You will not have 2.5 qualified systems when this is done, not for $5B. One. Maybe 1.5.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/27/2013 02:22 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 02/27/2013 02:14 pmWell, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew. Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense. $5 billion? That's a complete bargain for 2.5 qualified crewed systems (with multiple abort tests and launches), with milestones paid only when each milestone is completed. JWST is a single, unmanned spacecraft with a single launch. Pretty much as apples-to-oranges as you can get.You will not have 2.5 qualified systems when this is done, not for $5B. One. Maybe 1.5.
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 02/27/2013 02:14 pmWell, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew. Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense. $5 billion? That's a complete bargain for 2.5 qualified crewed systems (with multiple abort tests and launches), with milestones paid only when each milestone is completed. JWST is a single, unmanned spacecraft with a single launch. Pretty much as apples-to-oranges as you can get.
Well, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew. Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense.
Quote from: erioladastra on 02/28/2013 01:36 amYou will not have 2.5 qualified systems when this is done, not for $5B. One. Maybe 1.5.That's an interesting analysis, what do you base it on? Since Blue Origin seems to be chugging along for essentially zero dollars, I think that's overly pessimistic. we might end up with 2.5 even after Boeing implodes.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/27/2013 02:07 pmQuite reasonable points, IMHO, even though I think it has turned out better than should've been expected and in hindsight is a good investment. The EELVs should not have been excluded. Many think they were excluded in order to reduce the chance that NASA's main HSF turf would not be encroached upon.The EELVs were not excluded from competing in COTS. This is a myth that people on this forum keep repeating but it isn't actually true. Boeing had a proposal that nearly won over Orbital's proposal in 2008. DC competed in 2006 and would have used an Atlas.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services
Quite reasonable points, IMHO, even though I think it has turned out better than should've been expected and in hindsight is a good investment. The EELVs should not have been excluded. Many think they were excluded in order to reduce the chance that NASA's main HSF turf would not be encroached upon.
Quote from: yg1968 on 02/28/2013 03:42 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/27/2013 02:07 pmQuite reasonable points, IMHO, even though I think it has turned out better than should've been expected and in hindsight is a good investment. The EELVs should not have been excluded. Many think they were excluded in order to reduce the chance that NASA's main HSF turf would not be encroached upon.The EELVs were not excluded from competing in COTS. This is a myth that people on this forum keep repeating but it isn't actually true. Boeing had a proposal that nearly won over Orbital's proposal in 2008. DC competed in 2006 and would have used an Atlas.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_ServicesNot /explicitly/ excluded, that's not what I meant. And let me make clear this is my opinion; it's based on comments from other experts (such as Jim).
What makes you think Boeing will implode?
Quote from: beancounter on 02/28/2013 05:20 amWhat makes you think Boeing will implode?Wishful thinking. It's the option least likely to advance the state of the art. IMHO. And therefore the one that probably has the best chance of winning, it seems.
Quote from: Lar on 03/03/2013 05:27 amQuote from: beancounter on 02/28/2013 05:20 amWhat makes you think Boeing will implode?Wishful thinking. It's the option least likely to advance the state of the art. IMHO. And therefore the one that probably has the best chance of winning, it seems.It also seems the most redundant, with Dragon and Orion already in production. I hope Dream Chaser's unique attributes give it the needed edge over another capsule design.
Well Orion is supposed to be BEO and the other's LEO. The only redundancy is in the LEO program. None in the BEO program. That's a worry. NASA needs redundancy in both IMO. They've got it with launchers so they're safe there.
Quote from: spectre9 on 02/27/2013 01:09 amif Americans want astronauts launching from their own soil.But they don't care if the rockets are made in Russia?
if Americans want astronauts launching from their own soil.
Actually, the rocket is being built by Ukraine, not Russia.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/05/2013 12:59 amActually, the rocket is being built by Ukraine, not Russia.*Russia and other former soviet republics. Fixed.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/05/2013 12:59 amActually, the rocket is being built by Ukraine, not Russia.What rocket are you talking about?I was talking about the RD-180 which, as far as I'm aware, is still built by NPO Energomash in Russia.Edit: hmpft.. seems it's "made" by RD AMROSS, which is a Florida company. No idea where it is actually manufactured.
I was referring to the Antares rocket stage. And BTW, Aerojet and P&W (or whoever now owns them) can make the NK-33 and RD-180 if the fit hits the shan.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/05/2013 01:43 amI was referring to the Antares rocket stage. And BTW, Aerojet and P&W (or whoever now owns them) can make the NK-33 and RD-180 if the fit hits the shan.You mean they're allowed to try.
