-
#200
by
IRobot
on 14 Mar, 2014 13:24
-
CST-100 is going to be a finalist
Unsubstantiated
-
#201
by
Prober
on 14 Mar, 2014 16:07
-
CST-100 is going to be a finalist
Unsubstantiated
good one
Maybe Jim needs to add IMHO to his posts?
-
#202
by
yg1968
on 14 Mar, 2014 17:33
-
CST-100 is going to be a finalist
I agree with your other points. But how do you know that Boeing will be a finalist for CCtCap? If their price is out of whack with the rest of the competition, they are likely to be downselected. Apparently, NASA intends to ask more skin in the game from participants for the next round, that could also hurt Boeing if they are not willing to do so.
NASA is not budgeting for a down select.
What makes you say that? There is a discussion about extending CCiCap (by adding optional milestones) but I think that a downselection (likely to two providers) should still happen under CCtCap.
-
#203
by
manboy
on 14 Mar, 2014 17:36
-
CST-100 is going to be a finalist
I agree with your other points. But how do you know that Boeing will be a finalist for CCtCap? If their price is out of whack with the rest of the competition, they are likely to be downselected. Apparently, NASA intends to ask more skin in the game from participants for the next round, that could also hurt Boeing if they are not willing to do so.
NASA is not budgeting for a down select.
A down select is inevitable.
-
#204
by
Lurker Steve
on 14 Mar, 2014 17:59
-
CST-100 is going to be a finalist
I agree with your other points. But how do you know that Boeing will be a finalist for CCtCap? If their price is out of whack with the rest of the competition, they are likely to be downselected. Apparently, NASA intends to ask more skin in the game from participants for the next round, that could also hurt Boeing if they are not willing to do so.
NASA is not budgeting for a down select.
A down select is inevitable.
I agree that with 2 flights per year, they need to down select to a single vendor.
We also don't know what price the vendors will charge for each flight.
We know it's NOT the $25M per seat that was advertised for flights to the non-existent Bigelow station.
Once they select the final vendors, and award CCT contracts, it should be easier to convince the vendors to commit to further funding, since the risk has been eliminated.
-
#205
by
Elmar Moelzer
on 14 Mar, 2014 18:12
-
We know it's NOT the $25M per seat that was advertised for flights to the non-existent Bigelow station.
At a NASA news conference on 18 May 2012, SpaceX confirmed again that their target launch price for crewed Dragon flights is $140,000,000, or $20,000,000 per seat if the maximum crew of 7 is aboard.
I am pretty sure I have seen other preliminary prices quoted several times.
Even if this was true, then there is even more reason to not down select until multiple competitors are ready to offer rides. Then you can choose the best offer and still have the others as a backup just in case.
-
#206
by
arachnitect
on 14 Mar, 2014 18:46
-
-
#207
by
Lars_J
on 14 Mar, 2014 20:47
-
Jim is there room in Boeings design to use a "berthing" hatch if needed quickly in the future?
Any opinion if a cargo return version could quickly be put together (crash program) if needed?
No Room.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/2011/10/BoeingCST100d-660x311.jpg
Indeed. CST-100 (and Orion) follow the Apollo design, which packs the parachutes very tightly around the docking tunnel. There simply isn't room in the design for something much bigger like a berthing hatch.
-
#208
by
yg1968
on 15 Mar, 2014 11:42
-
We know it's NOT the $25M per seat that was advertised for flights to the non-existent Bigelow station.
At a NASA news conference on 18 May 2012, SpaceX confirmed again that their target launch price for crewed Dragon flights is $140,000,000, or $20,000,000 per seat if the maximum crew of 7 is aboard.
I am pretty sure I have seen other preliminary prices quoted several times.
Even if this was true, then there is even more reason to not down select until multiple competitors are ready to offer rides. Then you can choose the best offer and still have the others as a backup just in case.
Yes that's the price that SpaceX has been stating. It's a bit hard to believe given that cargo Dragon is $133M per launch. But maybe the F9R will allow SpaceX to reduce its prices. There will be some resemblance between cargo Dragon 2 and the crewed Dragon 2 which may provide economies of scale. Boeing's CST-100 price to the Bigelow station is $35M per seat (assuming that it has 7 crew on it).
-
#209
by
Lurker Steve
on 15 Mar, 2014 14:16
-
And there aren't 7 passengers onboard flights to the ISS, so the cost model is incorrect.
-
#210
by
baldusi
on 15 Mar, 2014 15:30
-
Not necessarily, per craft is correct. And they'll send some cargo.
-
#211
by
Robotbeat
on 15 Mar, 2014 18:25
-
Shuttle launched with a mostly full crew even when not strictly required. I know this has been rehashed so many times, but still.
-
#212
by
Prober
on 15 Mar, 2014 18:28
-
We know it's NOT the $25M per seat that was advertised for flights to the non-existent Bigelow station.
At a NASA news conference on 18 May 2012, SpaceX confirmed again that their target launch price for crewed Dragon flights is $140,000,000, or $20,000,000 per seat if the maximum crew of 7 is aboard.
I am pretty sure I have seen other preliminary prices quoted several times.
Even if this was true, then there is even more reason to not down select until multiple competitors are ready to offer rides. Then you can choose the best offer and still have the others as a backup just in case.
Elon also said the same in front of Congress.
-
#213
by
Elmar Moelzer
on 15 Mar, 2014 21:06
-
And there aren't 7 passengers onboard flights to the ISS, so the cost model is incorrect.
There will be cargo in place of the crew members then, or maybe some tourist that is along for the ride (goes down in the same capsule with the previous expedition crew). Besides, it is still possible that the size of the ISS crew will increase. Either way, your original argument that "We also don't know what price the vendors will charge for each flight." is wrong, as we clearly do know what the price is and it is lower than the sum you mentioned if all seats are filled. Also want to point out that even if SpaceX charged three times as much for a seat (e.g. if there were only 3 people on board and no cargo) it would still be cheaper than a seat on the Soyuz that is currently at 70 million. For some reason some members of congress and you seem to have no problem with spending that much. I guess it ain't wasteful spendin' if the money goes to them Russians.
-
#214
by
Robotbeat
on 15 Mar, 2014 21:59
-
ISS could possibly go to 7 crew, especially if extended to 2028 (which seems most likely) or even beyond. That'd mean at least 4 crew.
-
#215
by
manboy
on 15 Mar, 2014 22:15
-
And there aren't 7 passengers onboard flights to the ISS, so the cost model is incorrect.
If you adjust it for four passengers it is still cheaper than Soyuz plus you get more up and downmass.
ISS could possibly go to 7 crew, especially if extended to 2028 (which seems most likely) or even beyond. That'd mean at least 4 crew.
The ISS is going to go to a seven person crew when the CCV starts flying but it is planned to only be used to transport a crew of four.
-
#216
by
Elmar Moelzer
on 15 Mar, 2014 22:45
-
A crew of 4 is still less than 40 million per passenger (assuming no cargo and no extra passengers on the flight). Still cheap compared to 70 million for the Russians.
-
#217
by
IRobot
on 16 Mar, 2014 14:58
-
A crew of 4 is still less than 40 million per passenger (assuming no cargo and no extra passengers on the flight). Still cheap compared to 70 million for the Russians.
Not only that, those are dollars that stay in America, a lot goes back to government in taxes and almost all of it stays in the US economy.
Also it is a political move. As an European, I don't understand how Americans tolerate that Russian dependency.
-
#218
by
IRobot
on 16 Mar, 2014 15:02
-
Could a 7 crew capsule replace the entire crew at once? Let's say there are 2 crew members that stayed for a year in the ISS and 5 others on a 6 months rotation.
A 7 members crew could be sent up, especially if some of the new crew members are on their 2nd or 3rd ISS flight, meaning it is not a 100% rookie team.
Of course if the Russians want to keep at least their 2 cosmonauts going up on Soyuz, that still leaves room for a 5 crew capsule, EU and US.
-
#219
by
RonM
on 16 Mar, 2014 15:53
-
As an European, I don't understand how Americans tolerate that Russian dependency.
The original plan was to shutdown the shuttle program in 2010 and have Orion on Ares 1 ready by 2012. A two year gap wouldn't be bad. However, as we all know now, that was a terrible plan. So now we are stuck with buying seats from Russia because of our bad planning.
At least we only have to wait a few more years before Commercial Crew is operational. It could be done in two years if Congress gave NASA enough money.
CST-100, Dragon, and Dream Chaser are all good designs. Whichever one is selected will add new capabilities to the ISS. Larger crew rotations are possible. The big point is redundancy. Right now, if something grounds the Soyuz program for a protracted period, ISS will have to be abandoned.
Maybe Jim needs to add IMHO to his posts?