-
#860 by MattMason on 29 May, 2015 22:52
-
There are some major differences in design philosophy between Boeing and SpaceX. That is why you are seeing this contract without much hardware. SpaceX builds a little, tests a little, and changes a little. Boeing gets the design together, reviews and iterates the design and comes up with a final plan before they start bending metal. In both cases it is the development process and not the actual fabrication of the final product which takes the most time. Essentially as NASA sees it Boeing is further along in the design process than SpaceX. NASA is pretty comfortable with the Boeing approach as it has been the industry standard for decades. I am not sure if one approach is really better than the other. It looks like both will get the job done. SpaceX's lower price could be for any number of other reasons.
That was my understanding, so I wasn't trying to do the frequent "no prototype" argument against Boeing and know that they've (and many predecessors or fellow companies like the former Grumman) do that. If Grumman started building the LM in its original design, it would've been disasterous. Even with CAD and simulations, Boeing still goes at design in a more old-school way, and that quite respectable. "Fast" and "flashy" can be attractive, even effective, but not necessarily best. -
#861 by edkyle99 on 30 May, 2015 02:01
-
NASA consistently showed CST-100 leading Dragon and other competitors when it was posting the 60-day milestone updates for CCDev2. Boeing won more funding, so it should be ahead.Essentially as NASA sees it Boeing is further along in the design process than SpaceX.
No. Again, as NASA has emphasized (and every news article I've read is careful to point out) either provider could be the first to fly. They just chose to work on Boeing's paperwork first.
- Ed Kyle -
#862 by mkent on 30 May, 2015 02:11
-
The way the milestones were set up and the progress getting through the milestones means that Boeing got to the point where the contract could be awarded first.
My understanding is that Boeing received the first contract because they completed their CCtCap Delta CDR before SpaceX. SpaceX has yet to complete their CCiCap CDR. (If they have, it hasn't been announced yet.) When they complete their CCtCap Delta CDR they will also receive a crew rotation award.NASA is still going to fly with whoever can be ready first. That is still looking like SpaceX by a few months. It is still anyone's game here as a slip by either one could allow the other to fly first.
That is correct, based on publicly released schedules. -
#863 by mkent on 30 May, 2015 02:24
-
Considering how quickly SpaceX has shown it can develop and evolve hardware systems, Boeing looks glacial in comparison. Let's hope they pick up the pace soon...
Boeing is moving much faster on Commercial Crew than SpaceX. SpaceX has been working on Dragon since 2006. (If you recall, Elon Musk stated at the time that Dragon was designed to be manned from the get-go.) Boeing's been working on CST-100 only since 2010. A four-year head-start from Dragon has diminished to a projected four-month advantage in first manned flight.
Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in many areas, including the most important area early-on: design. They also lead SpaceX in quite a few (but not all) hardware and software tests. (SpaceX leads in supply chain and manufacturing facility / tooling / processes.)
Why people put so much stock in a single engineering test article (abort vehicle) over all the others, I don't know. -
#864 by the_other_Doug on 30 May, 2015 04:17
-
Considering how quickly SpaceX has shown it can develop and evolve hardware systems, Boeing looks glacial in comparison. Let's hope they pick up the pace soon...
Boeing is moving much faster on Commercial Crew than SpaceX. SpaceX has been working on Dragon since 2006. (If you recall, Elon Musk stated at the time that Dragon was designed to be manned from the get-go.) Boeing's been working on CST-100 only since 2010. A four-year head-start from Dragon has diminished to a projected four-month advantage in first manned flight.
Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in many areas, including the most important area early-on: design. They also lead SpaceX in quite a few (but not all) hardware and software tests. (SpaceX leads in supply chain and manufacturing facility / tooling / processes.)
Why people put so much stock in a single engineering test article (abort vehicle) over all the others, I don't know.
I question your logic a bit, here -- Boeing's design process is different, more monolithic and less iterative, than SpaceX's. But I don't understand how you can say Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in terms of design. The Dragon has been flying, in an unmanned version, for several years. The mold line is set, the aerodynamics of the craft have been actually tested in flight from orbital speed through hypersonic down to splashing in at zero fps. Where and when, except for inside a computer simulation, has CST-100 done this? (And if you say "During Apollo," then I'll tell you that, by your own logic, Boeing has been working on their design since 1960 and still doesn't have a vehicle to show for it.)
But, beyond this little nit-pick of your logic, I truly don't see what good it does to try and make this a horse race between Boeing and SpaceX. If all goes well, within 30 months there will be two excellent commercial crew vehicles flying in the ISS program, each of which will give its creators a lot of potential for finding new governmental and commercial uses for their manned spacecraft. That's not a win for Boeing, or for SpaceX. That's a win for the USA, and eventually, IMHO, for all mankind. -
#865 by Coastal Ron on 30 May, 2015 06:20
-
SpaceX has been working on Dragon since 2006...
Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in many areas, including the most important area early-on: design.
The facts show something different. Since Crew Dragon is, as SpaceX has stated, an upgraded Cargo Dragon, that means the SpaceX has a design that is already flying. All they are doing is iterating to add crew specific improvements, some of which, like the Launch Abort System (LAS), have already been tested.
I have no doubt that Boeing is capable of building a safe vehicle and delivering it on time. However, my perspective as someone that has created and managed schedules for DoD programs, the flip side to your timeline argument is that SpaceX has far more "slack" in their schedule in case something doesn't work as planned.
Boeing has more of what we would call a "success-oriented" schedule. Their first automated flight is not until April 2017, with a flight with crew just 3 months later. Not much time to fix anything significant before being ready for an operational flight by the end of 2017.
But as the_other_Doug pointed out so well, this isn't a race - we need both. Who flew first will be a distant memory after both have been flying for a few years... -
#866 by kevinof on 30 May, 2015 08:35
-
Considering how quickly SpaceX has shown it can develop and evolve hardware systems, Boeing looks glacial in comparison. Let's hope they pick up the pace soon...
Boeing is moving much faster on Commercial Crew than SpaceX. SpaceX has been working on Dragon since 2006. (If you recall, Elon Musk stated at the time that Dragon was designed to be manned from the get-go.) Boeing's been working on CST-100 only since 2010. A four-year head-start from Dragon has diminished to a projected four-month advantage in first manned flight.
Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in many areas, including the most important area early-on: design. They also lead SpaceX in quite a few (but not all) hardware and software tests. (SpaceX leads in supply chain and manufacturing facility / tooling / processes.)
Why people put so much stock in a single engineering test article (abort vehicle) over all the others, I don't know.
Not sure how you can conclude that design is ahead of actual flying systems - SpaceX have Dragon 1 flying. This means they have manufacturing, transport, ground ops all in place. They also have their control and flight systems done (the same control system from Dragon 1 will probably fly on Dragon 2), telemetry , fuel & power management etc. Add in the pad abort (the las is now tested), the new chute deploy system, the detach from the trunk. I'm sure there's a lot more in there that I haven't covered but others will know better.
Where is Boeing?.
I've no doubt Boeing are very capable and will produce a fine spacecraft. They have a lot of heritage and resources so they will deliver exactly what they say they will. But Boeing also have to rely on many more outside suppliers for their systems and this means they could be more susceptible to delays by these suppliers and push the timeline out longer.
A good test of an argument is to reverse it. Swap SpaceX with Boeing and come back to the table with the argument that SpaceX are ahead because they have a good paper design and therefore Boeing are behind even though they are flying hardware. Wouldn't stand up.
A good design doesn't make a good spacecraft. SNC had a good design with DC and look where it got them.
-kevin
-
#867 by jacqmans on 30 May, 2015 08:47
-
-
#868 by rayleighscatter on 30 May, 2015 14:03
-
But Boeing also have to rely on many more outside suppliers for their systems and this means they could be more susceptible to delays by these suppliers and push the timeline out longer.
Horizontal integration is traditionally a way to reduce supply delays, not cause it. Vertical integration means the entire chain is susceptible to various delays because there's few/no alternatives if a problem arises except relying on in-house assets. If you are working with suppliers and one of them is having problems supplying a widget you go on to another supplier to get that widget. If you're having problems making your own widget then you simply have a delay until you can solve the problem. -
#869 by Kansan52 on 30 May, 2015 14:31
-
Frankly, I am disappointed by NASA's decision. It seems clear this is another case of the bipolar nature of big bureaucracies. There is a part of NASA that likes SpaceX and another that feels safe with someone like Boeing. The 'feel safe' people are in control of the crew program.
They have not noticed that the 'safe' choice using Orbital for cargo did not go they way they planned. -
#870 by Jim on 30 May, 2015 15:04
-
Frankly, I am disappointed by NASA's decision. It seems clear this is another case of the bipolar nature of big bureaucracies.
What makes you think Spacex is better? -
#871 by erioladastra on 30 May, 2015 15:15
-
Considering how quickly SpaceX has shown it can develop and evolve hardware systems, Boeing looks glacial in comparison. Let's hope they pick up the pace soon...
Boeing is moving much faster on Commercial Crew than SpaceX. SpaceX has been working on Dragon since 2006. (If you recall, Elon Musk stated at the time that Dragon was designed to be manned from the get-go.) Boeing's been working on CST-100 only since 2010. A four-year head-start from Dragon has diminished to a projected four-month advantage in first manned flight.
Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in many areas, including the most important area early-on: design. They also lead SpaceX in quite a few (but not all) hardware and software tests. (SpaceX leads in supply chain and manufacturing facility / tooling / processes.)
Why people put so much stock in a single engineering test article (abort vehicle) over all the others, I don't know.
Not sure how you can conclude that design is ahead of actual flying systems - SpaceX have Dragon 1 flying. This means they have manufacturing, transport, ground ops all in place. They also have their control and flight systems done (the same control system from Dragon 1 will probably fly on Dragon 2), telemetry , fuel & power management etc. Add in the pad abort (the las is now tested), the new chute deploy system, the detach from the trunk. I'm sure there's a lot more in there that I haven't covered but others will know better.
Where is Boeing?.
I've no doubt Boeing are very capable and will produce a fine spacecraft. They have a lot of heritage and resources so they will deliver exactly what they say they will. But Boeing also have to rely on many more outside suppliers for their systems and this means they could be more susceptible to delays by these suppliers and push the timeline out longer.
A good test of an argument is to reverse it. Swap SpaceX with Boeing and come back to the table with the argument that SpaceX are ahead because they have a good paper design and therefore Boeing are behind even though they are flying hardware. Wouldn't stand up.
A good design doesn't make a good spacecraft. SNC had a good design with DC and look where it got them.
-kevin
This has been hashed and rehashed many times before and most opinions are mainly emotional or based on incomplete data. There is really no way to compare the progress of the two - even from milestone completion status since each company defined their entrance/success criteria differently. Boeing is "ahead" in getting a PCM mission because they completed ICDR first. One company could steadily again of lose over the other. One could have an accident. Things change but lets hope thy both continue to make good progress. Neither company's schedule should be taken too seriously. In fact, I suspect a significant factor is who can adapt to the constant change in requirements that is occurring better. A healthy horse race is good - you want to make good progress and wean off of Soyuz/build redundancy ASAP. But beating the horses to cross the finishing line is not a good and safe approach, -
#872 by Robotbeat on 30 May, 2015 17:52
-
The reason is obvious: if you've been following the space industry for a while, you've seen many "designs" that never flew nor even manifested in hardware. Being good at paperwork is nice, but being good at building and flying hardware is much better. Boeing hasn't done a pad abort test yet, neither are they even planning on an in-flight abort. The skeptic has to wonder if that means Boeing simply is putting off all the high risk tests and milestones to the very end when it'd be too late to go with someone else when these high risk tests inevitably develop delays.Considering how quickly SpaceX has shown it can develop and evolve hardware systems, Boeing looks glacial in comparison. Let's hope they pick up the pace soon...
Boeing is moving much faster on Commercial Crew than SpaceX. SpaceX has been working on Dragon since 2006. (If you recall, Elon Musk stated at the time that Dragon was designed to be manned from the get-go.) Boeing's been working on CST-100 only since 2010. A four-year head-start from Dragon has diminished to a projected four-month advantage in first manned flight.
Boeing is ahead of SpaceX in many areas, including the most important area early-on: design. They also lead SpaceX in quite a few (but not all) hardware and software tests. (SpaceX leads in supply chain and manufacturing facility / tooling / processes.)
Why people put so much stock in a single engineering test article (abort vehicle) over all the others, I don't know.
EDIT: Also, it's not simply one hardware article. Crew Dragon is built on a platform that is already very well proven. This clearly has retired an enormous amount of risk already. From this perspective, it's very, very hard for anyone on the outside to say that someone with flying hardware and already completed major hardware test isn't ahead of someone who just has designs, especially since those on the outside are not able to look at the actual designs. -
#873 by yg1968 on 30 May, 2015 19:06
-
This has been discussed before (it was mentionned during the first press conference after the awards that Boeing would receive the task order first). Boeing needs more lead time than SpaceX which is why they received the order first. But that doesn't mean that they will fly their mission before SpaceX.
-
#874 by woods170 on 30 May, 2015 19:33
-
NASA consistently showed CST-100 leading Dragon and other competitors when it was posting the 60-day milestone updates for CCDev2. Boeing won more funding, so it should be ahead.Essentially as NASA sees it Boeing is further along in the design process than SpaceX.
No. Again, as NASA has emphasized (and every news article I've read is careful to point out) either provider could be the first to fly. They just chose to work on Boeing's paperwork first.
- Ed Kyle
Exactly what part of the thing below didn't you understand?Quote from: SFN / Stephen ClarkThe deal does not ensure Boeing will be the first to fly a crew rotation mission to the space station. NASA said SpaceX, which is also under contract to build a human-rated crew capsule, is expected to receive a similar order later this year, and officials will decide which company will launch the first operational flight at a later date.
-
#875 by woods170 on 30 May, 2015 19:39
-
That's an assumption right there on your part Jim. Don't do that.Frankly, I am disappointed by NASA's decision. It seems clear this is another case of the bipolar nature of big bureaucracies.
What makes you think Spacex is better? -
#876 by joek on 30 May, 2015 20:30
-
My understanding is that Boeing received the first contract because they completed their CCtCap Delta CDR before SpaceX. SpaceX has yet to complete their CCiCap CDR. (If they have, it hasn't been announced yet.) When they complete their CCtCap Delta CDR they will also receive a crew rotation award.
Edit: erioladastra's following post states that this is the ATP.
Issuance of these task orders does not really tell us much. They do not require completion of any milestones, although that might have been a consideration; if so, exactly what is unclear. NASA could issue task orders for up to two missions for each CCtCap awardee at any time since 16-Sep-2014 (date of CCtCap awards). Additional task orders require completion of ISS DCR (design certification review), which doesn't appear to be likely until about mid- to late-2016 for SpaceX or Boeing respectively.
The more interesting event is authority to proceed (ATP), of which I have not seen mention. ATP is the point real money for these task orders starts to flow, flight schedules get firmed, and the clock starts ticking. All we know is that, at minimum, ATP requires completion of the certification baseline review (CBR), which Boeing and SpaceX completed late last year. Completion of other milestones may be (and very likely are) required prior to ATP, but to my knowledge that information is not public. -
#877 by QuantumG on 01 Jun, 2015 01:58
-
Nobody "won" anything! You really should stop saying that - it's wrong - and can lead people to incorrect conclusions.
Gotta maintain the myth that there's a competition going on - even if there's not in any meaningful sense.
-
#878 by Jarnis on 01 Jun, 2015 06:42
-
Nobody "won" anything! You really should stop saying that - it's wrong - and can lead people to incorrect conclusions.
Gotta maintain the myth that there's a competition going on - even if there's not in any meaningful sense.
Well, I'd say it is a competition to not mess it up, with potentially two winners.
Whoever flies first doesn't really matter. What matters is to get two working systems that compliment each other. Yes, mishaps may occur - space is hard - but what matters is that both will "win" in that they build a working operational system and any other party who might have ambitions in space will then have two competing systems to lean on while building things like private space stations.
-
#879 by erioladastra on 01 Jun, 2015 13:54
-
My understanding is that Boeing received the first contract because they completed their CCtCap Delta CDR before SpaceX. SpaceX has yet to complete their CCiCap CDR. (If they have, it hasn't been announced yet.) When they complete their CCtCap Delta CDR they will also receive a crew rotation award.
Issuance of these task orders does not really tell us much. They do not require completion of any milestones, although that might have been a consideration; if so, exactly what is unclear. NASA could issue task orders for up to two missions for each CCtCap awardee at any time since 16-Sep-2014 (date of CCtCap awards). Additional task orders require completion of ISS DCR (design certification review), which doesn't appear to be likely until about mid- to late-2016 for SpaceX or Boeing respectively.
The more interesting event is authority to proceed (ATP), of which I have not seen mention. ATP is the point real money for these task orders starts to flow, flight schedules get firmed, and the clock starts ticking. All we know is that, at minimum, ATP requires completion of the certification baseline review (CBR), which Boeing and SpaceX completed late last year. Completion of other milestones may be (and very likely are) required prior to ATP, but to my knowledge that information is not public.
This was ATP. ICDR was the major criteria.