Quote from: Rocket Science on 07/16/2012 02:53 pmWe never really know what negotiations are still going on behind the scene. Maybe our friend 51D might be privy to things he has seen or heard but cannot comment upon… The pessimist in me says SNC will likely lose out, since they've got the coolest vehicle and Congress seems intent on downgrading us to capsules...
We never really know what negotiations are still going on behind the scene. Maybe our friend 51D might be privy to things he has seen or heard but cannot comment upon…
It is my hope that Dream Chaser is funded.The rest are all capsules so any one of them can be picked I don't think it really matters.The only thing I really don't want to see is ATK/Boeing being the top 2.
The awards cover both developing spacecraft and man rating the launch vehicles. So there will have be two awards in one.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/17/2012 03:26 amThe awards cover both developing spacecraft and man rating the launch vehicles. So there will have be two awards in one.No, the awards are for a crew service and there will be one award apiece. How the winner decides to allocate the money it is up to them. They can spend all the NASA money on the spacecraft and choose to fund launch vehicle work internally or have a subcontractor paid for it. Or the other way around.
Quote from: Jim on 07/17/2012 10:51 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/17/2012 03:26 amThe awards cover both developing spacecraft and man rating the launch vehicles. So there will have be two awards in one.No, the awards are for a crew service and there will be one award apiece. How the winner decides to allocate the money it is up to them. They can spend all the NASA money on the spacecraft and choose to fund launch vehicle work internally or have a subcontractor paid for it. Or the other way around. Any rough idea what the next level of milestones will be?
Which system is chosen is not up to Congress. It is NASA that makes that call.
I don’t know about that. In certain ways it might be the most dangerous vehicle, in that it has an exposed TPS in orbit. But, that aside, I think it has a lot of support for a variety of reasons.1) It’s a reusable spaceplane that looks like a mini-space shuttle. Many who aren’t well educated on such things view that as “high-tech” and “futuristic” in that it looks like an airplane. Obviously the Shuttle taught us that perception isn’t necessarily reality. But regardless, a mini-shuttle landing on the SLF at KSC is a visual effect that I think many in NASA, and even Congress would like to see with the Shuttle retired.2) It’s based on a NASA design, so NASA can always talk about how DC is the culmination of work that THEY did many years ago. It’s not quite as easy to say that about Dragon and CST-100, although in certain ways it could be said. At least some tech in those is based on previous NASA projects. DC would reflect well on NASA in the public’s eye I think, as well as Congress’s eye.3) Although it probably wouldn’t take off at KSC, it would land there and be processed there, which helps validate NASA’s multi-use Spaceport concept.
Regarding your #3, why do you think DC wouldn't launch at KSC?
Quote from: Lobo on 07/16/2012 10:45 pmI don’t know about that. In certain ways it might be the most dangerous vehicle, in that it has an exposed TPS in orbit. But, that aside, I think it has a lot of support for a variety of reasons.1) It’s a reusable spaceplane that looks like a mini-space shuttle. Many who aren’t well educated on such things view that as “high-tech” and “futuristic” in that it looks like an airplane. Obviously the Shuttle taught us that perception isn’t necessarily reality. But regardless, a mini-shuttle landing on the SLF at KSC is a visual effect that I think many in NASA, and even Congress would like to see with the Shuttle retired.2) It’s based on a NASA design, so NASA can always talk about how DC is the culmination of work that THEY did many years ago. It’s not quite as easy to say that about Dragon and CST-100, although in certain ways it could be said. At least some tech in those is based on previous NASA projects. DC would reflect well on NASA in the public’s eye I think, as well as Congress’s eye.3) Although it probably wouldn’t take off at KSC, it would land there and be processed there, which helps validate NASA’s multi-use Spaceport concept. I think there are much better reasons for the evaluation team to choose DC.1. Lower reentry accelerations so DC can play a lifeboat role in present and future NASA operations.2. 1000-mile crossrange to give DC a greater landing flexibility, again for DC's lifeboat role. It can get down more quickly (many runway choices) and shave hours off the time it takes to get a crew member to a hospital.3. Non-toxic propellants allow immediate crew egress at a public airport, again for a possible lifeboat role. Reasons that don't officially get evaluated, but might enter the evaluator's mind:A. Unmanned DC has a lot of potential. It's a flexible robotic vehicle that can stay on-orbit for long periods of time. Its non-toxic, storable propellant gives it some interesting mission capabilities. It might be a great vehicle down the line as NASA forays into satellite repair and refueling.B. Manned DC has a lot of potential as well. Priced competitively, it's a more attractive option for a lot of commercial applications, and NASA is trying to seed that market.C. Finally getting a lifting body into service would be a big technology risk reduction for future NASA-developed vehicles, assuming NASA ever again finds itself in the position of developing a lifting body vehicle. There's a realistic possibility that NASA may be out of that role.Regarding your #3, why do you think DC wouldn't launch at KSC?
Quote from: daveklingler on 07/24/2012 05:57 am...A. Unmanned DC has a lot of potential. It's a flexible robotic vehicle that can stay on-orbit for long periods of time. Its non-toxic, storable propellant gives it some interesting mission capabilities. It might be a great vehicle down the line as NASA forays into satellite repair and refueling.B. Manned DC has a lot of potential as well. Priced competitively, it's a more attractive option for a lot of commercial applications, and NASA is trying to seed that market.C. Finally getting a lifting body into service would be a big technology risk reduction for future NASA-developed vehicles, assuming NASA ever again finds itself in the position of developing a lifting body vehicle. There's a realistic possibility that NASA may be out of that role.None of those "reasons" matter. None of them are requirements, therefore have no bearing on the selection process
...A. Unmanned DC has a lot of potential. It's a flexible robotic vehicle that can stay on-orbit for long periods of time. Its non-toxic, storable propellant gives it some interesting mission capabilities. It might be a great vehicle down the line as NASA forays into satellite repair and refueling.B. Manned DC has a lot of potential as well. Priced competitively, it's a more attractive option for a lot of commercial applications, and NASA is trying to seed that market.C. Finally getting a lifting body into service would be a big technology risk reduction for future NASA-developed vehicles, assuming NASA ever again finds itself in the position of developing a lifting body vehicle. There's a realistic possibility that NASA may be out of that role.
