Poll

Which companies will receive major funded CCtCap awards?

Boeing
8 (2.1%)
Sierra Nevada
4 (1%)
SpaceX
14 (3.6%)
Other entity
0 (0%)
Boeing & Sierra Nevada
13 (3.4%)
Boeing & SpaceX
68 (17.5%)
Sierra Nevada & SpaceX
253 (65.2%)
Boeing & other entity
1 (0.3%)
Sierra Nevada & other entity
1 (0.3%)
SpaceX & other entity
15 (3.9%)
Boeing, Sierra Nevada & SpaceX
10 (2.6%)
None of the above
1 (0.3%)

Total Members Voted: 388

Voting closed: 09/02/2014 01:02 pm


Author Topic: Commercial Crew Downselect  (Read 61978 times)

Offline bubbagret

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #20 on: 08/26/2014 05:11 pm »
This is a tough guess. Other than land landing, Boeing really doesn't bring that much new tech to the table. Their tremendous lobbying power is the one big advantage that they have over the other contenders. SpaceX seems to be a fairly safe bet at this time and SNC has the benefit of "apparent" shuttle heritage that fit's so well with NASA.

Now, who receives the biggest chunk? With all of the positioning that SNC has been doing recently with the Europeans and other companies, I would hazard a guess that they will become the NASA funding favorite. That's ignoring the late engine change. The fact that SpaceX will be well positioned with the already flying cargo variant and the V2 abort tests closely approaching makes this choice the biggest mystery.

I just wish they would get it over with! Enough futzing around, let's FLY already!

Online James54

  • Member
  • Posts: 38
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #21 on: 08/26/2014 05:44 pm »
I voted Sierra Nevada with Dream Chaser and SpaceX with Dragon Version 2 (V2)

My opinion is pure speculation as I am mostly uninformed and have no knowledge of documentation and tests submitted to NASA.

As Mark Sirangelo of Sierra Nevada has stated, ď If itís only economic, if thereís only room for one company than thatís not a technical decision or an architectural decision.  Thatís a budget decision.  On the other hand, if itís purely technical and there are faults in somebodyís program then I think the thing to do is bring a solution to the table.  We are advancing well enough to have the opportunity to make that choice.Ē
« Last Edit: 08/26/2014 05:49 pm by James54 »

Offline kerlc

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Slovenia
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #22 on: 08/26/2014 05:51 pm »
Guessing purely from the heart with very little attention paid to everything else, SpaceX and Sierra Nevada. Because Dream chaser and Dragon V2 are sexy.

Sorry Boeing, but CST-100 is just not sexy enough.

Also launch vehicle difference and whatnot.
Quote from: wannamoonbase
Be patient people, rockets are hard.

Offline kirghizstan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 669
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 77
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #23 on: 08/26/2014 06:08 pm »
SpX and SN

Diversity in craft type and launch vehicle

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 963
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 501
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #24 on: 08/26/2014 06:29 pm »
Voted for SpaceX and Boeing, because it is what will happen. SpaceX is most advanced, and Boeing has power of experience and bribes, errr... lobbying.

I prefer SpaceX and SNC, but it will not happen. Such high amount of votes for that combo is just excercise in wishful thinking. As far I am concerned, this is pool about "what will happen", not "what you would want to happen". Tsk, tsk.
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline Razvan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • United States
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #25 on: 08/26/2014 06:55 pm »
I voted B+SpX although I'd like SN+SpX to be selected by NASA.
I think Boeing will be selected for its reliability, just to make sure things happen.
On the other hand, SN will continue consulting with NASA and also with ESA and Japan as they kind of entered into some agreements already with the later two and so all three players will win in the end. And this would be a great Win for US.
« Last Edit: 08/27/2014 12:32 pm by Razvan »

Offline Rifleman

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #26 on: 08/26/2014 07:03 pm »
I voted SPX and SN for the following reasons :

1. SpaceX likely is the cheapest option, and would likely be the first able to enter service

2. Dream Chaser's large cross range and lower g reentry provides more flexibility when used in the lifeboat role, as an immediate retry would be much less likely to land the crew in the middle of nowhere far from resuce, and could be benificial in bringing an injured crew member home in a hurry.

3. Having vehicles ready to fly on both atlas and falcon greatly reduces the chance of booster related issues prevented access to LEO.

4. Like it or not, the limited attention span of the public is a factor for Nasa. If nobody pays any attention to space exploration, congress, being run by idiots, is less likely to provide appropriate funding. SpaceX has managed to capture the public's attention in ways that the other contenders could never dream of. The Elon Musk factor is real. Dream Chaser, being a "cool spaceplane" will also capture the public's imagination. CST-100, while technically sound, and a great proposal, simply does not ignite the imagination like "A rocket built some an eccentric billionaire" or "A Mini-Space Shuttle". Should this be a factor?, no it should not, but at the end of the day, it is, like it or not.


Other factors that could prove me wrong :

The precision return of dragon is no benefit over CST, as dragon still needs a landing zone large enough for use of its reserve chutes, if the super draco's fail the high altitude test.

CST may be a better option for station reboost

CST likely has a much better lobbying team supporting it.

Some at Nasa may view Dragon, with its long term publicly stated goal of BEO travel, as a threat to Orion and its funding.

Nasa may feel that they will be able to get dragon for free, as Musk has stated it is going to fly, with or without Nasa funding. CST on the other hand, will only fly with funding, and while SN states they will fly without funding, its less likely for them than it is for SPX.



« Last Edit: 08/26/2014 07:29 pm by Rifleman »

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 376
  • Likes Given: 1220
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #27 on: 08/26/2014 07:14 pm »
SN + SpaceX

Boeing has said in no uncertain wording, that they will not do it on their own money.
If I were the main customer I would draw my conclusions.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #28 on: 08/26/2014 07:16 pm »
I voted Sierra Nevada + SpaceX.

Voted for SpaceX and Boeing, because it is what will happen. SpaceX is most advanced, and Boeing has power of experience and bribes, errr... lobbying.

I prefer SpaceX and SNC, but it will not happen. Such high amount of votes for that combo is just excercise in wishful thinking. As far I am concerned, this is pool about "what will happen", not "what you would want to happen". Tsk, tsk.

Yes, this is a poll about what *will happen*. And I still think that DC+Dragon will happen, for a multitude of reasons. It is the selection that makes most sense for NASA, but also how Boeing is acting like they have been defeated already.
« Last Edit: 08/26/2014 07:16 pm by Lars_J »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8599
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #29 on: 08/26/2014 07:34 pm »
I voted SpaceX and Sierra Nevada.

This gives money to all 3 companies.  SCN gets to continue designing mini-Shuttle DreamChaser and has Boeing as a subcontractor man rating the Atlas V.

SpaceX get to develop the Dragon V2.0 capsule and man rate the Falcon 9.

edit:spelling
« Last Edit: 08/26/2014 07:40 pm by A_M_Swallow »

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1412
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 1482
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #30 on: 08/26/2014 07:36 pm »

I prefer SpaceX and SNC, but it will not happen. Such high amount of votes for that combo is just excercise in wishful thinking. As far I am concerned, this is pool about "what will happen", not "what you would want to happen". Tsk, tsk.
And you know this for a fact because....... :)

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 569
  • Liked: 421
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #31 on: 08/26/2014 07:37 pm »
... and has Boeing as a subcontractor man rating the Atlas V.

Atlas V is a Lockheed-Martin vehicle.  The work would either be LM or ULA.

Offline oiorionsbelt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1412
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 1482
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #32 on: 08/26/2014 07:40 pm »
... and has Boeing as a subcontractor man rating the Atlas V.

Atlas V is a Lockheed-Martin vehicle.  The work would either be LM or ULA.
and NPO Energomash :) Kiddng, kinda

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 4518
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #33 on: 08/26/2014 07:45 pm »
... and has Boeing as a subcontractor man rating the Atlas V.

Atlas V is a Lockheed-Martin vehicle.  The work would either be LM or ULA.
and NPO Energomash :) Kiddng, kinda
NPO Energomash did get a contract on human rating the RD-180. Not the RD-180V, but human rated to American standards (probably some extra sensor suite or EDS connection).

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5339
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2644
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #34 on: 08/26/2014 08:34 pm »
SpaceX and SNC,

SpaceX has been flying the progenitor V1.x vehicle and provides an alternate LV. Cheaper, and it has unpressurized  cargo capabilities that could be expanded (per the DraconIan pdf).

DC is dissimilar, has a lower G re-entry for delicate experiment returns, a broad cross range, and NASA types obviously have nostalgic feelings for wings. DC's wings have NASA heritage.


DM

Offline sciencebro

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #35 on: 08/26/2014 08:51 pm »
My vote goes to SpaceX and Sierra Nevada.

SpaceX, because they will most likely be the first to have working flight hardware for a manned test and the fact they are already successfully providing launch services to the ISS in the form of COTS.

Sierra Nevada, because they offer vehicle diversity.

(I accidently got excited with the poll and pressed the Sierra Nevada button)

Offline MP99

Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #36 on: 08/26/2014 08:59 pm »
My vote is "one on F9 + one on Atlas" (which isn't an option so I haven't clicked).

[While the "trampoline" scare has been a damp squib, Putin is unpredictable - and putting all eggs into that basket for nearly a decade ahead is an unnecessary risk.]

cheers, Martin

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Canada
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 652
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #37 on: 08/26/2014 10:04 pm »
I voted for SpaceX and SNC.

Unfortunately, the tea leaves I am reading shows a near future with just the Dragon. The Dreamchaser IMO will need a lot more time & money to bring online before 2020. Boeing have no skin in the game.

The business case for the Atlas V in the 412 version for the Dreamchaser & the 422 version for the CST-100 appears to be shaky. So migration to the F9 is possible.


Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22560
  • Liked: 911
  • Likes Given: 333
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #38 on: 08/26/2014 10:08 pm »
SNC and SpaceX have the strongest business case in my opinion, which considering the technical maturity of all participant at this point is more important

SpaceX already launches Dragon on cargo flights and is matching NASA funding with their own funding.  Also, their craft is a simple capsule that is already flying.

Dream Chaser has made an enormous amount of effort to make deals with other entities besides NASA as both potential clients and sources of experience. Their deals with DLR, ESA, and JAXA represent the best business case in my opinion of all three commercial crew providers. THey also demonstrated significant "buy-in" with the announcement of their first flight, regardless of NASA funding.  Their collaboration with ESA, Lockheed Martin, and acquisition of Orbitec all significantly leap-frogged their ability to develop DC and experience base.  While DC maybe more complicated and received less funding in the last round, their business dealing will keep them in the hunt.
« Last Edit: 08/26/2014 10:11 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5655
  • Liked: 1177
  • Likes Given: 716
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #39 on: 08/27/2014 07:59 am »
I've gone with Boeing and SpaceX.

Though I personally think the risk of losing access to the RD-180 is small, the large amount of noise made over the issue makes it hard not to choose the only visible candidate that does not rely on it, namely SpaceX.  Furthermore, the high visibility of SpaceX's accomplishments, some directly relevant and some less so, would mean some explaining would be necessary were it not to win.

So, why didn't I choose SpaceX alone?  Were Boeing the front runner, I would be more inclined to go with it alone.  Having been, in my view, knocked out of its default top spot by SpaceX's independence from the RD-180 and highly visible successes, it seems to me that Boeing's economic presence and reputation probably give it the clout to eke out a contract too.  Were SpaceX a sole winner which latter suffered a major failure, voices would ask, "Why didn't you choose Boeing, the experienced company?"  And its announcement that it will not continue CST-100 without an award perversely helps its case.

All of the above said, I would prefer Sierra Nevada and SpaceX were the winners for their greater innovation.

I also half expect that the outcome of the downselect will be some scenario not foreseen in this poll.

I like MP99's take: SpaceX and one Atlas-V-launched vehicle.  I earlier mused about creating a poll that would allow people to express views such as this, but in the end I felt it was high time to just get on with it.  Maybe I should have allowed everybody two or three votes (didn't know that was an option until I created this poll), so people could vote for multiple scenarios.  Next time.

Even though I'm going for a two-winner scenario, I'm a little surprised that just about everybody else (85% as at the moment) is too.  I'm hoping somebody will make a good argument for a dark horse, like Blue Origin.

Tags: