Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[quark]

The way I refer to ULA has been criticised before and I'm sorry I snapped. It's just confusing not knowing what the type.

ULA wants to offer the Atlas V as a man rated rocket. They would obviously have needed permission from higher up as they need to build the thing.

I'm saying those higher ups like it very much because they are desperate for payloads.

The reason they are desperate is simple all the commercial sats are on Proton and Ariane 5.

Doesn't matter if my assessment of "desperate" is wrong to me it looks like they have the ability to launch the extra rockets on time, on budget with no problem at all.

SpaceX to me looks like have much further to go to get to that point where they can ramp up in the same way.

To clarify ULA's role in commercial crew:  ULA can contract directly with any commercial crew service provider to provide human rated launch services.  LMCLS and BLS are not involved.  ULA has supported the CCiCap bids of some of these prospective providers, but can't bid directly because of charter limitations.

[spectre9]

I like that Dream Chaser says they're launch vehicle agnostic.

Not wanting to jump straight on F9 is a worry but wanting to keep the option open might be a good thing.

I think Dream Chaser could move across and save some money (when F9 launch rate/reliability is up) where as CST-100 might not be as willing being a Boeing spacecraft and not wanting to take payloads away from ULA.

Dream Chaser is still the #1 choice and I think the fact that they've been more willing to share their progress than CST-100 which is almost impossible to get public updates on is a big bonus for them. NASA is the publics space agency after all.

[rmencos]

I like that Dream Chaser says they're launch vehicle agnostic.

Not wanting to jump straight on F9 is a worry but wanting to keep the option open might be a good thing.

I think Dream Chaser could move across and save some money (when F9 launch rate/reliability is up) where as CST-100 might not be as willing being a Boeing spacecraft and not wanting to take payloads away from ULA.

Dream Chaser is still the #1 choice and I think the fact that they've been more willing to share their progress than CST-100 which is almost impossible to get public updates on is a big bonus for them. NASA is the publics space agency after all.

Boeing has said that they are using the Atlas V as a preliminary launch vehicle.  They're willing to switch to other launch vehicles.  The Atlas V is a Lockheed creation, so I don't think Boeing feels any allegiance/obligation to using it.

Boeing's been out to the masses.  Most recently recently at SpaceUp a few weeks ago (link below - skip to about 1:17 and hear them talk about how they are not committed to Atlas V).  I think that NASA tends to control the press on CCDEV2 updates, and Boeing also seems to act pretty secure.

http://www.livestream.com/spaceuphouston/video?clipId=pla_2bc5d644-9de1-4166-8b62-8ae04f22369f

The Dream Chaser should come through.  SNC, Boeing and ULA (as a sub-contract) are feeding off each other to get the integrated capacity (it's mentioned in the video).

[Jim]

Dream Chaser is still the #1 choice and I think the fact that they've been more willing to share their progress than CST-100 which is almost impossible to get public updates on is a big bonus for them. NASA is the publics space agency after all.

That has no bearing on the matter.

[JohnFornaro]

SpaceX is a business venture, and the invested money is called capital.

So, in your little version of reality, everyone who invests in a business is a venture capitalist?

You certainly have an altitude problem, but yes, everyone who invests capital in a business venture is a VC.  It's not a matter of size, your dig about "little versions" notwithstanding.  If the parents invest in the daughter's travel business, or the son's contracting business, they are VC's.  It's a matter of function, not size, nor industry, nor tailor, nor the sign on the door.  And whether the investor is friend or family has no bearing on the VC function.

Sheesh.

[Downix]

SpaceX is a business venture, and the invested money is called capital.

So, in your little version of reality, everyone who invests in a business is a venture capitalist?

You certainly have an altitude problem, but yes, everyone who invests capital in a business venture is a VC.  It's not a matter of size, your dig about "little versions" notwithstanding.  If the parents invest in the daughter's travel business, or the son's contracting business, they are VC's.  It's a matter of function, not size, nor industry, nor tailor, nor the sign on the door.  And whether the investor is friend or family has no bearing on the VC function.

Sheesh.

I'd qualify this as to say someone who invests capital in a start up, non-public firm is a VC.

[FinalFrontier]

Dream Chaser is still the #1 choice and I think the fact that they've been more willing to share their progress than CST-100 which is almost impossible to get public updates on is a big bonus for them. NASA is the publics space agency after all.

How do you quantify that? Who said that and when? DC is not the number one choice and neither is CST 100 quite frankly.

The "number one" choice, politically anyway, is ATK Liberty. And when I say politically I mean internal inter-center inter-agency politics as much as I mean hill politics. 

[spectre9]

My #1 choice lol

That was opinion and I should've made that clear.

On what Jim said taking NASA money and being insular about your progress might be allowed and nothing against it but I think it is frowned upon. 

[A_M_Swallow]

everyone who invests capital in a business venture is a VC.

I'd qualify this as to say someone who invests capital in a start up, non-public firm is a VC.

So, not to get into another semantic argument on this thread but that's not how the word is used by everyone else. For example:

http://www.privco.com/knowledge-bank/private-equity-and-venture-capital

It is simply impossible to have a sensible conversation if you don't even know what the words mean.

"... and venture capital firms, which typically make high risk equity investments in seed, early, and growth stage private companies."

That covers start ups.

[docmordrid]

ven·ture cap·i·tal
Noun:   
Capital invested in a project in which there is a substantial element of risk, typically a new or expanding business.

I invest $1k of my private funds to help someone open a storefront, which statistically has a rather high risk of failure, in return for part of the business and any profits if it succeeds. How is this different than a richer person investing $1m, $100m, or $1b in a larger enterprise?

IMO we have all invested our capital resources in new ventures.  To call that not VC is a distinction with little difference other than scale.

[Jim]

nothing against it but I think it is frowned upon. 

Not even that.  NASA has no say.

[spectre9]

Perhaps I have a different meaning of "frowned upon" then.

It's not what's said but what's unsaid.

[Jim]

Perhaps I have a different meaning of "frowned upon" then.

It's not what's said but what's unsaid.

Not even that.  There is no requirement written or unwritten, said or unsaid.  Boeing is free to do what they want and without recourse or bias.

[mmeijeri]

Perhaps I have a different meaning of "frowned upon" then.

Or perhaps you are merely describing a personal preference. It's perfectly OK for you to prefer more transparency, but it's not a selection criterion. Perhaps it should be (or perhaps not), but currently it isn't.

[erioladastra]

Dream Chaser is still the #1 choice and I think the fact that they've been more willing to share their progress than CST-100 which is almost impossible to get public updates on is a big bonus for them. NASA is the publics space agency after all.

You are just showing your own biases.  If you look at press releases I think you will see that your statement is incorrect.   Also there can be issues of accuracy in some of the releases.

[Chris Bergin]

Long messy thread now. Locking and will look to start a better one tomorrow.