Pros and Cons, Dragon V2, CST-100 and Dream Chaser

[rcoppola]

I'll skip the Dream Chaser & focus in on the conical Dragon V2 & CST-10O with a question:
What will happen to the loser, if the loser is either the Dragon V2 & CST-100?
IMHO I feel safe saying NASA will not choose both conical spacecraft; one will have to be rejected.
It will be an expensive rejection since what will you do with the multimillion dollar test/prototype hardware?
Put the losing submission hardware in a museum while the NASA contract winner puts its hardware in orbit?

I think dissimilar Launchers and Pads are on par if not a greater consideration then whether or not to have two capsules. I know Boeing has mentioned they "could"  potentially launch on a F9, but that is not their current operational intention (or proposal). Nor is using SpaceX's Pad39A. Same goes for DC.

So for the sake of redundant launch capabilities, I think NASA will feel most comfortable having the ability to launch Dagon on F9 at 39A and either CST or DC on an Atlas V from SLC 41. That's the basic breakdown of a down-select to 2. It will really become a DC Vs. CST for the second slot.

[Scylla]

I'll skip the Dream Chaser & focus in on the conical Dragon V2 & CST-10O with a question:
What will happen to the loser, if the loser is either the Dragon V2 & CST-100?
IMHO I feel safe saying NASA will not choose both conical spacecraft; one will have to be rejected.
It will be an expensive rejection since what will you do with the multimillion dollar test/prototype hardware?
Put the losing submission hardware in a museum while the NASA contract winner puts its hardware in orbit?

In the recent AIAA panel on Human Spaceflight, John Mulholland of Boeing indicated they would find it difficult to move forward if the were not selected. 1:26:40

Garret Reisman of SpaceX indicated they were not going to stop no matter what happened. 1:28:43
http://new.livestream.com/AIAAvideo/space2014/videos/58462185

[ChrisWilson68]

As far as Pro's I would have to give the edge to Boeing's CST-100 as far as flight heritage experience.

Boeing's "flight heritage" is in the distant past.  Nobody has built a new human launch system in decades.  SpaceX has come the closest with cargo Dragon, so I'd have to say SpaceX wins on the count of relevant flight heritage.

[baldusi]

As far as Pro's I would have to give the edge to Boeing's CST-100 as far as flight heritage experience.

Boeing's "flight heritage" is in the distant past.  Nobody has built a new human launch system in decades.  SpaceX has come the closest with cargo Dragon, so I'd have to say SpaceX wins on the count of relevant flight heritage.

They kept supplying engineering services for the Shuttle program, all analysis on both. RTF, analysis over all of ISS and its VV. You can't say their experience is in the distant past.

[Razvan]

I think the favored alternative for NASA would be Dragon. The launcher is already certified for manned flights, it built reliability, the abort system seems to be of very sound concept, both reactive and parachute landing provide increased safety.
As a back up NASA will pick Boeing.
Dream Chaser wont die, though. It looks like European companies are considering very seriously a cooperation with Dream Chaser, so we are going to see them all three winning.
Great future for American Space Industry...

[James54]

To expand on Scylla's response from AIAA Space 2014 Human Spaceflight Report August 6, 2014
http://new.livestream.com/AIAAvideo/space2014

1:26:22 Question: What’s going to happen after the next round if you are not chosen for the final two?
My summary of answers.
1:26:58 John Mulholland Boeing Program manager for CST-100. If not chosen we would stand back and try to close the business case. Right now, I think that would be very difficult to do, to take on the full burden of the development costs with the uncertainty of the market in front of you.


1:27:00 Mark Sirangelo, Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser- We are making foundations for our potential to move on.  There could be competition in the broader scope of (space) access. ( not just through NASA)

1:28:47 Garrett Reisman, SpaceX Dragon Version 2 (V2)- The whole reason our company exists is to take humans into space.  We are not going to give up on that vision no matter what happens. We’re not going to stop.

[James54]

Most telling was Garrett Reisman's (SpaceX)

As our teams finish up their CCiCap work they aren’t sitting idle or moving on to other projects they are continuing to do our work that would be under tCap.  We’re not letting our foot off the gas one bit. We are not only expending engineering for that next phase, but we are also bending metal for stuff that we will be using in the next phase.  We're going to press ahead.  It will be different if we no longer have this partnership (with NASA). We’re not going to stop.

[wannamoonbase]

Boeing is a hands down favorite for one simple reason - Security

They have deep pockets and are not going to go out of business anytime in the next several decades.  If you are a person at NASA making the decision on how to end the embarrassing US human spaceflightnow launch gap, you want a sure thing.

Boeing is playing the game as in incumbent big dog.  If you don't give them money, they are taking the ball and going home.  SpaceX and SNC have both said they would continue which they have to say as the spunky upstarts, but that gives NASA an out on either one because the one you reject maybe there if one or both of the ones you select fail.

That said, I find Dragon and DC more interesting vehicles and would prefer those two.  DC is my sentimental favorite.

[llanitedave]

SpaceX has pad 39A.  NASA's not going to let that one slip away.

[mr. mark]

As far as Pro's I would have to give the edge to Boeing's CST-100 as far as flight heritage experience.

Boeing's "flight heritage" is in the distant past.  Nobody has built a new human launch system in decades.  SpaceX has come the closest with cargo Dragon, so I'd have to say SpaceX wins on the count of relevant flight heritage.

They kept supplying engineering services for the Shuttle program, all analysis on both. RTF, analysis over all of ISS and its VV. You can't say their experience is in the distant past.

Here's a historic list of Boeing projects, Spacecraft as well as aircraft. It's impressive to say the least.
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/master_index.page?

[woods170]

SpaceX has pad 39A.  NASA's not going to let that one slip away.

Irrelevant. NASA still owns the pad. It was only leased to SpaceX for a few decades.

[rcoppola]

Boeing is a hands down favorite for one simple reason - Security

They have deep pockets and are not going to go out of business anytime in the next several decades.  If you are a person at NASA making the decision on how to end the embarrassing US human spaceflightnow launch gap, you want a sure thing.

Boeing is playing the game as in incumbent big dog.  If you don't give them money, they are taking the ball and going home.  SpaceX and SNC have both said they would continue which they have to say as the spunky upstarts, but that gives NASA an out on either one because the one you reject maybe there if one or both of the ones you select fail.

That said, I find Dragon and DC more interesting vehicles and would prefer those two.  DC is my sentimental favorite.

Firstly, I agree with your vehicle choices!

But... Yes, Boeing will not continue without NASA funds, nor should they. They don't launch commercial programs unless they have committed launch partners and/or foresee a market for it. Without NASA they have neither for CST. And whether they are around for the next 100 years or not has no bearing on anything. NASA needs these systems to be partially sustained on their own beyond what NASA will need. Boeing will not do that regardless of how big they are. They will not intentionally lose large amounts of money on this, now nor in the future. The reason Boeing will not go out of business anytime soon is because of smart business decisions. One of which is not to knowingly lose hundreds of millions of dollars building a vehicle you're not sure you'll recoup you're investments on. Otherwise, you may as well drop the first C in CC and just turn it back into a traditional NASA program.

None of these companies will go out of business without their vehicle being selected. And either Boeing or SNC will just close or dramatically slow down that particular program to insulate the rest of the company from an undue financial burden until such a time a market and/or customer can support it.

I suspect SpaceX may actually be in the best position, not Boeing, as they retain the most control / vertical integration of any of the proposals. Especially wrt hardware and infrastructure, ie. Design, manufacturing, testing, Pad and launcher.

[MDDevice_]

SpaceX has pad 39A.  NASA's not going to let that one slip away.

Irrelevant. NASA still owns the pad. It was only leased to SpaceX for a few decades.

Yeah, but other companies can't use it. I'd think being the only company with access to a pad already capable of launching humans would be a big advantage.

[Lars_J]

SpaceX has pad 39A.  NASA's not going to let that one slip away.

Irrelevant. NASA still owns the pad. It was only leased to SpaceX for a few decades.

Yeah, but other companies can't use it. I'd think being the only company with access to a pad already capable of launching humans would be a big advantage.

There is nothing about 39A in its current state that makes it any better to launch humans from than any other launch pad.

[edkyle99]

A time perspective.

July 2011 saw the most recent U.S. crew launch.  The next U.S. crew launch was slated to be in 2017, but seems to me more likely to be in mid-2018 the way things are going. 

That puts us anywhere from two to six months away from reaching the mid-point of "The Gap", so we're still not even half way there. 

 - Ed Kyle

[llanitedave]

SpaceX has pad 39A.  NASA's not going to let that one slip away.

Irrelevant. NASA still owns the pad. It was only leased to SpaceX for a few decades.

But for the NEXT few decades.  NASA wants the pad used soon, not just a couple of decades from now.  They would not have leased the pad to SpaceX in the first place, especially not under such outrageously generous terms, if they weren't already convinced that SpaceX would be able to put that pad to good use.  Giving SpaceX a piece of the commercial crew pie is a good way for them to convince themselves that they weren't wrong in that assessment.

[Rifleman]

SpaceX has pad 39A.  NASA's not going to let that one slip away.

Irrelevant. NASA still owns the pad. It was only leased to SpaceX for a few decades.

But for the NEXT few decades.  NASA wants the pad used soon, not just a couple of decades from now.  They would not have leased the pad to SpaceX in the first place, especially not under such outrageously generous terms, if they weren't already convinced that SpaceX would be able to put that pad to good use.  Giving SpaceX a piece of the commercial crew pie is a good way for them to convince themselves that they weren't wrong in that assessment.

I dont think that the culteral significance of Pad 39 is lost on NASA, and I think that it played a part in the generous deal to SpaceX for the use of 39A. for more than half a century, Pad 39 is where Americans have departed earth to head for the stars. Pad 39 is complex for launching humans, even if in reality there is no advantage to launched people off any particular pad. I firmly believe that NASA would not have leased 39A to SpaceX if they did not expect men to ride dragons from it. Of couse, I dont work for Nasa, SpaceX, or anyone who would know anything about this, and could be wrong on this one, as I have significantly less insight to the NASA decision process than most people on this board.

[guckyfan]

I really strongly doubt that SpaceX sees this as a generous deal, the significance of the site not factored in. If they could get it, they would prefer an empty lot without all the history ballast, I am sure.

What do they get? A flametrench, rotten to the core. A service structure they have to build back because much of it they cannot use. What remains they have to maintain, which NASA does not want to because of the expense.

[Jim]

I dont think that the culteral significance of Pad 39 is lost on NASA, and I think that it played a part in the generous deal to SpaceX for the use of 39A.

It did not.

[anonymous1138]

Boeing is a hands down favorite for one simple reason - Security

...

That said, I find Dragon and DC more interesting vehicles and would prefer those two.  DC is my sentimental favorite.

If I was a betting person, I'd say that your last statement (above) will be satisfied, but that your initial statement is bogus. I believe that the three proposals will be viewed honestly and evaluated on their own merits without regard to company name. If it was me making the decision, I'd also consider competition and the overall portfolio. Would I really want Orion, Dragon, and another capsule? Or, would I prefer to support a capsule on a Falcon, and a winged vehicle on an Atlas? I suspect two will be chosen to continue, and that one of them will have wings, and have NASA heritage.