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 61961 times)

Offline BrianNH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 326
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #40 on: 08/27/2014 12:23 pm »
I voted SpaceX and Sierra Nevada for the same reasons mentioned before.

An interesting way of reading this chart to look at the percentages that think (or at least voted) that a particular company will NOT receive an award.   

Looked at this way, right now 7% don't think that SpaceX will win, 27% don't think that Sierra Nevada will win and 74% don't think that Boeing will win.

We will see, but I wouldn't be surprised by any outcome.  We are making these guesses based on very little information.  It would be interesting to see the full set of info that NASA is actually basing it's decision on.

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3126
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 772
  • Likes Given: 1243
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #41 on: 08/27/2014 01:15 pm »
CST-100 and Dreamchaser

Reasons:
CST-100 is being developed by the largest company in the market.  They have the depth in history, resources and talent to get the work done on time.  Without a doubt Boeing is going to deliver, NASA will want 1 of the 2 to be a sure thing.  Also, Boeing has been playing the political side game for decades and will have this locked up, count on it.

Dreamchaser is sexy, exciting and offers some appealing options capsules do not.  It will look and sound great when it comes in for a landing, on a run way, and the media calls it a NASA spacecraft.  This will be appealing to NASA, even if Sierra Nevada is late

Dragon v2, is a good contender but someone is going to lose and it's going to be SpaceX.  Then they will get a big fat cargo contract later.  SpaceX has stated they will continue development regardless, I think that is playing their hand before needed.  Further with F9, F9R, FH, Raptor and all the other development being done NASA may consider that SpaceX doesn't have the focus or resources to add NASA's human spacecraft.

As a bone to SpaceX they may require dual launch vehicle ability.

All that said, it is what I think will happen, but I'd prefer Dreamchaser and Dragon.
Needing a copy of 'Tales of Suspense #39'

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 963
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 501
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #42 on: 08/27/2014 01:38 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....... :)
It is my opinion and you know it. Everyone here is pulling votes out of their behinds, as I don't expect anyone with insider knowledge to participate in this forum, let alone vote on this poll.
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Online dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Israel
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 391
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #43 on: 08/27/2014 02:19 pm »
I voted all three because it is very hard to choose...
Feels like any downselect at this time will be a BIG mistake.
I favor a 50% 25% 25% sort of
"If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal. "
Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Liked: 1230
  • Likes Given: 1123
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #44 on: 08/27/2014 02:29 pm »
I voted all three because it is very hard to choose...
Feels like any downselect at this time will be a BIG mistake.
I favor a 50% 25% 25% sort of

I understand the appeal of that kind of a split, but the reason NASA is not going to do that (I am very confident in saying this) is because with the CCtCAP money spread so thinly that would inevitably push out the schedule even further.  NASA wants and needs a solution sooner rather than later.

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • United States
  • Liked: 1612
  • Likes Given: 2367
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #45 on: 08/27/2014 02:32 pm »
I chose Boeing.  They completed their milestones.  They've got lower risk on many fronts.  They constructed large parts of ISS already.  They designed to the need, not the appeal.
Bring the thunder!

Offline king1999

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 270
  • F-Niner Fan
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #46 on: 08/27/2014 02:41 pm »
I chose Boeing.  They completed their milestones.  They've got lower risk on many fronts.  They constructed large parts of ISS already.  They designed to the need, not the appeal.
Paper milestones are deceiving ...  ;)

Offline king1999

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 270
  • F-Niner Fan
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #47 on: 08/27/2014 02:42 pm »
CST-100 and Dreamchaser

Reasons:
CST-100 is being developed by the largest company in the market.  They have the depth in history, resources and talent to get the work done on time.  Without a doubt Boeing is going to deliver, NASA will want 1 of the 2 to be a sure thing.  Also, Boeing has been playing the political side game for decades and will have this locked up, count on it.

Dreamchaser is sexy, exciting and offers some appealing options capsules do not.  It will look and sound great when it comes in for a landing, on a run way, and the media calls it a NASA spacecraft.  This will be appealing to NASA, even if Sierra Nevada is late

Dragon v2, is a good contender but someone is going to lose and it's going to be SpaceX.  Then they will get a big fat cargo contract later.  SpaceX has stated they will continue development regardless, I think that is playing their hand before needed.  Further with F9, F9R, FH, Raptor and all the other development being done NASA may consider that SpaceX doesn't have the focus or resources to add NASA's human spacecraft.

As a bone to SpaceX they may require dual launch vehicle ability.

All that said, it is what I think will happen, but I'd prefer Dreamchaser and Dragon.
John McCain would scream at you: Atlas V???

Offline Cherokee43v6

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 702
  • Garner, NC
  • Liked: 272
  • Likes Given: 109
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #48 on: 08/27/2014 03:14 pm »
Well,I voted for SNC and SpaceX, though it was a coin toss on SNC or Boeing.

Reason for that angle.  Non-commonality.  Considering that the most common type of critical failure is not the orbital vehicle but the launch vehicle, I feel it would be highly doubtful that a two winner scenario would have both OVs ride the same launch vehicle.  Any failure on the LV would result in a situation where there would be no difference in having chosen a sole source.

With that said, to me the unlikely though highly logical scenario would be to Primary SNC and Secondary Boeing.  Reason, SpaceX has already stated a firm commitment to completing and flying DragonV2 and has the financial wherewithal to pull it off.  SNC has the same commitment, but less financial backing, whereas Boeing has pretty much said no NASA no CT100.  This scenario would maximize the Commercial options (NASA could even throw SpaceX a bone by buying a flight or two from them.  However, this scenario would be unlikely to meet the time goals as they are currently laid out, though it would be the most in the spirit of the Commercial Crew development concept.
"I didn't open the can of worms...
        ...I just pointed at it and laughed a little too loudly."

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7786
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1289
  • Likes Given: 8724
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #49 on: 08/27/2014 04:21 pm »
I voted SpaceX and Boeing.

I think it would have made for a much more interesting poll if you could only choose 1 winner, which seems to be what Congress is hell bent on wanting and which history has demonstrated is a pretty bad idea.  :(

I hope all designs can be certified for ISS use even if they are not funded but in the pragmatic world of NASA funding Spacex have been making real deliveries to the ISS for some time and that's a fact even Congress can't deny.

In my ideal world all would get full funding and then we'd see who's really got the talents for making space pay but that's not going to happen.  :(

Likewise while Boeing have not been very "media friendly" they score highly on the "safe pair of hands" front which some people at NASA also like (BTW does anyone wonder if the "Phantom Works" is sometimes called "The Powerpoint Tigers?"  :) as an earlier poster suggested )

Lots of earlier posters made good points.

I like design diversity too and SNC have made real engineering strides in moving the concept of a composite structure human rated  lifting body from the CAD screen to flight status (on a shoe string budget as well. ) I hope their vehicle gets to fly.

But my heart says if it's a 3 to 2 cut they are likely to go under the bus.

Now what happens if it's a 3 to 1 selection.......
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline MP99

Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #50 on: 08/27/2014 04:27 pm »


Well,I voted for SNC and SpaceX, though it was a coin toss on SNC or Boeing.

Reason for that angle.  Non-commonality.  Considering that the most common type of critical failure is not the orbital vehicle but the launch vehicle, I feel it would be highly doubtful that a two winner scenario would have both OVs ride the same launch vehicle.  Any failure on the LV would result in a situation where there would be no difference in having chosen a sole source.

With that said, to me the unlikely though highly logical scenario would be to Primary SNC and Secondary Boeing.  Reason, SpaceX has already stated a firm commitment to completing and flying DragonV2 and has the financial wherewithal to pull it off.  SNC has the same commitment, but less financial backing, whereas Boeing has pretty much said no NASA no CT100.  This scenario would maximize the Commercial options (NASA could even throw SpaceX a bone by buying a flight or two from them.  However, this scenario would be unlikely to meet the time goals as they are currently laid out, though it would be the most in the spirit of the Commercial Crew development concept.

That could just as well be covered by CST-100 launching on Atlas V, and DC launching on F9.

From SNC's POV, it might have made sense for them to have a switch to F9 as secondary option in their proposal.

To be clear, this would involve SNC being switched to F9 as a condition of them being accepted to proceed with CCtCap.

Not saying this is likely, just trying to cover all bases.

Cheers, Martin

PS if SpaceX don't win a crew contract, I'd expect to see them push ahead with a cargo version of Dv2 for CRS.

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1154
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #51 on: 08/27/2014 05:06 pm »
Lots of interesting opinions on this thread. I voted SNC and SpaceX, thinking that my choice was pretty boring, but it's what I think is most likely. That being said, the recent engine change on the Dream Chaser has me thinking less confidently about that vehicle's odds of being chosen. One other point I'd throw out there is that NASA has a history of selecting winners/contracts on what appear to be non-technical or "soft" factors, meaning that the designs/proposals that score highest technically (and may be the superior solution) may not be chosen for other reasons.
Scott

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9646
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 465
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #52 on: 08/27/2014 05:15 pm »
A full share to SpaceX. Half a share to Boeing. 10 percent of a program to Sierra Nevada.

Offline king1999

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 270
  • F-Niner Fan
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #53 on: 08/27/2014 05:16 pm »
SpaceX = 100%
Boeing already handed out pink slips to most people in the CST team.
SNC signed agreements with Europe and Japan space agencies.
Based on the commitment levels, I would think NASA will choose SNC.

Offline kerlc

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • Slovenia
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #54 on: 08/27/2014 05:40 pm »
Lots of interesting opinions on this thread. I voted SNC and SpaceX, thinking that my choice was pretty boring, but it's what I think is most likely. That being said, the recent engine change on the Dream Chaser has me thinking less confidently about that vehicle's odds of being chosen. One other point I'd throw out there is that NASA has a history of selecting winners/contracts on what appear to be non-technical or "soft" factors, meaning that the designs/proposals that score highest technically (and may be the superior solution) may not be chosen for other reasons.
From the DC update thread:

Mark Sirangelo stated following from America space interview.
 http://www.americaspace.com/?p=66192

 “We have not announced a change in propulsion systems and that was not a quote from us.”

“It was likely meant to refer to our acquisition of Orbitec as we now have an expanded base of propulsion solutions and are exploring their use for future Dream Chaser variants.”

“There is no schedule change related to engines.”

So the DC is staying with it's existing hybrid engines for the first orbital version at least.

So, I don't think the engine change is of any major concern to the downselect.
Quote from: wannamoonbase
Be patient people, rockets are hard.

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1154
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #55 on: 08/27/2014 06:19 pm »
Thanks, keric, I appreciate the link to SNC's clarification.
Scott

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Liked: 1230
  • Likes Given: 1123
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #56 on: 08/27/2014 06:20 pm »
Boeing already handed out pink slips to most people in the CST team.

They have not.  They have issued warnings (legally required) that they might lay off the team, which must be issued in advance.

Online Giovanni DS

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 200
    • ChibiOS/RT Project
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 196
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #57 on: 08/27/2014 06:36 pm »
Boeing already handed out pink slips to most people in the CST team.

They have not.  They have issued warnings (legally required) that they might lay off the team, which must be issued in advance.

This is sad for the team... I am sure they created an excellent vehicle.

However I do hope commitment is one of the selection criteria. SpaceX and SNC at least seem to believe in what their are doing.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #58 on: 08/27/2014 06:45 pm »
Lots of interesting opinions on this thread. I voted SNC and SpaceX, thinking that my choice was pretty boring, but it's what I think is most likely. That being said, the recent engine change on the Dream Chaser has me thinking less confidently about that vehicle's odds of being chosen. One other point I'd throw out there is that NASA has a history of selecting winners/contracts on what appear to be non-technical or "soft" factors, meaning that the designs/proposals that score highest technically (and may be the superior solution) may not be chosen for other reasons.
From the DC update thread:

Mark Sirangelo stated following from America space interview.
 http://www.americaspace.com/?p=66192

 “We have not announced a change in propulsion systems and that was not a quote from us.”

“It was likely meant to refer to our acquisition of Orbitec as we now have an expanded base of propulsion solutions and are exploring their use for future Dream Chaser variants.”

“There is no schedule change related to engines.”

So the DC is staying with it's existing hybrid engines for the first orbital version at least.

So, I don't think the engine change is of any major concern to the downselect.

That can be read as quite the non-denial, though. :) Reading between the lines, I think SNC & NASA knows that an engine change will be coming. It just won't be announced until after the selection. I do believe that the propulsion is an element that will be marked as an element that increases technical risk for DC - but it will probably still be selected.

Offline raczkri

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Commercial Crew Downselect
« Reply #59 on: 08/27/2014 08:54 pm »
interesting, as of now:

92,8% of the voters expect that SpaceX will get a contract (with or without a 2nd winner)
73,1% expect SNC to get selected
25,3% of the voters expect Boeing to win a place in CCtCap

looks almost certain for spacex but slight chance for boeing.

Could 249 of seasoned NSF commenters be wrong?? we shall see pretty soon..:)

I voted for spacex and snc by the way.

Tags: