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

[veblen]

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.

This is old ground but pressing on to launch the shuttle stack in freezing temps on January 28 1986 was a NASA management decision. With Columbia the assessment of damage to the orbiter wing and what to do about it - again, STS managers made those decisions.

 

[Ike17055]

Do you read?   My point, stated clearly, was that they and others who participated in the mistakes that led to LoC missions are going to have bad and good in their record. That is the nature of flight history.  But to say, " can't pick boeing. They were involved in STS, which, you know, had two major flight failures" is absurd.  That is the argument you stated, without recognizing apparently that such a comparison only logically points to SpaceX lack of flight history to make a comparative judgment. The amazing people thing (by all factions) is pretty tiresome. My premise staNds: Boeing has enjoyed far more success, objectively measured, than SpaceX, by far, and i don't dislike SpaceX at all. They are shaking up the industry and procurement in a vastly overdue way. But facts are facts. Many will view Boeing as the "safe choice" on a variety of criteria. Whethert hey are thec rigeria that will matter is another thing completely...

[Robotbeat]

... But to say, " can't pick boeing. They were involved in STS, which, you know, had two major flight failures" is absurd. ...

Where did I make that argument?

For the record, I'd pick Boeing ahead of SNC, but SpaceX ahead of both. This is not just a cost argument (though that's relevant), it's an argument based on experience. Boeing as a corporate behemoth has the experience in it history, but SpaceX has active experience in operating basically almost the same design right now, as we speak, and the capability was developed very recently, meaning that their capacity for new, cost-effective development is proven.

Boeing's design is a good design, and it is fairly conservative, so I would pick them ahead of the Dream Chaser, which has multiple things which make it a little more questionable, especially the hybrid propulsion. I bet SNC can do it, but I know Boeing can.

[Lar]

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

I think you meant berth rather than dock but that's a nit, I suppose.

[Robotbeat]

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

I think you meant berth rather than dock but that's a nit, I suppose.

You got me. I was thinking about mentioning the distinction, but this slipped out. Regardless, although there's a fine distinction in the technical language of aerospace between dock and berth, my comment was intended to refer to the more general term for "dock," where this distinction doesn't exist.

[Lar]

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

I think you meant berth rather than dock but that's a nit, I suppose.

You got me. I was thinking about mentioning the distinction, but this slipped out. Regardless, although there's a fine distinction in the technical language of aerospace between dock and berth, my comment was intended to refer to the more general term for "dock," where this distinction doesn't exist.

Nod. And while Boeing has a lot of history with capsules, a lot of it retired years ago... you're right, neither Boeing or SNC have demonstrated all those things (or even close) *recently*.

[baldusi]

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

I think you meant berth rather than dock but that's a nit, I suppose.

You got me. I was thinking about mentioning the distinction, but this slipped out. Regardless, although there's a fine distinction in the technical language of aerospace between dock and berth, my comment was intended to refer to the more general term for "dock," where this distinction doesn't exist.

Nod. And while Boeing has a lot of history with capsules, a lot of it retired years ago... you're right, neither Boeing or SNC have demonstrated all those things (or even close) *recently*.

I would clasify X-37B as at least close to it.

[yg1968]

Delta IV/Orion. (more likely than half of your options)

FH/Orion would be more likely IMO.

[yg1968]

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.

Actually, Boeing hasn't put any skin in the game for CCiCap and for the prior rounds but they said that they intend to do so for the next round (CCtCap). The skin in the game milestones are usually called "financial milestones" in the SAAs.

[Jim]

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

I think you meant berth rather than dock but that's a nit, I suppose.

You got me. I was thinking about mentioning the distinction, but this slipped out. Regardless, although there's a fine distinction in the technical language of aerospace between dock and berth, my comment was intended to refer to the more general term for "dock," where this distinction doesn't exist.

Nod. And while Boeing has a lot of history with capsules, a lot of it retired years ago... you're right, neither Boeing or SNC have demonstrated all those things (or even close) *recently*.

I would clasify X-37B as at least close to it.

And Shuttle.  Boeing was the system integration and engineering support to USA

[joek]

Actually, Boieng hasn't put any skin in the game for CCiCap and for the prior rounds but they said that they intend to do so for the next round (CCtCap). The skin in the game milestones are usually called "financial milestones" in the SAAs.

Nit: We're not sure of Boeing's contribution to CCiCap, other than it was disappointingly small, per the selection statement "... does not provide significant industry financial investment and there is increased risk of having sufficient funding in the base period".

For CCtCap, NASA is asking for additional detail:

1. Milestones -- Each individual milestone for DDT&E/Certification must show "proposed price" (government contribution, i.e., what the government will pay), "offeror investment" (offeror contribution), ...  There are a few NASA-defined milestones; offerors may propose additional interim milestones.

1.  Offerors are to propose ISS DCR and Certification Review as Delivery Milestones.  All others are to be proposed as Interim Milestones. ...
2.  The Government pre-populated Milestone names (examples) on rows 11,18, and 25 above.  Offerors are to propose their Milestones (name of/number of/ and completion date of) commensurate with their CTS approach and bid strategy. ...

2. Lifecycle -- Offerors must show cumulative revenues, investment and expenditures--essentially a cash-flow projection showing the offeror's financial risk/exposure during the program.

As part of Life Cycle cost risk assessment, NASA seeks an understanding of the Offeror's proposed plan relative to investments (e.g. corporate commitments/available resources) and it's plan for full recovery and attainment of profitability.  The table below requests information which details:  (a) NASA payments to be provided based on the Offeror's proposed approach and payment schedule for Delivery and Interim Milestones, (b) the Offeror's committed investments to sustain contract performance in instances of timing and or limitations of NASA payments, (c) the Offeror's most realistic contract expenditure plan, and (d) a "declining total balance" of Offeror investment reflecting recovered and to be recovered investment and the attainment of profitability.

[A_M_Swallow]

If the Offerors are putting their own money into CCtCap then they will make a loss on the contract.  They have to hope to make their money on the flights to the ISS - a big risk.

[Coastal Ron]

...The amazing people thing (by all factions) is pretty tiresome.

First time I've heard there is a Boeing fanboi faction.  Good to know that there is more than one fanboi faction acknowledged... 

My premise staNds: Boeing has enjoyed far more success, objectively measured, than SpaceX, by far, and i don't dislike SpaceX at all. They are shaking up the industry and procurement in a vastly overdue way. But facts are facts. Many will view Boeing as the "safe choice" on a variety of criteria. Whethert hey are thec rigeria that will matter is another thing completely...

I think if you read Boeings stockholder report they would tell you that “Past performance is no guarantee of future results”.  And considering that Boeing hasn't built a crew spacecraft in decades, I'd argue that they don't have any special institutional experience.  In fact, it could be argued that it's not the name on the building that builds things, but the people inside of the buildings - and they can be hired away.

As to a "safe" choice, Boeing may well have name recognition going for them for non-space vehicles, but every flight that SpaceX makes with the Dragon cargo vehicle provides SpaceX with name recognition for real space vehicles.

However NASA shouldn't make choices based on non-technical reasons, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens later this year.  For the record, I think Sierra Nevada is in a stronger position versus Boeing than they were two years ago (though Boeing is clearly ahead in progress), and I think SpaceX is still the clear leader overall.  I think it's possible that if NASA is forced to down select to just two vehicles that they could choose SpaceX for the near-term capability, and Sierra Nevada for the long-term features that the Dream Chaser would provide over either of the capsules.  Probably less than a 50% chance of going this way, but still a possibility.

[Jim]

1.   And considering that Boeing hasn't built a crew spacecraft in decades, I'd argue that they don't have any special institutional experience.

2.  As to a "safe" choice, Boeing may well have name recognition going for them for non-space vehicles, but every flight that SpaceX makes with the Dragon cargo vehicle provides SpaceX with name recognition for real space vehicles.

3.   For the record, I think Sierra Nevada is in a stronger position versus Boeing than they were two years ago

1.  And you would be wrong. What is the ISS?  And there was OSP. 

2.  They have it for X-37, ISS, and other spacecraft

3.  Base on what info?

[oiorionsbelt]

Which vehicle/Spacecraft combination did you vote for Jim?

Given the overwhelming votes for Falcon/Dragon I am indeed curious if you agree. If so why and if not why.

[Coastal Ron]

1.  And you would be wrong. What is the ISS?  And there was OSP. 

2.  They have it for X-37, ISS, and other spacecraft

3.  Base on what info?

Boeing has over 160,000 employees, and not every employee knows how to build spacecraft.  And while there are commonalities between a crew capsule, an ISS module and an autonomous space plane, is Boeing using the same people to build all their space stuff?

But I have no doubt Boeing can build a safe spacecraft.  None.  But I also have no doubt that Sierra Nevada and SpaceX can build one either.  And none will be "perfect", since there is no such thing (as NASA has proved, despite $Billions and access to the best and the brightest).

As to #3, I thought Sierra Nevada was pretty far behind Boeing two years ago.  But I think their drop test did some major risk reduction, whereas Boeing isn't exactly speeding along.  If NASA wants diversity of choice as much as redundancy, then I think NASA might be willing to give Sierra Nevada a chance to keep going.  But I do admit that it's only a low probability...

[arachnitect]

Boeing has over 160,000 employees, and not every employee knows how to build spacecraft.  And while there are commonalities between a crew capsule, an ISS module and an autonomous space plane, is Boeing using the same people to build all their space stuff?

I'm sure Boeing has the catering staff working on CST 

As to #3, I thought Sierra Nevada was pretty far behind Boeing two years ago.  But I think their drop test did some major risk reduction, whereas Boeing isn't exactly speeding along.  If NASA wants diversity of choice as much as redundancy, then I think NASA might be willing to give Sierra Nevada a chance to keep going.  But I do admit that it's only a low probability...

Boeing has done recovery tests and is able to publish pictures of the results...

The CCP guys at NASA would be the first to tell you that SNC has much further to go than the other partners.

[Jim]

Boeing has over 160,000 employees, and not every employee knows how to build spacecraft.  And while there are commonalities between a crew capsule, an ISS module and an autonomous space plane, is Boeing using the same people to build all their space stuff?

Why wouldn't they?  That is why corporations have separate divisions to work different markets.

[yg1968]

Actually, Boieng hasn't put any skin in the game for CCiCap and for the prior rounds but they said that they intend to do so for the next round (CCtCap). The skin in the game milestones are usually called "financial milestones" in the SAAs.

Nit: We're not sure of Boeing's contribution to CCiCap, other than it was disappointingly small, per the selection statement "... does not provide significant industry financial investment and there is increased risk of having sufficient funding in the base period".

Thanks for the official reference. Incidentally, the amount of skin in the game among all three commercial crew providers is about 10% on average. See page 9 of the following PDF (page 5 of the document) from a September 2012 House Hearing:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg76234/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg76234.pdf

NASA's goal for the Commercial Crew Development program is to stimulate the aerospace industry to develop multiple, competitive, privately operated, human spaceflight vehicles and systems. Although the government is paying for about 90 percent(3) of this development, NASA will not own the vehicles or retain the designs, intellectual property, or data rights. Private entities will own and operate the vehicles and systems.

(Footnote 3): 90 percent is indicative of the approximate relative contribution of the Federal Government. The actual nongovernment cash or in-kind contributions of the commercial partners is proprietary information and varies by company, and may be greater or less than 10 percent of the total.

[Krevsin]

I voted for Dream Chaser on top of an Atlas V. I do not have any real reasoning behind this bold claim other than "I think Dream Chaser looks pretty neat".

Terribly uncritical of me I know, but despite all evidence pointing towards the Dragon Rider/F9 combo, a small glimmer of hope persist for the Dream Chaser. And as they say: hope dies last.