Commercial Crew Spacecraft Competition

[Prober]

found this inside view of the Boeing was 2010 so it might be old?

[Lars_J]

A partial mock-up of the CST-100 interior:

[Orbital Debris]

A partial mock-up of the CST-100 interior:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/ccts/docs/CCDev2%20Boeing%20CST-100%20Overview.pdf

This is a pretty good public domain presentation with some of my favorite views of the interior of the mockup (the folks in the mockup are the engineers that worked on it.  For those interested, slides 9&10 the background is the interior of the Bigelow plant.

[Rocket Science]

I did a rough calculation of the interior volume of the CST-100 vs Dragon due the intrusion of the docking tunnel at about 1 cubic meter less.  Nate said a bit more…  Anyone else?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9921.1215

[mr. mark]

You have to wonder if Boeing will have a spacecraft after next week if they are not selected.

[Rocket Science]

You have to wonder if Boeing will have a spacecraft after next week if they are not selected.

I say yes...

[Lars_J]

I did a rough calculation of the interior volume of the CST-100 vs Dragon due the intrusion of the docking tunnel at about 1 cubic meter less.  Nate said a bit more…  Anyone else?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9921.1215

The only metric that matters in the end is the 'habitable'/usable volume. It's hard to know for either exactly, without knowing exactly how the cabin will be configured. (although the CST-100 internal mockups give us a decent idea, and they appear to be further along in that aspect compared to Dragon)

[Rocket Science]

I did a rough calculation of the interior volume of the CST-100 vs Dragon due the intrusion of the docking tunnel at about 1 cubic meter less.  Nate said a bit more…  Anyone else?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9921.1215

The only metric that matters in the end is the 'habitable'/usable volume. It's hard to know for either exactly, without knowing exactly how the cabin will be configured. (although the CST-100 internal mockups give us a decent idea, and they appear to be further along in that compared to Dragon)

Like I said... "Totally full of error"!

[vt_hokie]

No word on a selection announcement date?

[A_M_Swallow]

Has the 'simple life support system' been tested?
Would it work in other vehicles, habitats and spacestations?

[docmordrid]

I thought Paragon had developed one in CCDev-1 that was approved by NASA for commercial crew partners. At the least they are partnered with SpaceX.

[QuantumG]

I thought Paragon had developed one in CCDev-1 that was approved by NASA for commercial crew partners. At the least they are partnered with SpaceX.

You'd figure integrating life support would be a priority.. it's not like they can fly without it.

[pathfinder_01]

Has the 'simple life support system' been tested?
Would it work in other vehicles, habitats and spacestations?

For CST100 yes. Paragon also developed a lifesupport system that can be used in any vechile. Paragon is working with Space X on it's life support.

Life support is a tricky thing. ISS life support systems are rather differnt than that of the Shuttle. Orion's would be more different still.  The needs of a spacecraft that must be launched but only work in space for a short period of time and return are differnt than ISS or Bigeleow or to a degree Orion's life support system(which Paragon was also working on).

[Orbital Debris]

I thought Paragon had developed one in CCDev-1 that was approved by NASA for commercial crew partners. At the least they are partnered with SpaceX.

You'd figure integrating life support would be a priority.. it's not like they can fly without it.

Well, they can't fly crew without it.  Life support tends to be one of those systems that gets taken for granted, or pushed down in priority until it doesn't work.  I am surprised that we have not heard much about testing results, in favor of landing systems, prop, outer mold lines, etc.  However that may be due to the fact that it doesn't pitch to the public well.

As noted above Life Support is tricky, and I would be interested in the competitors pitches in that respect.  I think it gives insight to a maturity of design.  Even if you decided to subcontract that out, Life Support has large impacts on other systems (particularly power, thermal, volume) that make integration difficult.

[Prober]

Orbital Debris did you have a chance to get close up (must be nice) to the mock up of the CST100?

[Orbital Debris]

Orbital Debris did you have a chance to get close up (must be nice) to the mock up of the CST100?

Yes, I spent quite a bit of time in it.

[kirghizstan]

ok this is getting ridiculous, can't they just announce the "winners" already so we can move on hearing the endless discussions about how nasa both blew it and made the smartest choices every. 

[edkyle99]

ok this is getting ridiculous, can't they just announce the "winners" already so we can move on hearing the endless discussions about how nasa both blew it and made the smartest choices every. 

No matter how it turns out, someone will claim conspiracy, etc., rather than just accept on face value that NASA chose the winners based on who best met the bid criteria.  This delayed announcement is already fueling those theories, because, "clearly", some politician or NASA HQ type with connections is trying to change the results as we speak. 

 - Ed Kyle

[MikeAtkinson]

ok this is getting ridiculous, can't they just announce the "winners" already so we can move on hearing the endless discussions about how nasa both blew it and made the smartest choices every. 

No matter how it turns out, someone will claim conspiracy, etc., rather than just accept on face value that NASA chose the winners based on who best met the bid criteria.  This delayed announcement is already fueling those theories, because, "clearly", some politician or NASA HQ type with connections is trying to change the results as we speak. 

 - Ed Kyle

I hope and expect that these "political" delays are just various people satisfying themselves that the process has been carried out correctly. We don't want the decision challenged in the courts by someone claiming process has not been followed and that criteria other than those set out are being used to choose the winners.

[Prober]

ok this is getting ridiculous, can't they just announce the "winners" already so we can move on hearing the endless discussions about how nasa both blew it and made the smartest choices every. 

No matter how it turns out, someone will claim conspiracy, etc., rather than just accept on face value that NASA chose the winners based on who best met the bid criteria.  This delayed announcement is already fueling those theories, because, "clearly", some politician or NASA HQ type with connections is trying to change the results as we speak. 

 - Ed Kyle

I hope and expect that these "political" delays are just various people satisfying themselves that the process has been carried out correctly. We don't want the decision challenged in the courts by someone claiming process has not been followed and that criteria other than those set out are being used to choose the winners.

Everyone misses the point and the process should be kept in perspective, it’s a “Competition”.   The best that met the specs should get into the next round period.

Those firms who have bragged about continuing “no matter what” will have to put up, or shut up.   All the firms have a chance to be in final “Competition” for the contract in aprox two years.  That being said only stupid firms would bring this into a court.

Anything that needs correcting?