-
#880
by
erioladastra
on 01 Jun, 2015 13:58
-
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.
Actually there is very much a competition going on. First there is the need for the companies to be successful, complete their objectives and be as far along in the process to get selected for the other flights and at some point the follow on contract. The companies will be graded on past performance. But secondly, and while not critical it is still very much real, is the company's pride. Bragging rights can translate into more contracts. Both companies are pushing as hard as they can.
-
#881
by
newpylong
on 01 Jun, 2015 19:50
-
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...
Have they now?
SpaceX has been working on Cargo Dragon since COTS was awarded in 2006 and crewed Dragon from CCDEV2 (2011) on in.
Boeing started serious CST-100 development under CCDEV2 as well.
Boeing just waited for someone to show them the money. They will still have an operational crewed spacecraft ~6 years after starting major development, without the benefit of a cargo variant to base off of. If anything I see Boeing having a measured pace whereas SpaceX rapidly put hardware out there with no subsystems to integrate. Nice and flashy yet just as useless as getting to orbit with astronauts as a CAD drawing.
-
#882
by
jtrame
on 01 Jun, 2015 23:34
-
Not to sidetrack the conversation away from SpaceX, but any word on what's going on over at C3PF? Are they building the STA?
-
#883
by
Robotbeat
on 04 Jun, 2015 02:25
-
CST-100 was based on an earlier bid that I believe predates even Dragon.
-
#884
by
newpylong
on 04 Jun, 2015 14:14
-
It has roots in OSP and then the CEV bid - but it was only a concept. If we had a dollar for every concept out there we would be rich. Real development started with (CCDEV2).
It is humorous to see the comments that somehow Boeing is incapable of producing real hardware. I point you to observe the amount of platforms Boeing has produced in the aerospace sector vs SpaceX in the past 50 years.
Who cares who is "ahead", if all goes to plan we will have both flying in two years. Just because one or the other doesn't develop like the other doesn't make one or the other is better.
-
#885
by
rpapo
on 04 Jun, 2015 14:37
-
Who cares who is "ahead", if all goes to plan we will have both flying in two years. Just because one or the other doesn't develop like the other doesn't make one or the other is better.
Agreed. Even the fact that they each use different methodologies can be seen as a good thing, when your objective is to increase the chance that one or the other will accomplish something, and that the two results will have even less in common with each other. The goal is to produce two crew launch systems, where if one of them has to stand down, the likelihood that the other will have to stand down also will be as low as possible.
Competition between the two vendors benefits us in many ways, and price is only one and not the most important of them.
-
#886
by
baldusi
on 04 Jun, 2015 14:53
-
Save for the fact that they are two capsules, Commercial Crew couldn't have more dissimilar stacks. From hardware, to culture, to engineering approach, every is different... and both have at least great track record. I still believe that given the requirements, CST-100 and Dragon were clearly the best and safest choices.
Look at the clam design of the CST-100, for example, or the single billet construction of its pressure hull. Boeing is innovating and streamlining the operations. I have nothing but high hopes for them (even in CRS-2).
-
#887
by
Coastal Ron
on 04 Jun, 2015 15:02
-
It is humorous to see the comments that somehow Boeing is incapable of producing real hardware.
That's never been stated.
-
#888
by
TrevorMonty
on 04 Jun, 2015 22:44
-
Who cares who is "ahead", if all goes to plan we will have both flying in two years. Just because one or the other doesn't develop like the other doesn't make one or the other is better.
Agreed. Even the fact that they each use different methodologies can be seen as a good thing, when your objective is to increase the chance that one or the other will accomplish something, and that the two results will have even less in common with each other. The goal is to produce two crew launch systems, where if one of them has to stand down, the likelihood that the other will have to stand down also will be as low as possible.
Competition between the two vendors benefits us in many ways, and price is only one and not the most important of them.
In case HSF having a competitor can be a benefit as the competitor provides redundancy. If only one vehicle was servicing a commercial space station and flights had to be cancelled because of issues with vehicle, the spacestation could go out of business, killing the market.
A competitor would keep the space station operational and market alive while issues with faulty vehicle are resolved.
-
#889
by
joek
on 05 Jun, 2015 05:45
-
This was ATP. ICDR was the major criteria.
Thanks (edited my original comment). Per the RFP (Table H.20.1, prior to ISS DCR), the ATP will establish an initial 90-day launch window. I have not seen mention of such. Anyone have the dates?
-
#890
by
joek
on 06 Jun, 2015 00:41
-
Hmmm... the more I read the more odd this "award" appears...
And seems to be some confusion (or maybe it's just me); from, e.g.,
Boeing gets first order for commercial crew mission...
NASA has placed an order with Boeing for the first operational mission to ferry a crew to the International Space Station in a new era of commercial human spaceflight.
...
The 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.
...
Kelly Kaplan, a Boeing spokesperson, said the company was eligible to receive the mission task order — a milestone also called authority to proceed — after completing a certification baseline review and a critical design review.
Per the RFP (and other similar NASA acquisition contracts), a
task order is not the same as
authority to proceed. A task order means squat. An ATP means serious business. If in fact this was an ATP, it strongly suggests NASA has determined the launch schedule, and has thus decided who gets the first crew rotation mission (contrary to public statements).
That strongly suggests Boeing gets the first mission. Or there is a hole in the schedule which would allow a later award to SpaceX to go first (which would be odd). Or NASA has provisionally allowed for two crew rotation missions within a 90-day window (which would be extremely odd). Or this is not really an ATP as commonly understood and as defined in the RFP. Or something?
If in fact NASA "will decide which company will launch the first operational flight at a later date", then this is not an ATP, but some previously undefined and undocumented task-order-cum-authority-to-proceed mash-up. And the only reason I can think of for that is someone wanting the money that comes with an ATP sooner rather than later, without having to make the commitments that come with an ATP.
-
#891
by
A_M_Swallow
on 06 Jun, 2015 01:47
-
{snip}
Per the RFP (and other similar NASA acquisition contracts), a task order is not the same as authority to proceed. A task order means squat. An ATP means serious business. If in fact this was an ATP, it strongly suggests NASA has determined the launch schedule, and has thus decided who gets the first crew rotation mission (contrary to public statements).
The operational fights should follow successful test flights. In a well managed organisation the Authority to Proceed would not be issued until a test flight has been successfully performed. The dates of the test flights can be guessed but are subject to delay if there are any problems.
So this task order amounts to NASA cheering Boeing on. Any parts of NASA and the ISS involved with the operational flight are hereby being been officially informed of its existence in writing. They can include it in their budgeting for instance.
-
#892
by
joek
on 06 Jun, 2015 03:26
-
The operational fights should follow successful test flights. In a well managed organisation the Authority to Proceed would not be issued until a test flight has been successfully performed. The dates of the test flights can be guessed but are subject to delay if there are any problems.
So this task order amounts to NASA cheering Boeing on. Any parts of NASA and the ISS involved with the operational flight are hereby being been officially informed of its existence in writing. They can include it in their budgeting for instance.
Irrelevant; please do not conflate or confuse
task order and
authority to proceed (ATP) as so many others. Is this a task order or an ATP? If this is a task order, then it means little. If this is ATP, then it is significant. In any case, it is "in writing" in the RFP and no one should be surprised of "its existence".
-
#893
by
Jim
on 06 Jun, 2015 11:17
-
Hmmm... the more I read the more odd this "award" appears...
And seems to be some confusion (or maybe it's just me); from, e.g., Boeing gets first order for commercial crew mission...
NASA has placed an order with Boeing for the first operational mission to ferry a crew to the International Space Station in a new era of commercial human spaceflight.
...
The 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.
...
Kelly Kaplan, a Boeing spokesperson, said the company was eligible to receive the mission task order — a milestone also called authority to proceed — after completing a certification baseline review and a critical design review.
Per the RFP (and other similar NASA acquisition contracts), a task order is not the same as authority to proceed. A task order means squat. An ATP means serious business. If in fact this was an ATP, it strongly suggests NASA has determined the launch schedule, and has thus decided who gets the first crew rotation mission (contrary to public statements).
Just like the NLS contract, each launch is a task order. That is how IDIQ contracts work. Each service is individually ordered and individually ATP'ed.
-
#894
by
erioladastra
on 06 Jun, 2015 22:52
-
Hmmm... the more I read the more odd this "award" appears...
And seems to be some confusion (or maybe it's just me); from, e.g., Boeing gets first order for commercial crew mission...
NASA has placed an order with Boeing for the first operational mission to ferry a crew to the International Space Station in a new era of commercial human spaceflight.
...
The 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.
...
Kelly Kaplan, a Boeing spokesperson, said the company was eligible to receive the mission task order — a milestone also called authority to proceed — after completing a certification baseline review and a critical design review.
Per the RFP (and other similar NASA acquisition contracts), a task order is not the same as authority to proceed. A task order means squat. An ATP means serious business. If in fact this was an ATP, it strongly suggests NASA has determined the launch schedule, and has thus decided who gets the first crew rotation mission (contrary to public statements).
That strongly suggests Boeing gets the first mission. Or there is a hole in the schedule which would allow a later award to SpaceX to go first (which would be odd). Or NASA has provisionally allowed for two crew rotation missions within a 90-day window (which would be extremely odd). Or this is not really an ATP as commonly understood and as defined in the RFP. Or something?
If in fact NASA "will decide which company will launch the first operational flight at a later date", then this is not an ATP, but some previously undefined and undocumented task-order-cum-authority-to-proceed mash-up. And the only reason I can think of for that is someone wanting the money that comes with an ATP sooner rather than later, without having to make the commitments that come with an ATP.
This *is* an ATP but NASA has not determined a launch schedule. These companies need 2-3 years to prepare so when they are far enough along they did/will get ATP on the first 2 PCM missions. That means they can work it, get money, NASA can help on that, etc but focus is still on the test flights. But you have to start planning the follow on. NASA has some notional dates for Boeing's flight. because they have to plane something. But as SpaceX moves along they will get an ATP and they too will get in the mix...but the one who appears to be ready first will get the first flight.
-
#895
by
erioladastra
on 06 Jun, 2015 22:54
-
{snip}
Per the RFP (and other similar NASA acquisition contracts), a task order is not the same as authority to proceed. A task order means squat. An ATP means serious business. If in fact this was an ATP, it strongly suggests NASA has determined the launch schedule, and has thus decided who gets the first crew rotation mission (contrary to public statements).
The operational fights should follow successful test flights. In a well managed organisation the Authority to Proceed would not be issued until a test flight has been successfully performed. The dates of the test flights can be guessed but are subject to delay if there are any problems.
So this task order amounts to NASA cheering Boeing on. Any parts of NASA and the ISS involved with the operational flight are hereby being been officially informed of its existence in writing. They can include it in their budgeting for instance.
It amounts to NASA saying "Boeing, you are making good progress, we are reasonably confident you are on track, continue working...".
-
#896
by
joek
on 07 Jun, 2015 02:31
-
This *is* an ATP but NASA has not determined a launch schedule...
Thanks. Understood, sort of; if this is an ATP, it's the "not determined a launch schedule" part I don't get. Establishing the initial launch window is suppose to be part of the ATP; per the RFP (emphasis added):
Task orders issued to Contractors are intended to require Post Certification Missions to ISS with limited flexibility to adjust launch dates. To provide flexibility to both the Contractor and NASA, a standard launch window will be established for each planned Post Certification Mission. Authorization to Proceed (ATP) is formal written direction from the Contracting Officer that authorizes the Contractor to proceed with the work detailed within a DRD 202 Post Certification Mission Work Plan. The standard launch window will be created by NASA establishing an initial window for each mission at ATP. Thereafter, with mutual agreement between the Contractor and NASA, the launch window will be reduced according to the table below.
Table H.20.1: Launch Windows for PCM ATP Prior to ISS DCR*
| Months Prior to Launch Date -- First to Last Day | Standard Launch Window (Days) |
| ATP through L-13m | 90d |
| L-13m through L-4m | 30d |
| L-4m through Launch | 7d |
* ISS DCR is the DCR for the crewed flight to ISS
In short: (a) ATP is suppose to establish the initial a 90-day window, which would provide a pretty clear indication of who is on first; or (b) this is not an ATP as defined in the RFP; or (c) the rules as defined in the RFP have changed.
Which is it? If (a), what is the launch window? If (b) what is this? If (c) where is the rule change documented? Thanks for your patience.
-
#897
by
clongton
on 07 Jun, 2015 02:40
-
...but the one who appears to be ready first will get the first flight.
Which is as it should be.
-
#898
by
joek
on 07 Jun, 2015 03:13
-
...but the one who appears to be ready first will get the first flight.
Which is as it should be.
For crewed test flight(s), I agree. However, I'll bet a lifetime L2 membership (Chris's choice of awardee) that Boeing gets the first PCM (edit: and in fact has been awarded the first PCM).
-
#899
by
FinalFrontier
on 07 Jun, 2015 03:25
-
Boeing will fly first. More Congress people in their pockets.
You can say whatever you want in response to that however, a simple googling of campaign finance donations will answer your questions. Political realities suck, but this is how it works.