versus CST-100. 

 IMHO,  with Dragon v2 SpaceX will sending it with crew into orbit by 2017 regardless of Congressional funding.  With NASA they didn't want to exclude SpaceX and just fund Boeing.  Then turn around and have delays from Boeing and have them asking for more money.  While at the same time you have SpaceX building it's Dragon V2 and sending it into orbit with a crew as a test.  Then while NASA is still working with Boeing to get into space.  SpaceX has a press conference after the first Dragon V2 crewed test flight and you have Musk putting a "This Capsule for rent sign on the outside", with pricing listed.  NASA figured that at least with SpaceX as a partner they will not be overally disruptive to overall commercial crew program. 

[Brovane]

What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle?  Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights?

One flight more than however many they've flown at that point in time, it appears.

Yeah isn't it amazing how the bar always keeps shifting when SpaceX has another success. 

[adrianwyard]

Remember that is just not buying a new spacecraft.  It is also buying 12 crew launches plus test launches.  I don't see how for 6.8 Billion under cost plus you would have gotten 12 crew launches and full development paid for a single new capsule.  Not even mentioning that 6.8 Billion you are getting two new capsules.

You need to include prior CC programs, so the cost will be $8.3B. Mind you it looks like Orion will be pushing ~$13B to get passed tests and operational, but this is not an apples:apples comparison.

[jongoff]

Remember that is just not buying a new spacecraft.  It is also buying 12 crew launches plus test launches.  I don't see how for 6.8 Billion under cost plus you would have gotten 12 crew launches and full development paid for a single new capsule.  Not even mentioning that 6.8 Billion you are getting two new capsules.

You need to include prior CC programs, so the cost will be $8.3B. Mind you it looks like Orion will be pushing ~$13B to get passed tests and operational, but this is not an apples:apples comparison.

If you included the full Orion cost from start of development through it's 12th manned operational flight, including the fixed cost of keeping the program running through flight #12 (but left out any mission-specific engineering costs), my guess is it would be a lot higher than $13B... and that's without booking any launcher costs to Orion which is probably a big share of the costs in that CCtCap award.

~Jon

[Brovane]

Remember that is just not buying a new spacecraft.  It is also buying 12 crew launches plus test launches.  I don't see how for 6.8 Billion under cost plus you would have gotten 12 crew launches and full development paid for a single new capsule.  Not even mentioning that 6.8 Billion you are getting two new capsules.

You need to include prior CC programs, so the cost will be $8.3B. Mind you it looks like Orion will be pushing ~$13B to get passed tests and operational, but this is not an apples:apples comparison.

True I didn't include the earlier costs, thank you for correcting that.  You have to include the package of crew launches as part of the consideration, which is not insignificantt.  I also strongly suspect that any future commercial crew bidding beyond the contracted launches will be significantly cheaper.  Is orion going to be that much different than the Commercial crew contracted Capsules?   

[vt_hokie]

I don't really understand the anti-Boeing negativity, and I really like Dream Chaster.

CST-100 is a sound design that can do the job it was designed for. That's whats needed. Maybe I am not jaded enough, but I am excited about any human carrying spacecraft.

I think maybe it's at a higher level that I have a problem, and this is just a symptom of NASA's current mission.  We have no less than three separate manned vehicles under development now, and not a single one will be pushing the envelope in terms of technology or truly making spaceflight more routine.  Gone are the days of visionary projects like NASP and VentureStar.  Ill conceived as they may have been, they had the goal of pushing boundaries and advancing the state of the art. 

Of the three vehicles that I'll likely live to see fly in my lifetime, only the SpaceX Dragon gives me any level of excitement and optimism over its potential to evolve and play a part in opening up the frontier. 

[ugordan]

What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle?  Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights?

One flight more than however many they've flown at that point in time, it appears.

Yeah isn't it amazing how the bar always keeps shifting when SpaceX has another success. 

Oh, please. You can't seriously be telling me F9 v1.1 and Atlas are near the same level of reliability and maturity. One has 49 launches under its belt, the other has 7. So far, F9 is off to a good start, but it's not the strength of the SpaceX CCtCAP proposal. The strength is the Dragon and its flight heritage. A variant of the vehicle that will become Dragon V2 has already flown several times, whereas the competition has flown their proposed vehicle exactly zero times.

Just as NASA is likely to view F9 as the more riskier of the two vehicles, it's likely to view Dragon as less risky than other proposals. Doesn't mean these SpaceX-fanboi-like, knee-jerk reactions are in order just because someone dared to say F9 v1.1 has not yet proven itself to be the most reliable vehicle this side of the known universe.