Which vehicle/spacecraft will be next to carry crew to orbit from the US?

[guckyfan]

Which actually would not be the worst option, as SpaceX would still sell crew Dragons for purely private flights. That probably cannot be said for the other two. Just selecting SpaceX and giving no money to anyone else would effectively create a monopoly.

But Dragon will still probably fly a crew first. As strange as it to think about, they are basically the established incumbent, and Boeing and SNC are the insurgents.

Yeah right. Ignore the selection rules. Punish the small company that is the leader in the race and reward the huge company that is behind.

It's the american way, it's the right thing to do.

[QuantumG]

Yeah right. Ignore the selection rules. Punish the small company that is the leader in the race and reward the huge company that is behind.

Wouldn't surprise me at all.. it's the reason CCDev was started instead of just exercising COTS-D.

[intrepidpursuit]

I am worried that there will be a down-select to one, and the winner will be Atlas5/cst100, with the reasons being political and not technical or economical.

I voted Atlas 5/CST-100 for this reason. Congress designs NASAs rockets for them and they will not have that option with SpaceX. Congress will ensure that a major player who will go along with the "build in as many congressional districts as possible" plan for political success wins the high profile bid. Technology, cost effectiveness, and even safety (see STS) have nothing to do with it.

[HIP2BSQRE]

Which actually would not be the worst option, as SpaceX would still sell crew Dragons for purely private flights. That probably cannot be said for the other two. Just selecting SpaceX and giving no money to anyone else would effectively create a monopoly.

But Dragon will still probably fly a crew first. As strange as it to think about, they are basically the established incumbent, and Boeing and SNC are the insurgents.

Boeing is a great company, but as you stated if only 1 company gets picked it should be SpaceX.  I think SpaceX is about a year ahead of Boeing.    When will we get to see Boeing's milestones for abort flights?  SpaceX is behind in their schedule - but as everyone knows we should them this year.

[Proponent]

As I read it, what simonbp is saying is that if the field is narrowed to a single company, it should not be SpaceX, because SpaceX will likely carry on even if it is not selected.

[simonbp]

As I read it, what simonbp is saying is that if the field is narrowed to a single company, it should not be SpaceX, because SpaceX will likely carry on even if it is not selected.

Yes, exactly. If Boeing doesn't get money in the next round, they are probably out. Despite their work with Bigelow, Boeing doesn't seem that enthusiastic about finding a non-NASA customer. If SNC doesn't get money in the next round, they'll probably try to continue, possibly with whatever money DLR can send them. But the probability that DreamChaser would fly in that scenario is low.

SpaceX, on the other hand, will be flying cargo Dragons to ISS for the foreseeable future, regardless of the crew vehicle decision. Even if they are not initially selected to provide crew, it would not be a massive move for them to add crew Dragon flights later.

An ideal scenario would be that either Boeing or SNC gets 2/3 of the crew launch money, and SpaceX the remaining 1/3. Then, one of the non-SpaceX vehicles would fly, but Dragon would still be there as an alternative.

[Lar]

Maybe it's just me but I have a lot of trouble with the notion that the money should go to a competitor less interested in the advancement of the state of the art and less likely to continue if they don't get it and arguably less far along (despite what milestones are completed numerically).

My ideal scenario would be that both SpaceX and SNC are fully funded and Boeing is downselected out. Second choice would be SpaceX gets full and SNC 1/2.  Downselecting to one now seems a really bad idea.

But punish the current leader to handicap the race? Dumb idea.

[Lars_J]

Maybe it's just me but I have a lot of trouble with the notion that the money should go to a competitor less interested in the advancement of the state of the art and less likely to continue if they don't get it and arguably less far along (despite what milestones are completed numerically).

Yes, this. For the last couple of decades, Boeing has been a contractor that wouldn't lift a finger unless it could bill the government for it. They appear to have put some skin in the game for CST-100, but old habits die hard.

[arachnitect]

Maybe it's just me but I have a lot of trouble with the notion that the money should go to a competitor less interested in the advancement of the state of the art and less likely to continue if they don't get it and arguably less far along (despite what milestones are completed numerically).

Yes, this. For the last couple of decades, Boeing has been a contractor that wouldn't lift a finger unless it could bill the government for it. They appear to have put some skin in the game for CST-100, but old habits die hard.

SpaceX isn't working for free either, and they don't have shareholders to answer to.

Good intentions are meaningless without money behind them; a bankrupt company can't advance the industry either.

The money (all of it) should go to whoever can make the 2017 deadline at the lowest price.

[joek]

Maybe it's just me but I have a lot of trouble with the notion that the money should go to a competitor less interested in the advancement of the state of the art and less likely to continue if they don't get it and arguably less far along (despite what milestones are completed numerically).

It won't.  The award(s) will go to the offeror(s) who can meet the requirements at lowest cost.  The rules are quite specific and explicit, and spelled out in both the RFP and FAR rules and regulations.  That's not to say some contendor's might not lodge an objection, but to assume or presume that NASA will contravene the rules is dubious at best (there would be hell to pay).  Sure, political or other pressure could be brought to bear to influence to change/delay selection, but IMHO that would leave so many tracks that the entire process would be back to square one.  I don't think that is in anyone's interest, and I would hope and expect all of the contender's recognize that.

[Lar]

Maybe it's just me but I have a lot of trouble with the notion that the money should go to a competitor less interested in the advancement of the state of the art and less likely to continue if they don't get it and arguably less far along (despite what milestones are completed numerically).

It won't.  The award(s) will go to the offeror(s) who can meet the requirements at lowest cost.  The rules are quite specific and explicit, and spelled out in both the RFP and FAR rules and regulations.  That's not to say some contendor's might not lodge an objection, but to assume or presume that NASA will contravene the rules is dubious at best (there would be hell to pay).  Sure, political or other pressure could be brought to bear to influence to change/delay selection, but IMHO that would leave so many tracks that the entire process would be back to square one.  I don't think that is in anyone's interest, and I would hope and expect all of the contender's recognize that.

The rules of the meta-game are that congress can change the rules of the game any time they muster the votes. So I find your words reassuring but sadly not convincing. It's the way to hope though.

[Ike17055]

Regardless of one's opinion of Boeing and its committment, or which company is ahead, etc, or which is "coolest," or most advanced/ progressive/ cutting edge, the fact remains that a major consideration is development of a vehicle with reliability and proven capability.  Boeing, by virtue of being "Old Space" with its considerable history, and its approach of applying known capabilities and systems for CST, can make a pretty heavy duty argument as the logical choice in a tight budget environment and amidst residual sensitivity over the STS losses (and resulting program fallout).

It is NOT just who delivers fastest and at lowest cost. It is also who provides for a confidence level that their vehicle won't kill a crew as well as produce a vehicle and support services to that vehicle to ensure a reliable space transportation system going forward. It is difficult to objectively dismiss Boring's advantages in this aspect of the competition. 

[Robotbeat]

Regardless of one's opinion of Boeing and its committment, or which company is ahead, etc, or which is "coolest," or most advanced/ progressive/ cutting edge, the fact remains that a major consideration is development of a vehicle with reliability and proven capability.  Boeing, by virtue of being "Old Space" with its considerable history, and its approach of applying known capabilities and systems for CST, can make a pretty heavy duty argument as the logical choice in a tight budget environment and amidst residual sensitivity over the STS losses (and resulting program fallout).

It is NOT just who delivers fastest and at lowest cost. It is also who provides for a confidence level that their vehicle won't kill a crew as well as produce a vehicle and support services to that vehicle to ensure a reliable space transportation system going forward. It is difficult to objectively dismiss Boring's advantages in this aspect of the competition.

You are aware that /Boeing/ was partially responsible for the STS losses by virtue of helping to design, build, and operate it?

Also, you're aware that if you're talking about a company that has a proven capability to launch, dock, reenter, and recover a space capsule, there's only a /single/ American company that does that right now, and they aren't Boeing?

And if you're talking about proven capability to work within a tight budget, why are you still talking about Boeing?

Nothing you just said seems to point to Boeing. The only argument I see that makes sense is they already have the right lobbyists in place, already have old connections.

Now, I applaud Boeing's design, and it's true the company is capable of doing what they said they want to do, but if we're talking about "proven capability" for this vehicle, only SpaceX comes close. LM may be able to say something about it by the end of the year, but not yet.

[Ike17055]

Ludicrous. Spacex may have an operational vehicle (which is not the same as the pending crew vehicle) but they have zero history with crew. Boeing is unmatched currently in this area. And blaming Boeing for STS lesses and citing it as a reason to not consider is just as ludicrous. Just as we learned from loss of Apollo 1, Old Space learns from its history, good and bad. What happens if Space X loses a crew?  They have a "perfect record" with crew, as does any company that has never clown a crew.

[Ike17055]

And loss of orbiters was not the fault of Boeing... An absurd argument.

[CitabriaFlyer]

I voted for Dragon/F9.

Having said that DreamChaser would be a nice capability.

With respect to Boeing, in 2010 I flew a number of combat missions over Iraq and Afghanistan as a flight doc in a KC-135 the USAF bought in 1959.  Those are sharp jets even half a century after they were built.  The KC-135 and B-52 aircraft are probably among the best financial decisions the US Government ever made in terms of return on investment.  That legacy would mean a lot to me if I were selecting CCDev.

Honestly, I wish there were a market to support all three.

What is the legacy of Boeing's space division?  Are these people from North American/Rockwell or McDonnell or Boeing's own space original space department?  Or are the mergers far enough in the past that these people are simply Boeing?

[Robotbeat]

Ludicrous. Spacex may have an operational vehicle (which is not the same as the pending crew vehicle) but they have zero history with crew. Boeing is unmatched currently in this area. And blaming Boeing for STS lesses and citing it as a reason to not consider is just as ludicrous. Just as we learned from loss of Apollo 1, Old Space learns from its history, good and bad. What happens if Space X loses a crew?  They have a "perfect record" with crew, as does any company that has never clown a crew.

If you're going to count STS experience in Boeing's favor, you must acknowledge some of STS's problems. STS is proof that the "Old Space" companies are in no way immune to screw ups (even if the most direct blame for the screw-up is two subcontractors down the chain).

The history of Boeing is not an unalloyed positive, that was my point, not to put the whole blame on Boeing or anything like that.

[Mader Levap]

And loss of orbiters was not the fault of Boeing... An absurd argument.

So, in conclusion, you want Boeing to take credit only for successes of STS and avoid responsibility for failure. How nice.

[ChrisWilson68]

One of the arguments many liked to make against shuttle was the "all the eggs in one basket" one. 

I'm curious about something.  Many of those on here are now proclaiming Dragon/F9 for everything (not totally surprised on that by the way).  So I would like someone to walk me through the logic. 

If, more likely when, something happens and either Dragon and/or F9 are grounded for some time, crew capability is lost for some measure of time as well as half the cargo supply.  And let's face it, these are smaller vehicles so more frequent runs are needed.  And they don't grow on trees so Orbital just can't pick up the slack. 

So what happened to the redundancy argument used?

I am totally with you on that one. I do want that redundancy too (as well as competition), which is why I want more than one commercial crew option funded.

Everyone seems to think it's very likely that if there's one crew launch system only, at some point it will have a mishap and then be out of service for an extended period.

If that's true, then having two systems only gives the illusion of safety.  You're safer having only one system and continuing to use it even after a mishap, even if you haven't reached the root cause yet.  That's because our assumption is that there are very likely to be mishaps.  So if you have two vehicles and you stop using one because of a mishap, the other is still likely to have serious problems you haven't uncovered yet.  Having one vehicle that flies more often gives you only half the total number of root cause problems you have to find.  So, the total number of fatal accidents per flight is going to be lower with one vehicle than with two, even if you stand down one of the vehicles after each mishap.

Of course, having only one vehicle and standing down after a mishap until the root cause is identified gives even greater safety.  But, under the assumption that mishaps are likely, if the choice is between two vehicles and standing down after each mishap or just one vehicle but no stand-down, the one vehicle with no stand-down is the safer option.

In other words, having two vehicles is just so much less safe than having only one that even not standing down after a mishap with one vehicle doesn't decrease safety as much as having two vehicles.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Everyone seems to think it's very likely that if there's one crew launch system only, at some point it will have a mishap and then be out of service for an extended period.

If that's true, then having two systems only gives the illusion of safety.  You're safer having only one system and continuing to use it even after a mishap, even if you haven't reached the root cause yet.  That's because our assumption is that there are very likely to be mishaps.  So if you have two vehicles and you stop using one because of a mishap, the other is still likely to have serious problems you haven't uncovered yet.  Having one vehicle that flies more often gives you only half the total number of root cause problems you have to find.  So, the total number of fatal accidents per flight is going to be lower with one vehicle than with two, even if you stand down one of the vehicles after each mishap.

Of course, having only one vehicle and standing down after a mishap until the root cause is identified gives even greater safety.  But, under the assumption that mishaps are likely, if the choice is between two vehicles and standing down after each mishap or just one vehicle but no stand-down, the one vehicle with no stand-down is the safer option.

In other words, having two vehicles is just so much less safe than having only one that even not standing down after a mishap with one vehicle doesn't decrease safety as much as having two vehicles.

The argument for redundancy is not about safety, it is about avoiding years of grounded American crews, like we saw every time the STS had a failure.