NASA Awards Commercial Crew Program Certification Products Contracts (CPC)

[Jim]

Dreamchaser has a lot going for it.

Based on what?  What does it have "going for it"?  And why it is better than what Boeing and Spacex have "going for them"?

[Jim]

I think the advantages of the DC are mission flexibility. From what I understand, it can do a lot of things the capsules cant. It is IMHO undersold as a taxi to the ISS.

What is "a lot"?

[Elmar Moelzer]

According to Sirangelo, it can go several hundred miles above the ISS and do servicing missions.
It has low g reentry. It has a signifficant cross range and it can land on a runway. Since it does not use hypergolics, it can land on any commercial airport and does not need special handling with people wearing ABC suits.
Now you may not call these "a lot", I do.

[clongton]

According to Sirangelo, it can go several hundred miles above the ISS and do servicing missions.
It has low g reentry. It has a signifficant cross range and it can land on a runway. Since it does not use hypergolics, it can land on any commercial airport and does not need special handling with people wearing ABC suits.
Now you may not call these "a lot", I do.

It can return significant mass to the ground - components for repair, science racks too big for the capsule's hatch, etc.

[erioladastra]

I find it unfair that companies such as Blue Origin are unable to get certified by NASA. NASA should have an unfunded process by which other companies are able to get certified.

The point is to accelerate the certification of a vehicle after CDR.  Blue Origin won't have a CDR any where near the NASA need dates.  Since Congress has made it clear that this is not a job or create an industry program and there is limited $, it doesn'tmake sense to fun companies like Blue.

[erioladastra]

These are the contracts for the paperwork for the phase after CCiCap.

Your tax dollars at work.

Far more than paperwork.  It also opens a channel which discussions can occur on requirements and maybe even waivers or lack there of (i.e., you WILL meet that one) to be agreed to.  very important if this project is going to be anywhere near on time.

[Jim]

According to Sirangelo, it can go several hundred miles above the ISS and do servicing missions.
It has low g reentry. It has a signifficant cross range and it can land on a runway. Since it does not use hypergolics, it can land on any commercial airport and does not need special handling with people wearing ABC suits.
Now you may not call these "a lot", I do.

It can return significant mass to the ground - components for repair, science racks too big for the capsule's hatch, etc.

No, it does not have a payload bay, it has the same cargo constraints as the others

[QuantumG]

These are the contracts for the paperwork for the phase after CCiCap.

Your tax dollars at work.

Far more than paperwork.  It also opens a channel which discussions can occur on requirements and maybe even waivers or lack there of (i.e., you WILL meet that one) to be agreed to.  very important if this project is going to be anywhere near on time.

Yeah, paperwork. NASA knows best.

[Jim]

According to Sirangelo, it can go several hundred miles above the ISS and do servicing missions.
It has low g reentry. It has a signifficant cross range and it can land on a runway. Since it does not use hypergolics, it can land on any commercial airport and does not need special handling with people wearing ABC suits.
Now you may not call these "a lot", I do.

The several hundred miles is not unique and neither is servicing.  All the vehicle can do it.

The others are not requirements and actually are impediments

[Jim]

These are the contracts for the paperwork for the phase after CCiCap.

Your tax dollars at work.

Far more than paperwork.  It also opens a channel which discussions can occur on requirements and maybe even waivers or lack there of (i.e., you WILL meet that one) to be agreed to.  very important if this project is going to be anywhere near on time.

Yeah, paperwork. NASA knows best.

Says the pot.

Do you know a better way?

[Elmar Moelzer]

According to Sirangelo, it can go several hundred miles above the ISS and do servicing missions.
It has low g reentry. It has a signifficant cross range and it can land on a runway. Since it does not use hypergolics, it can land on any commercial airport and does not need special handling with people wearing ABC suits.
Now you may not call these "a lot", I do.

The several hundred miles is not unique and neither is servicing.  All the vehicle can do it.

The others are not requirements and actually are impediments

I was simply quoting Sirangelo. These features are not requirements for commercial crew transport to the ISS. That was my original point. The DC can do more than just that.

[Elmar Moelzer]

No, it does not have a payload bay, it has the same cargo constraints as the others

I have to find the exact quote again, but it has been quoted as having advantages over the capsules in these regards. I remember that distinctly.
It may be that this was quoted wrongly originally, but I do have a link with Sirangelo's exact quote regarding the higher orbits and other advantages that I mentioned. Now Sirangelo may be overselling here, but I have not seen any material from you that says so.
Reading up on it again, it seems that Mark Sirangelo was referring to having several variations of the DC, one for cargo and one with an airlock in a space vidcast interview.

[Jim]

but I have not seen any material from you that says so.
Reading up on it again, it seems that Mark Sirangelo was referring to having several variations of the DC, one for cargo and one with an airlock in a space vidcast interview.

I am my own source.

The other spacecraft can have other variations too.

[Jim]

The DC can do more than just that.

Same goes for the others

[joek]

I have to find the exact quote again, but it has been quoted as having advantages over the capsules in these regards.

With respect to cargo, you may be thinking of something similar to the following (emphasis added)...

The use of a winged lifting body offers low entry and landing g-forces, which can be easier on humans and can enable more science payloads that require a smoother landing to be brought back from space ...

[QuantumG]

Says the pot.

Do you know a better way?

Yes, it's called the free market.

You get paid for actually delivering a product and if the customer doesn't like what you offer, they're free to go elsewhere.

I really don't know why it is so unreasonable to expect NASA to just say "we'll buy seats, when can you have them ready?" and just ride.

[Jim]

Yes, it's called the free market.

You get paid for actually delivering a product and if the customer doesn't like what you offer, they're free to go elsewhere.

I really don't know why it is so unreasonable to expect NASA to just say "we'll buy seats, when can you have them ready?" and just ride.

It isn't the free market, when the market doesn't exist.
The gov't doesn't work that way when it has to create the market.  There are rules imposed by the gov't that NASA has to work under.

This is no different than the DOD asking for a design of a cargo plane.   The DOD does use the free market for passenger planes because the market exists independently of the DOD.  There are no existing operational crew vehicles that meet any of NASA or even FAA requirements.

[QuantumG]

It isn't the free market, when the market doesn't exist.

Very true.

The gov't doesn't work that way when it has to create the market.  There are rules imposed by the gov't that NASA has to work under.

NASA is the government.. complaining that the government has to work under the government's rules is just stating a truism.

This is no different than the DOD asking for a design of a cargo plane.

Yes, the DoD is also the government.. you're still stating a truism.

The DOD does use the free market for passenger planes because the market exists independently of the DOD.

And, of course, this just magically happened.

There are no existing operational crew vehicles that meet any of NASA or even FAA requirements.

And there never will be so long as the requirements are worked out by $10M contracts, negotiation, waivers and "we'll get back to you".

Have a look at the airmail act someday. It was deceptively simple and created the aforementioned private market. Also, in case you're not up to date, the Senate has made it clear that NASA is not trying to create a private market for crew vehicles. That's why this process has turned into another smorgeous board.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Yes. among other things. The reentry forces are only 1.5g and it can land at any commercial airport. For the rest, I have only quoted what Sirangelo said. If he doubts what Sirangelo is saying, maybe he should go after him then. Of course, it may also be that Jim is wrong. After all, the only source he has to quote is himself. So that puts word against word. I believe that Sirangelo knows more about his own spacecraft than Jim does. So I choose to believe him until Jim brings me some convincing facts that say otherwise. And yes, I am enjoying purposely giving Jim a hard time here

I have to find the exact quote again, but it has been quoted as having advantages over the capsules in these regards.

With respect to cargo, you may be thinking of something similar to the following (emphasis added)...

The use of a winged lifting body offers low entry and landing g-forces, which can be easier on humans and can enable more science payloads that require a smoother landing to be brought back from space ...

[Jim]

Yes. among other things. The reentry forces are only 1.5g and it can land at any commercial airport. For the rest, I have only quoted what Sirangelo said. If he doubts what Sirangelo is saying, maybe he should go after him then. Of course, it may also be that Jim is wrong. After all, the only source he has to quote is himself. So that puts word against word. I believe that Sirangelo knows more about his own spacecraft than Jim does. So I choose to believe him until Jim brings me some convincing facts that say otherwise. And yes, I am enjoying purposely giving Jim a hard time here

Once again, you are wrong.
Sirangelo doesn't know the capabilities of the other spacecraft (much like you) and that was the point.  It doesn't have any advantage as far as orbital altitude or additional missions.

I only go after people who don't know what they are talking about, which seems to be a pattern here.