Author Topic: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser  (Read 87121 times)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10596
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2705
  • Likes Given: 1005
Re: CCtCap: NASA won’t abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #120 on: 09/16/2014 01:56 AM »
This might be why Boeing would be presumed by WSJ, etc., to be the leader in the competition.

"Boeing is the first, and thus far only one of the three competitors (including Sierra Nevada Corp. and SpaceX) to complete all their assigned milestone task requirements under NASA’s Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative funded under the auspices of the agency’s Commercial Crew Program."
http://www.universetoday.com/114097/boeing-completes-all-cst-100-commercial-crew-ccicap-milestones-on-time-and-on-budget-for-nasa-ahead-of-competitors/
 
 - Ed Kyle

That may  be because a lot of Boeing's milestones were "studies" and "reports", something I might add that the entire old space establishment seems particularly good at doing. Boeing did not push the envelope one iota. Both SpaceX and SNC on the other hand selected milestones that were much harder and have nearly completed them all, putting their programs, in my opinion, much further ahead than Boeing. Both companies pushed the envelope really hard.

So many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 02:00 AM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1383
  • Liked: 389
  • Likes Given: 686
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #121 on: 09/16/2014 01:59 AM »
That would be because a lot of Boeing's milestones were "studies" and "reports". Boeing did not push the envelope one iota. Both SpaceX and SNC on the other hand selected milestones that were much harder and have nearly completed them all, putting their programs, in my opinion, much further ahead than Boeing.

So many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.

I've always wondered why Boeing didn't propose an upscale version of the X-37 to leverage that design.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but thatís the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline king1999

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • F-Niner Fan
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 154
  • Likes Given: 570
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #122 on: 09/16/2014 02:03 AM »
It means that Pasztor is making up stuff again.

No wonder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Pasztor

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9684
  • Liked: 1401
  • Likes Given: 877
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #123 on: 09/16/2014 02:05 AM »
Charles Lurio writes: "Companies will be told results tomorrow morning; public announcement likely to follow shortly after."


https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/511637156746768384

Edit: Added link

NW is saying the same thing.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12894
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3951
  • Likes Given: 756
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #124 on: 09/16/2014 02:05 AM »
So many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.
The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2905
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #125 on: 09/16/2014 02:14 AM »
Didn't this happen before in the run up to CCDEV? That ATK was one of the three ... This seems oddly familiar.

From the standpoint of Congress, and alone from erioladastra's recent comments here, a very compelling case might be made for Boeing, because, like with AR-1, it would be seen as the most acceptable way to reach 2017 with the fewest risks.

However, that would neglect the optics, so the same group would advocate for a Boeing followed by SpaceX position, like in the WSJ article, although this would protract the process, risking the 2017 deadline by adding program risk. Likely this is the origin of the report.

Lurio is likely reporting on program's office favorites and recommendations to the NASA Administrator. These sound likely.

Is Bolden or his boss to be compelled by Congressional "sweet talking"? Doesn't seem likely but stranger things have happened.

Right now John Q. Public, if even engaged in the process, would expect that the capsule that goes to the space station would be fixed up to handle crew too. Anything different would seem "wrong". Wrong is dangerous in election years.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2905
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #126 on: 09/16/2014 02:16 AM »
So many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.
The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements. 
Sure. In the concrete form of actual hardware assembled from actual legacy systems.

Where is it?

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4218
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2880
  • Likes Given: 3724
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #127 on: 09/16/2014 02:20 AM »
The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements.

NASA's real requirement is for a functioning crew transportation system, not reports and studies.

To Sierra Nevada's credit they flew hardware and reserved an Atlas V flight on an award half the size Boeing got, and Boeing, with the most conservative design, should have been able to get further along in their hardware testing.  Apparently a conservative design requires a conservative program approach too...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12894
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3951
  • Likes Given: 756
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #128 on: 09/16/2014 04:09 AM »
So many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.
The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements. 
Sure. In the concrete form of actual hardware assembled from actual legacy systems.
Boeing, and the others, completed hardware testing milestones and critical design reviews, but only Boeing completed all of its milestones.  That could be important tomorrow, but we'll see.  I'm guessing two winners.  http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20140912-ccicap-milestone-list.html

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 04:11 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline AS-503

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
  • Orion Fab Team
  • Colorado USA
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #129 on: 09/16/2014 04:25 AM »
So many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.
The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements. 
Sure. In the concrete form of actual hardware assembled from actual legacy systems.
Boeing, and the others, completed hardware testing milestones and critical design reviews, but only Boeing completed all of its milestones.  That could be important tomorrow, but we'll see.  I'm guessing two winners.  http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20140912-ccicap-milestone-list.html

 - Ed Kyle

But the milestones are different for each. Isn't this apples to oranges, then?
For example, two of the incomplete SpaceX milestones are Pad Abort and In-Flight Abort.
Those are not listed on the Boeing or SNC milestone list.
Given that these are some of the most significant tests/validations of a manned system, how can the milestones list be used as an apples to apples comparison?
Sorry if this is obvious to others, I'm just curious.

Offline friendly3

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Liege. BELGIUM.
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 3016
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #130 on: 09/16/2014 05:07 AM »
Sorry if this is obvious to others, I'm just curious.

They are all aware of that.
May I remember that Lurio cites SpaceX and SNC as winners and Pasztor cites Boeing and SpaceX as winners (although with half an award for SpaceX).
I don't believe Pasztor for one minute but in all cases SpaceX is in, not out.
And obviously NASA can't stop US reliance on Russia with a launcher powered by a russian engine.
Can you imagine a situation where Atlas V is the sole choosen launcher (either with CST-100 or the Dreamchaser), the Ukrainian crisis worsen and in 2016 Russia really stops the sale of the RD-180? NASA will find itself still relying on Soyuz till when? 2020? 2023?
If not because SpaceX is far ahead with an already partially flying system NASA won't dare to dump them only for these (geo)political reasons.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5479
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 677
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #131 on: 09/16/2014 05:08 AM »
Where does it say in the CCtCap selection criteria that CCiCap milestone completion is a metric that will be part of the evaluation?
-- sdsds --

Offline SoulWager

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 177
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #132 on: 09/16/2014 05:35 AM »
Where does it say in the CCtCap selection criteria that CCiCap milestone completion is a metric that will be part of the evaluation?
If nothing else, it might impact the confidence of other judgments. Is there a link to the full set of selection criteria?

Assuming 2 rewards, I would Definitely pick SpaceX, for launch vehicle diversity. After that I'd probably pick SNC, because it has some capability SpaceX doesn't, and they seem less risky than Boeing as far as financial commitment goes.

If it was just 1 reward, I think Boeing would have a better chance.

Offline jamesh9000

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #133 on: 09/16/2014 07:15 AM »
I don't get how on earth a Boeing/BO partnership can win the lions share of the money for this. BO hasn't demonstrated their engine, hasn't demonstrated it working with a vehicle, and as far as we can tell this partnership is new. Why on earth would you pick this over a company that's already flying to the ISS, can do at least a 21 day turnaround, and has almost flight ready hardware? I know its Pasztor and he's a troll, but this just doesn't make any sense. If they give the bulk of the money to Boeing and SpaceX ends up sending astronauts to space years earlier, (more than likely) it'll just be egg on the face for nasa. Why take that risk?

I know its all just rumors and we should know very soon, but this one is really confusing to me.

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #134 on: 09/16/2014 07:32 AM »
I'm not so sure why people think Boeing will be thrown under the bus...it's so far received that largest sum of money, almost 80 million more than SpaceX, the next biggest contender and far more than Sierra Nevada. Boeing completed all the things it was supposed to do on time. They have no plans to develop this vehicle further without an award, so NASA might face embarrassing questions over why it frakked 620 million dollars down the drain on something it didn't intend to use, esp from bought congresspeople. 

I mean Dream Chaser got shortchanged on the last round, it got a half award effectively after being supported greatly at first...so it would likely need a much bigger chunk in the next announcement to make up the difference and become operational on time. Not that I wouldn't like it to succeed. The CST100 looks to be an American Soyuz, in that it will do the job its supposed to do reliably, but its not inspiring or groundbreaking. 

What I think will happen in all probability is Boeing and SpaceX...but its not exactly what i would like to happen.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6769
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1798
  • Likes Given: 1787
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #135 on: 09/16/2014 07:42 AM »
How about this?

Only one CCtCap award and that goes to Boeing or Sierra Nevada.

SpaceX as the clear fronrunner gets a contract outside CCtCap limitations for fasttracking crew to the ISS? Conceivable?

Offline darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 1284
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #136 on: 09/16/2014 07:51 AM »
If Boeing does get the lions share of this, it will be interesting to see who takes advantage of the Government/Aerospace revolving door soon.  It will also be interesting to see just how much the CST-100/Atlas combo will soak the taxpayer for.

Offline MP99

Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #137 on: 09/16/2014 08:06 AM »


So many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.
The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements. 
Sure. In the concrete form of actual hardware assembled from actual legacy systems.
Boeing, and the others, completed hardware testing milestones and critical design reviews, but only Boeing completed all of its milestones.  That could be important tomorrow, but we'll see.  I'm guessing two winners.  http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20140912-ccicap-milestone-list.html

 - Ed Kyle

But the milestones are different for each. Isn't this apples to oranges, then?
For example, two of the incomplete SpaceX milestones are Pad Abort and In-Flight Abort.
Those are not listed on the Boeing or SNC milestone list.
Given that these are some of the most significant tests/validations of a manned system, how can the milestones list be used as an apples to apples comparison?
Sorry if this is obvious to others, I'm just curious.

Competitors entered CCiCAP on the basis that their milestones would take them substantially towards the final system. NASA would not have accepted them into the programme unless they agreed that those milestones would achieve that.

Cheers, Martin

Online ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3751
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2362
  • Likes Given: 3042
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #138 on: 09/16/2014 10:50 AM »
How about this?

Only one CCtCap award and that goes to Boeing or Sierra Nevada.

SpaceX as the clear fronrunner gets a contract outside CCtCap limitations for fasttracking crew to the ISS? Conceivable?

No, not conceivable.  It's illegal for NASA to give SpaceX an uncompeted award.  CCtCap was a competition open to anyone who wanted to bid.

Online ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3751
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2362
  • Likes Given: 3042
Re: CCtCap: NASA wonít abandon Commercial Crew loser
« Reply #139 on: 09/16/2014 10:56 AM »


So many people have touted Boeing's "experience" in building manned spacecraft but fail to acknowledge that all the engineers who built them have long since retired.
The real experience that may be most important here is Boeing's experience being responsive to NASA requirements. 
Sure. In the concrete form of actual hardware assembled from actual legacy systems.
Boeing, and the others, completed hardware testing milestones and critical design reviews, but only Boeing completed all of its milestones.  That could be important tomorrow, but we'll see.  I'm guessing two winners.  http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/20140912-ccicap-milestone-list.html

 - Ed Kyle

But the milestones are different for each. Isn't this apples to oranges, then?
For example, two of the incomplete SpaceX milestones are Pad Abort and In-Flight Abort.
Those are not listed on the Boeing or SNC milestone list.
Given that these are some of the most significant tests/validations of a manned system, how can the milestones list be used as an apples to apples comparison?
Sorry if this is obvious to others, I'm just curious.

Competitors entered CCiCAP on the basis that their milestones would take them substantially towards the final system. NASA would not have accepted them into the programme unless they agreed that those milestones would achieve that.

Nothing in CCiCap said that the proposals all had to take their respective programs the same distance toward the final system.  It's obvious that the SpaceX CCiCap plan, with two actual abort tests, brings them much closer to operation than CST-100.

NASA wanted to keep competition alive, so they gave several awards.  That doesn't mean they were equal.  Far from it.

Boeing completed its milestones already because they were far less ambitious.  SpaceX and Sierra Nevada negotiated more time for their milestones and NASA agreed to it.  NASA obviously thinks it's worth it to pay them for those milestones even if they are later than original scheduled.

Tags: