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.
Interestingly SNC despite only a 1/2 award for the actual design work get a near equal amount to the other bidders.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 12/11/2012 04:18 pmInterestingly SNC despite only a 1/2 award for the actual design work get a near equal amount to the other bidders.They all got $10m, give or take a couple of grand. As far as I understand it, this is a paperwork contract, and I would intuitively imagine that the costs of paperwork would be of similar magnitude for each company's launch vechicle. Based on that interpretation, it would probably have been more interesting if the amounts were significantly different from one another.
CPC contractors are: -- Space Exploration technologies Corp. (Dragon), Hawthorne, Calif., $9,589,525 -- The Boeing Company (CST-100), Houston, $9,993,000 -- Sierra Nevada Corporation Space System (DreamChaser), Louisville, Colo., $10,000,000
Quote from: Jim on 12/12/2012 02:52 pmCan you read? I said "It doesn't have any advantage as far as orbital altitude or additional missions."And yes, the other spacecraft do have cross range. All lifting bodies do, it is just matter of amount. Anyways, low g-forces and runway landing are not NASA requirements and therefore have no bearing on whether SNC will be selected.I think it is YOU who should brush up on reading skills. My original point (which you have chosen to disregard so gracefully) was that the DC is theoretically capable of things that go beyond being a mere taxi to the ISS for NASA. .
Can you read? I said "It doesn't have any advantage as far as orbital altitude or additional missions."And yes, the other spacecraft do have cross range. All lifting bodies do, it is just matter of amount. Anyways, low g-forces and runway landing are not NASA requirements and therefore have no bearing on whether SNC will be selected.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 12/12/2012 04:11 pmQuote from: Jim on 12/12/2012 02:52 pmCan you read? I said "It doesn't have any advantage as far as orbital altitude or additional missions."And yes, the other spacecraft do have cross range. All lifting bodies do, it is just matter of amount. Anyways, low g-forces and runway landing are not NASA requirements and therefore have no bearing on whether SNC will be selected.I think it is YOU who should brush up on reading skills. My original point (which you have chosen to disregard so gracefully) was that the DC is theoretically capable of things that go beyond being a mere taxi to the ISS for NASA. .And you didn't read my response, the others are just as capable of doing more different missions too.
And you didn't read my response, the others are just as capable of doing more different missions too.
I agree with QuantumG, I wish commercial crew had followed the COTS-D model. COTS-D was underfunded but it didn't have a certification phase. If a certification phase is absolutely necessary, it should be as light as possible. As far as politics, there is already a government option as a back up if required. Commercial crew should remain "as commercial" as possible with NASA having as little oversight as possible. I get the feeling that the CPC phase qualifies as a light certification phase. But phase 2 of certification worries me as it seems a lot more intrusive. Incidentally, I don't think that DOD contracts are a model for effeciency and should not be the model for defining what commercial crew should be.
Quote from: Jim on 12/12/2012 01:58 amSays 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.
Says the pot.Do you know a better way?
. Commercial crew should remain "as commercial" as possible with NASA having as little oversight as possible.
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/12/2012 06:53 pm. Commercial crew should remain "as commercial" as possible with NASA having as little oversight as possible. Are you saying you want it different from CRS and NLS?
Quote from: Jim on 12/12/2012 08:00 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 12/12/2012 06:53 pm. Commercial crew should remain "as commercial" as possible with NASA having as little oversight as possible. Are you saying you want it different from CRS and NLS?No, I meant the development phase should have used the COTS model with no certification phase. If a certification phase is required, I would make it as lite as possible.
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/12/2012 06:53 pmI agree with QuantumG, I wish commercial crew had followed the COTS-D model. COTS-D was underfunded but it didn't have a certification phase. If a certification phase is absolutely necessary, it should be as light as possible. As far as politics, there is already a government option as a back up if required. Commercial crew should remain "as commercial" as possible with NASA having as little oversight as possible. I get the feeling that the CPC phase qualifies as a light certification phase. But phase 2 of certification worries me as it seems a lot more intrusive. Incidentally, I don't think that DOD contracts are a model for effeciency and should not be the model for defining what commercial crew should be. I agree with that as well.
Something to keep in mind is that the environment is a bit different between commercial crew and COTS. Right now you have a very strong political influence (hence why we have 2.5 companies in iCAP vice 2.0 or 1.0) and you also have a very, VERY uncertain funding situation. Therefore the current SAA, CPC and future planning ar being structure for maiximum flexibility within the constraints of politics, desires of NASA, desires of the companies...
I wished they had more money for commercial crew and would be able to keep 4 companies fully funded, instead of just 2.5. Competition is a good thing.
And do what with them after they are developed? NASA's flight rate doesn't support that many
Quote from: Jim on 12/14/2012 01:30 pmAnd do what with them after they are developed? NASA's flight rate doesn't support that manyI would get all of them going until they are fully developed and then do some test missions. Afterwards choose the ones that suit NASA best.The other finalists could still serve as a backup option of sorts or may find commercial customers. NASA is not the only one who will need flights. Eventually there will be Bigelow and then there are companies like Golden Spike. Blue Origin seems to think hat they will find a market for their LV and space craft...Competition is good. There is good reason for hope that it will drive innovation. Some of the companies that were not chosen might try to become more competitive by improving their designs or finding ways to lower the cost.
And that is totally unrealistic on many levels, from available money both from the gov't and public sector, also, overly optimistic on the market.Also NASA isn't developing them for other users, nor should they.
