Commercial Crew Downselect

[BrightLight]

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.

this will be a good test

[Lar]

More fun with numbers, if we assume "other entity" is Blue Origin I get that only 3.6% think they get anything but check my math.  (still scratching my head over what "none of the above" is...)

we have a fairly good track record at predicting things collectively. Not perfect but not too bad. So this WILL be a good test...

Edit: **I** checked my math and was found wanting...

[yg1968]

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.

For a similar poll prior to CCiCap, NSF members rightly predicted SpaceX, Boeing and SNC.   

Edit: NSF (not SNC) Members.

[RonM]

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

Is that seasoned as in experienced or as in having had salt, pepper, herbs, or spices added? 

[Lar]

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

Is that seasoned as in experienced or as in having had salt, pepper, herbs, or spices added? 

Sugar, Nutmeg and Cloves ...  that's what SNC members are made of after all...[1]

As I said, I think we are fairly good collectively. Not perfect, but a force to be reckoned with, as these things go.

1 -  See...

For a similar poll prior to CCiCap, SNC members rightly predicted SpaceX, Boeing and SNC.   

yg1968 surely meant NSF members but that was too funny not to pounce on.

[Rocket Science]

I voted Sierra Nevada & SpaceX... SNC fits the NASA image the best with its STEM outreach and university involvement in Dream Chaser. Willingness to cooperate with traditional ISS partners and has offices across a large portion of the nation. Dream Chaser has the HL-20 heritage that NASA invested time and money into and was the plan for crew rotation going back to 90’s.

SpaceX brings the willingness to push new technologies and approaches that NASA more than likely would not have attempted. It has already proven itself so far with cargo resupply in its few missions. New interest has been generated among individuals who may have not followed the US space program before and may have an impact on STEM.

Both seem capable of meeting milestones so in effect it becomes moot. DC has a reliable launcher with the Atlas V but there are those Russian engines... Falcon has shown its strength but still has issues which in time will be resolved...

So I tend to look at the “big picture” of which provider fits within the “NASA way of doing things” including the important political game that provides the bucks for Buck Rogers to get off the pad...

[Ike17055]

Paper milestones...powerpoint tiger...what a load...Boeing has built an abort engine and a test article in addition to mockup. They have chute tested a modified mockup.  And don't sell short the complexity or critical need for the engineering documentation and software development (the "paper" part...) this is all just more tripe from groupthink crowd. All milestones were developed in conjunction with NASA, based on what would give them confidence that risk retirement was being achieved. boeing did not just develop a glorified checklist or fancy star wars videos with their millions.

[QuantumG]

Paper milestones...powerpoint tiger...what a load...Boeing has built an abort engine and a test article in addition to mockup. They have chute tested a modified mockup.

Component level testing.

[Lars_J]

Paper milestones...powerpoint tiger...what a load...Boeing has built an abort engine and a test article in addition to mockup.

That engine (LAE) is based on the Bantam/RS-88, but an ablative instead of film-cooled nozzle. A test "flight-like" version of the LAE was widely touted by Boeing as one of their milestones. But this is pretty much an off-the-shelf product, and Boeing has likely spent much less work on an abort engine compared to its competitors.

They have chute tested a modified mockup.  And don't sell short the complexity or critical need for the engineering documentation and software development (the "paper" part...) this is all just more tripe from groupthink crowd. All milestones were developed in conjunction with NASA, based on what would give them confidence that risk retirement was being achieved. boeing did not just develop a glorified checklist or fancy star wars videos with their millions.

The others have had design reviews and "paper" milestones as well. But you are welcome to point out any area where Boeing is further ahead in flight hardware production and/or testing.

Boeing has retired a lot of risk. Their own financial risk, certainly.

[raczkri]

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

Is that seasoned as in experienced or as in having had salt, pepper, herbs, or spices added? 

Certainly not Chilli Sugar and Tarragon added or 100 flavoured..

[tesla]

SNC + SpaceX = 
Boeing + SpaceX =   
SNC + Boeing =   

  -  = F9R Dev1 (@ t>t0)
  -  =  *   (yes, boeing is complex)
  +  +  = SLS!

Dude?

[watermod]

Question:
  With the JAXA DreamChaser agreement one would suspect the Japanese rocket H-IIB as a potential secondary way into orbit beside an Atlas with a Russian engine.   Does this change NASA's calculus for the down-select or is it outside of the selection criteria bounds?

[Ike17055]

OFf the shelf is exactly what boeing said they would adopt (or adapt) to minimize risk to the timeline. It works. No one said they are further ahead on production, only that the characterization of "paper" being unimportant ignores the realities of engineering today. As well as the directive if NASA for (pardon the expression) safe, simple, soon. Has spaceX even done windtunnel testing of the new moldline involved with v2?  Adding self-contained thrusters changes a lot. A new trunk changes a lot. Adding actuation for nose cone opening and opening/ closing landing gear adds a lot. Adding rendezvous capability to a vehicle that had to be berthed previously adds a lot. Environmental systems adds a heck of a lot. Not to mention, Propulsive landing is a lot harder than it is in animation. Where is all this evidence that SpaceX is "so far ahead" with flight ready hardware? 

[Lars_J]

OFf the shelf is exactly what boeing said they would adopt (or adapt) to minimize risk to the timeline. It works. No one said they are further ahead on production, only that the characterization of "paper" being unimportant ignores the realities of engineering today. As well as the directive if NASA for (pardon the expression) safe, simple, soon. Has spaceX even done windtunnel testing of the new moldline involved with v2?

Yes, they have - see attached image.

Adding self-contained thrusters changes a lot. A new trunk changes a lot. Adding actuation for nose cone opening and opening/ closing landing gear adds a lot. Adding rendezvous capability to a vehicle that had to be berthed previously adds a lot. Environmental systems adds a heck of a lot. Not to mention, Propulsive landing is a lot harder than it is in animation. Where is all this evidence that SpaceX is "so far ahead" with flight ready hardware? 

It's difficult to quantify how far ahead they would be but at least they have a pad abort and in-flight abort tests scheduled for just a few months from now. Then there is of course the cargo Dragon (v1) that is operational, making several systems flight proven.

[QuantumG]

It's supposed to be an integrated development phase. All Boeing have integrated in these milestones is Powerpoint. It's great for them, and their shareholders, that they managed to negotiate these milestones with NASA but it's completely misleading to suggest they're somehow "ahead" because they've completed all their milestones.

[FuseUpHereAlone]

Paper milestones...powerpoint tiger...what a load...Boeing has built an abort engine and a test article in addition to mockup. They have chute tested a modified mockup.  And don't sell short the complexity or critical need for the engineering documentation and software development (the "paper" part...) this is all just more tripe from groupthink crowd. All milestones were developed in conjunction with NASA, based on what would give them confidence that risk retirement was being achieved. boeing did not just develop a glorified checklist or fancy star wars videos with their millions.

Just to expand on this, I compiled a list of completed milestones that involved building hardware, testing, or some sort of system demonstration.

CCDev 1
    B4: Demo Abort Engine Demonstration (“COTS” RS-88 modified to run NTO/Hydrazine)
    C4: Base Heat Shield and Carrier Structure Fabrication
    D4: Avionics Systems Integration Facility (ASIF) Demonstration
    E4: CM Pressure Shell Fabrication Demonstration and Test
    F4: Landing System Demonstration (land and water)
    G4: Life Support Demonstration (Life Support Air Revitalization)
    H4: Integrated GNC Demonstration (Including an AR&D Demo)
CCDev2
    4: Launch Abort Engine Fabrication & Hot Fire Test (Evolved RS-88 Engine)
    5: Landing Air Bag Drop Demonstration #1
    6: Phase I Wind Tunnel Tests
    8: Parachute Drop Tests Demonstration
    9: SM Propellant Tank Development Test
    10: LV EDS/ASIF Interface Simulation Test
    13: OMAC Hot Fire Test
    14: SM Propulsion Cold Flow Tests
CCiCap
    7: Integrated Stack Buffet Wind Tunnel Test
    8: DEC Liquid Oxygen Duct Development Test
    9: OMAC Engine Development Test
    12: Mission Control Center Interface Demonstration Test
    14: Emergency Detection System Standalone Testing
    16: Avionics Software Integration Lab (ASIL) Multi-String Demonstration Test
    17: Pilot-in-the-loop Demonstration

[Proponent]

I think it would have made for a much more interesting poll if you could only choose 1 winner

You can: the first four options are Boeing, Sierra Nevada, SpaceX and other entity.

[Proponent]

still scratching my head over what "none of the above" is...

Well, for example, what if four major contracts are awarded, or two "other entities" win or the whole thing gets called off.

[docmordrid]

>
Has spaceX even done windtunnel testing of the new moldline involved with v2?

Lars_J attached a wind tunnel pic that's a little dark. Attached is it gamma adjusted. Judge for yourself.

Adding self-contained thrusters changes a lot.

Yes it does. Pad abort and Max-Q abort tests coming in November and January, respectively.

A new trunk changes a lot.

Perhaps not as much as it seems. They moved solar panels from wings to surface mount, which should be simpler. They added fins, which can be verified in that same wind tunnel.  The other main change was to DragonClaw, the umbilical system. Otherwise it could be the same dumb core structure.

Adding actuation for nose cone opening and opening/ closing landing gear adds a lot.

And they got rid of the solar panel cover jettison and wing extension hardware. A draw, at least.

Adding rendezvous capability to a vehicle that had to be berthed previously adds a lot.

True to a degree. They already had DragonEye and NASA centers to draw experience from. Maybe a few ex-NASA troops with insight. Well see.

Environmental systems adds a heck of a lot.

Paragon SDC is doing their EC/LSS, and it was validated by NASA in an earlier round.

Not to mention, Propulsive landing is a lot harder than it is in animation.

Which is why they won't use full propulsive for ~2 years. Reisman said chutes & rockets first, and there is a video from ~2012 showing it,  with chutes only on land also good if thrusters don't work. DragonFly tests to ramp up to propulsive only.

Where is all this evidence that SpaceX is "so far ahead" with flight ready hardware?

The underlying structure, the pressure vessel, service bay etc.,  and basic systems have flown several times. DV2 certainly has  new toys, but denying its flight heritage seems a bit harsh. Dream Chaser has had a glide test with more coming. Has CST-100 flown other than as a semi-smart paperweight with air bags under chutes? No.

[kerlc]

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.

Witout a doubt you're right about the upcoming propulsion change announcement.

However, I still think that the first orbital (or at the very least, suborbital) vehicle will be hybrid-powered due to time constraints.

Thanks, keric, I appreciate the link to SNC's clarification.

You're welcome, but my username is spelled with a lower-case L, not upper case i.