Commercial Crew integrated Capability Winners Announced
NASA to Announce New Agreements for Next Phase of Commercial Crew Development
“NASA will issue a news release to announce new agreements with industry partners for its Commercial Crew integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative at 9 a.m. EDT, Friday, Aug. 3. At 10 a.m. NASA will host a news briefing from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, which will be broadcast live on NASA Television and the agency’s website. NASA also will host a follow-up teleconference for media representatives with detailed questions at 10:45 a.m., immediately following the briefing.”
Slides being discussed during media telecon.
NASA Announces Next Steps in Effort to Launch Americans From U.S. Soil
“NASA Friday announced new agreements with three American commercial companies to design and develop the next generation of U.S. human spaceflight capabilities, enabling a launch of astronauts from U.S. soil in the next five years. Advances made by these companies under newly signed Space Act Agreements through the agency’s Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative are intended to ultimately lead to the availability of commercial human spaceflight services for government and commercial customers.
CCiCap partners are:
— Sierra Nevada Corporation, Louisville, Colo., $212.5 million
— Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), Hawthorne, Calif., $440 million
— The Boeing Company, Houston, $460 million”
There are rumours that the White House is displeased with one of the awards and further rumours that it concerns ATK. Just rumours of course, but it’s fun to speculate. If ATK gets a full award, it will do so ahead of either SpaceX or Boeing, and either would be outrageous. If they get a partial award it’s probably still politically inspired, but that would be easier to defend in public. We’ll see. I’m not confident about the outcome.
Around the time that Liberty got announced heard that there would be a way to always keep ATK in the picture by House Republicans, which is where this 2.5 stuff started to come from. Originally, before, the HR’s were only going to have one, and then talk of “leader/follower” which might be 1.5 in disguised.
I was never quite certain who the leader or follower was. But around the time that SpaceX wasn’t being pilloried anymore is when we went from “1” meaning “1.5”, to “2.5”. So I think this means that it was a concession by the HR’s to not being able to ignore SpaceX as a given.
On the inside of NASA, the ATK astro influence is very strong irrespective of technical/schedule base, something I’ve never liked as it’s always had an influence of a peculiar sort (“black zones” on EELV Orion et al), along with the beltway bias to favor red state interests, this ahead of Boeing’s more consistent with CCiCap program goals originating with Augustine commissions clear interest in getting away from Shuttle prime thumbs on the scale.
So any ATK award would be seen as a failure of Augustine’s advice, much of which was ignored by DC beltway and NASA – because it doesn’t do what we’re supposed to be doing. But perhaps this means that SLS is getting shaky financially / programmatically, more that they want to appear (they seem to say otherwise BTW), and ATK needs to keep alive solids at all costs. Kinda hard to believe Orion as a program would be in jeopardy, but this paradoxically is also one I’ve heard has more cancellation risk.
I could believe that hackles would be raised if “arsenal space” double dips into “commercial” funding, because they need to share the winners circle with SpaceX as well as do SLS. So do the HR’s doubly fund primes, … AND 2 real “Commercials” … or do they short sheet Augustine yet again by hardballing to one commercial and give primes a second meal ticket at the commercial counter because they’re “respectful” of them?
Given what’s going on over the Farm bill with the HR’s, can’t see this being anything but another ugly situation that makes them look bad before upcoming elections, as the taxpayers look at the feeding troughs being overfilled again, instead of reforming the process as we’ve seen some progress on with COTS.
What if Orbital and SpaceX have successive COTS success? Will an cave to the primes embarrass? Reminds me of the Kistler embarrassment that COTS under Griffin started out being …
Food for thought?
Argh. ATK is a $4 Billion Company with 16K+ employees- and it operates in some 21 states.
Isn’t ATK already getting a piece of SLS? And don’t get me started about the Advanced Global Strike and other Military contracts keeping ATK well fed.
I fear the fix is in on CCiCap. Sigh. The only thing you can smell in space is sizzlin’ Congressional pork.
I am starting to feel bad for Sierra Nevada. Plucky little ship- Langley Heritage…etc.
Just curious, Noone, has Langley had any real design influence on the space side since LOR?
Note: Langley and Ames are the original NACA centers.
Langley continued to weild influence:
NASA Langley Contributions to Space Shuttle Program
Langley’s Contributions to Return to Flight
Hydro Impact Basin
NASA LANGLEY CELEBRATES FIVE-YEAR PARTNERSHIP WITH SIERRA NEVADA
I laugh and tell my friends at Langley that the Lunar Orbiter program was so successful that headquarters never let them run one again.
Boeing is a $69 billion company (annual income). How is that not a problem?
Unlike ATK, Boeing has done Shuttle, Apollo … others. ATK just boosters.
The point of CCiCAP is not launch vehicles, but crew vehicles … “sold” as a package deal for launch.
So, if you want anyone from “old space” who has done this, Boeing is on a very short, short list.
I think at this point the White House would be more interested in promoting the pork industry than the commercial space flight industry. I don’t find them to be very serious about human space flight.
Why on Earth or in the heavens would someone think that? Starting with the Augustine Report this Administration has been the biggest supporter of commercial space ever, far more so than the current Congress. Unless your definition of “commercial space” is “whatever welfare program the old-guard defense contractors favor today”.
I think its for political purposes everything Obama does … has to be bad … even if its good for America … because it needs to be … bad.
This can backfire. When Obama is smart enough … to be the first to do the best for the US.
Cause then by definition … his rivals aren’t being America’s advocates.
So destructive and stupid words cannot do justice.
So who will it be??? In our recent non-scientific poll, ATK, Boeing and SpaceX were the consensus picks with Sierra Nevada in fourth. Did ATK do enough to squeeze in there? Is Sierra Nevada’s Dream Chaser going to be a reality or just a dream? With the recent SpaceX Dragon flight they would appear to be have a lock on one of the three spots. Post your thoughts and hey, send me your insider anonymous thoughts to [email protected] 🙂
Four down (golden tickets), one to go, and somewhere out there a lucky company is moving closer and closer to the most sought after prize in history. Though we cannot help but envy whoever they are, and we may feel bitter but we must remember there are more important things, *many* more important things. Though offhand I cannot think of what they are but I’m sure there must be something.
Monroe2020,
Thanks Very Much. This will keep me smiling, for a little while, Great Post!
Cheer-Up Charlie!
Nice.
There was a poll on parabolic arc .. SpaceX 62%, Boeing 54%, ATK 50%, Sierra Nevada 49%. There were about 570 voters.
Our sample had ~2200 voters. But I suspect someone got the ATK vote out even though you could only vote once.
ATK supporters (employees?) have been voting and trolling like crazy. Which is redundant now – the decision has been made. I’m biased too – anybody but ATK.
Dream pick – SpaceX, Boeing full funding, Sierra half share.
Most likely, Boeing Sierra full funding, SpaceX half share.
Nightmare pick, ATK and Sierra full funding, Boeing half share.
Looks like you get your wish.
Good that SpaceX gets on the list, because otherwise it would show a level of decadence in the decision making processes of government that would be truly frightening, when so much has be demonstrated ahead of other competitors.
Sensible that Boeing is on the list – now lets see if a prime can adapt itself to express its heritage/competence apart from typical “cost plus”, and be just as competitive as they were in the past under the “old rules”. If they can, it may mean that there’s a path back for “arsenal space” (and, perhaps, for the reinvention of a key strength of America). They can do it … but will they “keep with the program?”
Relieved that SNC will bring off HL20, so there is a follow-on to Shuttle that will keep alive and evolve orbital flyback technology that economically may deliver some of what Shuttle overpromised and underdelivered. A fitting continuation to what inspired Shuttle.
And … no ATK pandering needed at all. What would make it perfect now is no ATK segmented solids at all in ANY HSF launch vehicle ever. Then they could go back to using solids for non-HSF vehicles, renaming Athena III to “Liberty”, and make or break it doing real “commercial” launches against other Delta-II class LV’s – as they should have all along. They can spend their considerable political influence their, safely, without harm to US HSF interests.
Who knows, maybe they might be successful at making a business out of it. Or not.
Wow … I hit the trifecta
Now, will you take the prize money, or will you risk it all and come back Monday to play again?
Take it! Take it!
My guess is SNC, Boeing and Space X for the partial funded one. Whether or not Space X is selected they will continue to move forward, and thus would provide the government a greater return on its (our) investment then if it just selected Space X as a fully funded provider. If NASA wanted to really maximize its return it would select SNC, Boeing and Blue Origin using the same thought process where Space X goes forward on their own dime, truly commercial, but that combo would raise more Cain then NASA needs right now.
This is my prediction as well. It will be a tragedy if ATK manages to jump in and steal one of the allocations from SpaceX or SNC just because of politics.
I can’t think of a reason to fund Blue Origin at this point. If Bezos does want to continue on his own, he can afford it; he’s 10 times richer than Musk.
If ATK gets the partial award, it would upset me, but it would be hard to challenge it, really, considering the huge bail-outs of the last few years, and considering what some of the state governments have been offering as “incentives,” particularly Florida.
However, if ATK gets a full award, that would be a pure pork decision, so flagrantly shoved in our faces as to be criminal; right out of a tommy-guns-in-Chicago-and-union-bosses-running-the-cities-type bad movie. Personally, I think it would call for an investigation.
All things (good or otherwise) must eventually come to an end, and ending the ATK gravy train I would say is long post due.
Just my opinion.
Steve
I originally thought the partial award was for ATK from the start. Now I’m not so sure.
So is it a “gravy train”, “pure pork decision”, “crimanal” and “in need of a criminal investigation” only if ATK wins an allocation? Or would that apply to other companies as well? Just curious.
When one company makes a statement their price will be 140 million per launch, with launches already under their belt and is totally domesitically built, and another company saying it will be closer to 500 million a launch and have never launched their vehicle even once and half their vehicle is a foreign product… what do you think?
What I think is….. what company are you refering to when you mention 500 million a launch?
The Liberty Rocket’s cost is estimated at 180 million per launch. Also, it is capable of lifting twice the payload as the other designs out there. So, one launch at 180 million or two launches at 280 million. (thats assuming the 140 million a launch is an accurate number that stays there).
Either way, what I think or what you think really doesn’t matter, we’ll know tomorrow. My guess is that this ends up being mostly about politics and the award money ends up going to blue or swing states.
“(thats assuming the 140 million a launch is an accurate number that stays there)”
No, actually you notably assumed that it is ATK’s $180m figure that would “stay there”, and pointedly insinuated that SpaceX’s wouldn’t.
But here’s a question for you, if you believe ATK’s claims as much as you seem to:
Since ATK lost CCiCap, in spite of their massive PR campaign, how much of their own money do you think ATK will now spend developing Liberty?
Because the argument you made also applies to the commercial market. SpaceX has an order-book full of commercial customers at their claimed price. If ATK genuinely believed in their “flight-proven” hardware and design, and if they really could launch larger (or multiple) payloads at 2/3rds of SpaceX’s price per-kg, then they would obviously out-compete SpaceX (and everyone else) for the US commercial launch market. Which is worth billions. If they aren’t lying.
So tell us, do you think ATK will develop their $180m, safe, flight-proven launcher for the commercial market?
The answer to that question explains why so many of us despise ATK and adore SpaceX.
[Personally, I doubt they’ll spend as much developing Liberty as they spent on their PR and astroturf campaign for Liberty.]
I welcome all the “former aerospace contractors” to out SpaceX SpaceX … for real and not as “put up jobs”.
That would be a tremendous boon for America – we’d jump ahead 10+ years of the world in less than a year.
It is the ATK mentality that makes America weak.
There has never been a “improvement” in an ATK segmented solid that has reduced the total cost to the taxpayer of a booster. It has always gone up – examine the long history of numerous examples.
Now they’re cheap all of a sudden, and … don’t have TO? How convenient. Perhaps next they’ll be said to be non toxic, and expel flowers?
Understanding how these “munitions” are made … leads one to an understanding of the costs of manufacturing … and the issues necessary to stability. Of something that the combustion processes … still remain largely unknown.
Could you use the tech differently – yes … for unmanned payloads. To make it “cheaper” for real – necessarily means compromises unsuitable for HSF use.
Solids have their uses.
If we look at the bridge ATK is trying to sell us, then yes, choosing them can only be explained as a politically motivated decision, IMHO. Read Doug Mohney’s remarks above about the array of problems with ATK’s proposal.
They’re the only company being discussed which has literally nothing to show except a presentation video and a lot of lobbyists. CST-100 exists and has been conducting drop tests. Dream Chaser exists and has been conducting drop tests. Dragon has flown. Liberty? It’s an untested composite structure sitting on a theoretical pairing of a solid rocket booster (!!) and a first stage ESA rocket acting like a second stage.
If ATK is chosen, how do you imagine they’d justify it on a technical basis?
I think the problem is that ATK clearly can’t win a position based on their systems current state of technical merit. Therefore the thinking is if they win it’s because of politics.
For example: The Liberty launch system is comprised of a derivative design of the STS SRBs. A five segment motor that’s never been tested in flight. Although confidence seems to be pretty high that it will perform. The second stage of the Liberty system is to be a design derived from the Ariane stage. It’s a derived design because some non-trivial re-engineering has to be done to make it work, making the walls thicker and stronger just for a start. It is not a plug-and-play direct swap kind of a situation.
Compare that launch system with the Atlas 5 or the Falcon 9 which are both already operational.
As for the manned part of the equation; CST-100, Dream Chaser, and Dragon are much farther along than Liberty’s proposed composite vehicle.
ATK can’t win this on the technical merits. Hence, I believe, the major public relations effort they’ve been mounting the last couple of months.
Perhaps they should just compete … by traditional American ingenuity? Like SpaceX?
Competing by bullying, obfuscation, lobbyists, PR, inappropriate heritage/safety, peculiar selfserving concept of “national security” … just doesn’t cut it anymore. “Unfair advantage” seems to be working … backwards … when you spend more time on faking the deal then appropriately engineering a meaningful product/service to the market.
You need to think like the beltway.
This is not 2.5 it is 3. Two fully funded and double the
last guy and give him what is left.
But I think there was a backroom deal to get at least 2 commercial
providers and ATK would get what is left. This may be the case.
Interesting – all the speculation is politically based (or maybe the word is biased?).
Technical, cost, and schedule is no longer the evaluation criteria. It is now how much newspace, how far getting away from shuttle, and how much sellout. This is the us vs. them that has prevented progress for the last 10 years and will end up killing US human spaceflight for everyone (new/old/established/entepreneur/pretend/real/etc.).
I predict we all loose – commercial is too late for any real station use, there are no other real commercial customers, and SLS/Orion dies because we just cannot keep up a non-productive program till the first real mission in 2023/25. OMB will be very happy that their long term plan is becomming inevatible(which, btw, started with STAS – remember, I am a Paleontologist) .
Speed, politics, or technical maturity?
If you want speed to orbit: SpaceX, Boeing get full funding, Sierra Nevada gets the “half” because NASA wants another spaceplane.
Politics: ATK, Boeing full, SpaceX half.
ATK has been pumping out the propaganda for Liberty, calling it the most “safe” and “economic” manned spaceflight system… despite not having flown an integrated system…
Boeing basically bought its way in when it setup shop for the CST-100 in one of the retired Shuttle hangers with Florida blessing.
We don’t know how much SpaceX needs to finish Dragon 2.0, but does it REALLY need $400-$600 more for a thruster it is already testing?
Sierra Nevada files a protest for the fix with ATK, joined by ULA since that’s one less chance to sell an Atlas V 🙂
Technical maturity: SpaceX has successfully flown the Dragon/Falcon 9 combo twice and just needs to add escape thrusters for the Dragon 2.0 version, plus some life support tweaks. Again, how much money do you need to add thrusters and do a demo flight or two?
Boeing has been working on CST-100 for a while, so it probably has a short walk to a flight-ready capsule. Atlas V integration remains an interesting question, as the news that you need a two engine upper stage to support manned flight.
Sierra Nevada has more maturity in its design and is going on top of an Atlas V.
ATK is saying it can go from 0 to a composite capsule (where is the alarm bell here on using a big composite structure in manned spaceflight? There’s no clock time in use for manned apps) in 3 years with Liberty, integrate the Ariane V first stage as an upper stage on a 5 segment solid, fly the rocket, fly the rocket and capsule at least once together, and then fly a manned flight.
Really? Gimme a break. This is a 4 year project if you want to do it safely and with an estimated $200 million per flight for Liberty, you’re talking all the R&D to get to $400 million (2 test flights, one unmanned, one manned) to $600 million (3 test flights, one rocket, one unmanned integration with rocket and capsule, and one manned flight).
Totally agree Doug. If ATK is picked for anything it is a total travesty.
Justifications Boeing, SpaceX and Sierra Nevada are:
1. For Boeing and Sierra Nevada – Common mature launcher – Atlas V with dozens of successful launches. Changes for man-rating of booster have already been funded and in progress.
2. Boeing CST-100 – Much farther along than any other contender with regard to design, building and testing than any other contender except SpaceX Dragon which has already flown.
3. Sierra Nevada Dreamchaser – Cool factor and all of the NASA HL-10 heritage for testing. Who doesn’t love a low-g, controlled landing at an airport?
4. SpaceX Dragon – As stated above, it has already flown. Launcher will be mature by the time of actual manned flights with more than 10 launches by then.
This decision will make or break the US role in manned spaceflight.
Any ATK award would be against the Augustines comission advice
We tried these supposed cost saving SRB’s already. They are expensive and are connected with 15 astronaut deaths.
House Republicans keep pushing the taxdollar wasting nonsense. We need reliable and constant access to space. How can every NASA employee without conflict of interest be silent on this issue? How many careers is this going to waste?
How exactly are they related to 15 deaths? Challenger and Columbia? Challenger yes, but wasn’t Columbia caused by foam from a liquid tank??
SRBs shake at higher levels than their liquid counterparts. Question has to be asked if liquid boosters would have reduced the hazard.
No, it would not have made any difference. Very little of the vibration on a launch vehicle is engine generated.
It’s called TO – Thrust Oscillation. On Shuttle, with many launches it was so rough a ride you couldn’t read the instruments until RSRB burnout. Chipped teeth level.
And there was this huge liquid tank acting as a shock absorber.
add:
… a characteristic of solids but it is a short lived event.
Wrong – your ignorance is showing.
Solids burn from the inside out. As the volume inside increases, a pressure wave that causes uneven burning resonates accross the cavity, not unlike a flute or bassoon’s pressure wave. This effect reinforces, usually getting worse with time, and its at a rather unfortunate low frequency for body cavities. It can be diminished, but due to chaotic effects cannot be deterministically cancelled out. We’ve been working on this problem for 40+years w/o a conclusive solution.
If you don’t have body cavities to absorb energy, its just a nusance. But solids have other issues with biology, hundreds. People would not appreciate a 100 page comment here with incorrect counter comments and 10 page rebuttals for each with references. Am tired of dealing with solids trolls – go earn you K street 5 cents from someone else, for supplying FUD.
add:
Liquids also have thrust oscillation due to pogo in the feed lines
Yes they do – different frequency and amplitude. Not life threatening.
they each have their own problems.
Yes – liquids suffer from active modes of failure. Usually means you shut them down, escape, and LOM not LOC.
I have been working structural dynamics on NASA vehicles for over 25 years ..
Fine – I’ve been involved since the 60’s – I’ll make allowances for you then.
hrust oscillation was never an issue with foam liberation as the poster asked
No, they didn’t. But you were being disengenuous about solids TO being short lived – its the entire burn time, and some have had very rough tale -offs … as you must know.
My read on foam liberation was that of being driven by TO but more by bonding/application/thermal cycling.
So if you had said “no, TO doesn’t cause foam liberation”, I would have agreed.
You went too far. “Very little of the vibration on a launch vehicle is engine generated.”
That is flat out wrong. And gives a misperception to those who can’t know.
I really don’t give a crap what you think…
But you should care about the truth. That’s my issue.
add:
Vibration modes on the ET aren’t the same as on the flight deck. Very different environments. They are worst, of course, on the RSRBs themselves …
add:
Since the excitation frequencies are constantly changing, the coupled modes come and go during the burn.
Meaningless – the reasonant cavity is the same, and the Q exponentially improves as the burn progresses, so the formation of nodes occurs, and energy accumulates depending on phase selected addition, causing intensified reaction, which is synchronous in phase.
Look, an advanced degree in physics trumps your FEM approach hands down.
That’s not to say that the crew didn’t experience some vibration throughout the flight (don’t know since I do not work crew issues)
Um … on a crewed vehicle, crew issues are the primary concern.
If we are lobbing a warhead, no it doesn’t matter.
It is mostly caused by acoustic energy acting on the vehicle
The energy of TO is expressed as compression waves in combustion chambers and after passing externally is radiated as acoustical energy, which on launch is reflected to the stack. Why we spray to break up / absorb it. In-flight, this pattern is different, and the effect is to reinforce the standing wave patterns inside the combustion chamber. SSME combustion chambers are of a size corresponding to 100-1000Hz, while RSRMBs are about 11-14Hz.
Very little of the structural vibration on the STS vehicle is directly transmitted from the engines or motors.
The orbiter is critically damped for 50-1000Hz. It is reasonant for lower frequencies, especially 10-14hz!
Most of the areas on the STS that win the prize for the worst vibration environments during ascent were on the ET due to the large area to weight ratio of the tank structures.
Which are also self reasonant at the same frequencies …
Next, I’m not sure how we got from the question of TO causing foam liberation on the ET to crew being jostled on the flight deck.
Because you made an overclaim in your enthusiasm. Which is what I’ve been pointing out all along.
Yes, again, you can use solids for non HSF payloads. Its the human part that matters.
I never liked the idea of staging off of a solid but that’s my only real issue with them.
Thrust termination? Vehicle passivation? Stacking of muiltiton high explosive materials? Static discharge? Lowest ISP? Weight on MLP? Explosion due to void/grain nonuniformity? Explosion due to mechanical fracture of propellant causing blocked nozzle? Just for starters …
I don’t know for sure what happened to Columbia and I don’t think anyone else knows either.
Here’s what Wayne Hale said:
http://waynehale.wordpress….
It was an unfortunate event for sure but for someone to try and blame thrust oscillation from the RSRM for the Columbia accident is just plain BS, truth.
I’ll accept your studied, professional opinion on that specifically.
Because the reasonant structures of foam are in the tens of kilohertz (e.g. size of foam bubbles), it makes sense your findings. The only way it would be different would be low frequency modes like you get on the surface of a drum, where the shearing force of the skin would exceed the foam’s adhesive tension. Would expect buckling before that would occur.
But that’s not the same as TO issues accross the stack, which are well documented. You can even find them in the guidance and control data coming off its accelerometers, which is where I first encounter it (boy and howdy!).
And we’ve got a whole bunch of lovely data on TO – I suggest you look at it and stop digging yourself in, beyond foam liberation. Its real. Truth.
Thrust oscillation is a characteristic of solids but it is a short lived event. On shuttle its effects were attenuated due to the way the motors were coupled to the vehicle. It became a more prominent issue on Ares I because of the inline design of the vehicle but even then it was not a big loads driver.
Engine generated vibration was only a small part of the vibration experienced on shuttle. Most of the vibration on shuttle resulted from acoustic inputs to the vehicle.
You can say what you want but that doesn’t make it true. Liquids also have thrust oscillation due to pogo in the feed lines so both liquids and solids have issues. I don’t carry a torch for any particular type of engine or motor because I know they each have their own problems. You obviously have some emotional issue with solids and I couldn’t care less. I have been working structural dynamics on NASA vehicles for over 25 years and in particular testing for causes of foam liberation from the ET. I really don’t give a crap what you think but thrust oscillation was never an issue with foam liberation as the poster asked. There were lots of reasons for foam liberation from the ET but thrust oscillation was absolutely not one of them.
-Added-
Ok, I’ll play this game one more time.
First, my assertion about the TO events of the RSRM being short-lived still stands. While it’s true that the internal vortices created by the gas flow over the internal segment seams and inhibitor stubs are present throughout the burn, their frequencies are constantly changing due to the change in the internal gas velocity of the motor. When the frequencies of those vortices couple with the acoustic modes of the motor volume and the structural modes of the motor they do induce thrust oscillation and vibration. Since the excitation frequencies are constantly changing, the coupled modes come and go during the burn.
Next, my assertion about the majority of the vibration present on the shuttle being acoustically induced stands although I will change my reference to STS instead of shuttle. I was using the term shuttle to refer to the entire STS system which may have caused some confusion. Very little of the structural vibration on the STS vehicle is directly transmitted from the engines or motors. It is mostly caused by acoustic energy acting on the vehicle and is manifest during three predominant time frames of ascent. The periods of maximum ascent vibration on the STS vehicle were only present for brief periods and totaled only a few seconds out of the whole 8 minute powered flight. That’s not to say that the crew didn’t experience some vibration throughout the flight (don’t know since I do not work crew issues) but from a structural perspective ascent vibration on the STS was only a design concern for a total of 15-20 seconds during flight. Most of the areas on the STS that win the prize for the worst vibration environments during ascent were on the ET due to the large area to weight ratio of the tank structures. The worst vibration experienced on the RSRM came mostly during re-entry and upon water impact.
Next, I’m not sure how we got from the question of TO causing foam liberation on the ET to crew being jostled on the flight deck. I come at this from a structures background and that is my area of concern. Crew vibration is not my area nor was it any part of the original question. I get that you seem to be coming at this from a crew or human factors angle but that has nothing to do with the original question.
Next, I’m not a solids lover but I’m certainly not a hater like some of those in the blogosphere. I never liked the idea of staging off of a solid but that’s my only real issue with them. All engines or motors have their quirks and problems and engineers get paid to work with and around those issues.
You say I should care about the truth so here is the truth. Most of the structural vibration issues on the STS were the result of acoustics acting on the vehicle structures during ascent or re-entry. Thrust oscillation from the RSRM played absolutely no part in foam liberation from the ET on STS-107 although the LOX feed line pogo did play a small part on some flights by causing ice and foam liberation from the feed line support brackets.
I don’t know for sure what happened to Columbia and I don’t think anyone else knows either. There were more areas of concern for debris liberation than just the bipod ramp but the foam seems to be the most likely cause of the wing breach. It was an unfortunate event for sure but for someone to try and blame thrust oscillation from the RSRM for the Columbia accident is just plain BS, truth.
This isn’t my area of expertise, but I thought that the proposals for CCiCap had to include launch vehicles, launch pads and ground operations. Given that both Boeing and Sierra Nevada are both using Atlas V, that would imply that fulling funding both would be double funding Atlas V. My guess would be full funding for Boeing and SpaceX with partial for Sierra Nevada due to the launch vehicle duplication with Boeing.
If NBC is right and the winners are Boeing, SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada then NASA made exactly the right decision. It’s very good to see that NASA can make the right decisions when Congress isn’t dictating terms (SLS, I’m looking at you).
Right ON!
Here’s how to read the decision:
Boeing did Shuttle, Apollo … it can do a credible, safe capsule on a HR’d EELV. But … can they do so with this contracting model?
SpaceX has safely done Dragon/COTS. It can be uprated for crew. But … can we rely on them for crew, as a vehicle developer, manned service provider, and … a ongoing business that is stable / growing / will be around like a Boeing for decades?
SNC hasn’t yet provided an orbital service, and isn’t in the class of its two “leaders” mentioned with its non capsule “Shuttle like” concept becoming reality. But … can it finish the concept like SpaceX did with Dragon, such that if Boeing cost/schedule overruns, or if SpaceX’s DragonRider inconsistently / unevently provides crew launch services … that then could be advanced from “follower” to a “leader” to replace one of the two?
Note – each has the same objective for this funding – to advance thier own proposal to CDR – “Critical Design Review”. Orion’s CDR is currently scheduled as Q2 FY2015, with a billion in FY2013 alone, for comparison.
Say we get all, on schedule / budget. How do you evaluate the merits of going forward … assuming they all … do what they say? How do we judge / predict from CDR results … the above mentioned rationale for getting them to CDR in the first place?
As to funding levels, think about what you’d hope to achieve with each.
Boeing’s CST100 isn’t breathtakingly original, but it is straightforward, servicable, fieldable … so why you’d give it the most budget is because you’d want a diligently executed program with the fewest surprises e.g. program/schedule risk. In looking back at Apollo Block I, rush rush cheap cheap might have led to the Apollo I tragedy – too many shortcuts.
DragonRider’s different, trying to do more novel capability. So you’d want to budget enough for the most exhaustive systems qualification – like pad aborts, high altitude aborts, landings. It would be likely that Dragon will be more tested and qualified than Boeings – because Boeing’s has followed an already demonstrated path. There have been no high altitude abort tests with Apollo or Shuttle (RTLS). So the point is to retire abstract risk of new concepts, leaving you with a novel system at the same level of qualification – an equalization.
Dream Chaser looks new, but it is actually based on things more venerable than the Shuttle. If you could tally all the work done on HL20 by government agencies, it would be about $4-7B. What is the issue is that no one retired the remaining risks, because in the past, they (government) kicked the can down the road of time. Now its time. So you finish the job, and retire them. Perhaps not so expensive to do so.
In the end, three at the same level. One will go forward. But what about the other two? What is the value of a not chosen service of similar calibre?
Gemini was a stalking horse for Apollo for decades – many proposals to use in, including lunar landings and military projects. Bigelow certainly comes to mind as well, and the rise of other space interests recently certainly encourage, because providers are still only a handful in number now.
And what happens on subsequent contract renewal, assuming contracts are multiple bid and not “sole source”?
Congress may not have intended to create a “commercial space” industry, in fact they may have tried to stop one. But even if the “losers”, once developed, are acquired by the former aerospace prime contractors – wouldn’t it be likely that a commercial space industry might occur anyways … as a way of getting a financial return on said rare asset?
There have been no high altitude abort tests with Apollo or Shuttle (RTLS).
Depends on what you call high altitude. It is my memory (could be wrong) that the Little Joe II/Apollo was used for the high altitude abort tests.
For the rest, good call. I like the term “former aerospace contractors”.
I am hearing some VERY interesting rumors that this code of conduct in space is being used as a stalking horse by the Russians to slow down Newspace…..
Little Joe II Apollo abort tests served the purpose of max pressure abort, by using solids for high acceleration simulation of a max-Q abort at a LOWER altitude.
Is that “good enough” for Dragon? Or, like with stage recovery and supersonic retropropulsion, are we under testing and finding we are “outside the envelope”?
Orbital’s surprise in Pegasus’s initial failure to detach on accelerating X-43 up to scramjet ignition speed due to bending is an example. Applies directly to Dream Chaser, but what about recontact issues with capsules too?
Again, my point in bringing this up is that we can no longer afford to have untested capabilities that we fear to use like with RTLS. Belongs to a bygone era.
For the rest, good call. I like the term “former aerospace contractors”.
Smirk. Reminds of “former soviet union” …
I am hearing some VERY interesting rumors that this code of conduct in space is being used as a stalking horse by the Russians to slow down Newspace.
It’s already happened a few times. Variation on an old theme you know well.
The Russians are furious over being displaced. A matter of pride. Nor do they want to foot the bill for upgrading capability. Some see it as a disguised arms race. Paranoid.
What has boggled me is that certain … ahem … “constituencies” in the US … didn’t see it coming. And understand the greater implications.
Little Joe II Apollo abort tests served the purpose of max pressure abort, by using solids for high acceleration simulation of a max-Q abort at a LOWER altitude.
I thought that this was because after staging the escape rockets on the CM weren’t effective as the CSM could escape the exploding second stage without it.
What has boggled me is that certain … ahem … “constituencies” in the US … didn’t see it coming. And understand the greater implications.
If they had not had the level of arrogance that they had, they (i.e. Mike, congress) would have never funded it. I communicated with a Boeing person today and it seems they are quite happy today at Phantom works and know that their cajonies are now on the line to perform. All of the big guys can do good work when they want to, but the problem as you know is that the management won’t get out of the way.
The effect of the success of SpaceX in their first real mission to the station is that of a sea change in thinking. Panic in some corners, thoughtfulness in others. Boeing’s new version of the 601 is the first true innovation in that market in quite a while. It took the debacle of the Orion loss to push Boeing to make changes.
Competition is a good thing.
We just need to open a second front in this new way of doing things, and that is what we are doing quietly……
🙂
Go Seal Beach!
add:
Oh, and next time say “hi” to the X-37 guys for me – great mission success.
One will go forward.
One? I thought the plan was to have two.
Charmingly naive. 🙂
The plan is to force it to one. To protect certain interests. Just like we were to have one EELV.
Which is why I said “Say we get all”. Think it very likely. Think real hard about that.
If they are right I am glan I was wrong.
Re: NBC Update Space X, Boeing, Full Funding and Sierra Nevada 1/2!
Woo HOO! If this is right than good on NASA. My faith is restored.
There must have been much behind the scenes pressure for a Nod to ATK- glad that the decision seems to have been made on the merits.
Not like ATK is going to starve anyhow, given its other contracts, and yet… I’ll bet there is some gnashing of the teeth among some Senate staffs right now that ATK wasn’t chosen.
Nice for Sierra Nevada, huh? Plucky little HL20 still chuggin’ along.
Would love to get the inside scoop on this one day.
The right players for once, with the right reasons.
Technically, the ones that need the most bucks to bring things off are Boeing and SNC. Boeing, because … primes can’t do anything without lots of money (due to corporate “loading”). SNC, because they’ve been the least funded all along.
Which isn’t to say SpaceX can do what they need to do for nickles and dimes … they need to have “all up” abort tests, including high altitude ones … can’t be cheap qualifying such.
Apollo was qualifed with two pad abort tests, and four LIttle Joe II suborbital boosts. None with a “all up” test with a Saturn.
Great news if it’s true, I haven’t been so happy about a NASA decision since Constellation was cancelled. That of course was revived, so let’s not be too happy yet, especially as this isn’t official yet.
There’s another factor in this as well that I haven’t seen mentioned so far. Why is SNC being so favored, given their track record? I think it’s influenced by the simple fact that everybody involved, at every level, has a love for a space plane instead of a capsule. Down inside, we all still dream Star Trek and Star Wars, not Apollo. I’ve admitted it out loud many times — I just plain love spaceships. I think most of us do.
Steve
That’ll evaporate as soon as SpaceX demonstrates a powered vertical landing. Painting a bull’s-eye on the landing field and nailing that would be a nice touch :_>
I had the same reaction to videos of DC-X tests. It looked like a proper 1950’s poster-art spaceship. (Needed fins though, instead of landing legs.)
I think that most of it is the fact that NASA really wants a Spaceplane. Plus, even though other vehicles are to be designed to be re-usable the Dream Chaser looks like it really is re-usable. It just looks good to many people. And using the Atlas 5 as its launcher makes it look better to some.
A lot of people are complaining that the Shuttle is gone but the mini-shuttle Dream Chaser can fill the gap for them, at least for people and/or light cargo. They can send the heavy stuff up on plain ol’ rockets. 🙂
Lets assume that hypersonic technology improves. Metallic TPS also. And say these feedback into Dream Chaser.
What if … on-orbit doesn’t have MMOD risk for indefinite periods. And hypersonic technologies allow low cost launch / recovery. Perhaps less than a capsule system.
add:
Are you suggesting a SSTO Dream Chaser?
No. Although new research suggests ways to improve L/D of HL20’s …
Or a Dream Chaser as its own partially airbreathing second stage?
Examine AF’s interest in flyback boosters and hypersonic (mach 12) engine tech / airframes / materials / …
Are you suggesting a SSTO Dream Chaser? Or a Dream Chaser as its own partially airbreathing second stage?
I’m not suprised that the Liberty design lost out since this administration wants nothing to do with anything that uses shuttle technology or the V.A.B or launch pad 39. I still suspect that the President is going to pull the plug on NASA in a second term.
Do you have any proof of this? Or just anger that ATK didn’t get a bunch of taxpayer’s money?
This site is supposed to be about space. If you want to bash Obama (and it does seem to be your only focus) take it over to the wingnuts at nationalreview.com, you’ll find lots of like minds.
I’m not knocking the Administration as a whole, just the space policies. I apologize for knocking a politician. I don’t idolize or trust any one of them.
“I apologize for knocking a politician.”
[sigh] No one cares that you insulted Obama. It’s these constant retarded conspiracy theories that people like you keep bringing up, over and over… Everyone just gets sick of them.
Obama wants to shut down NASA! Obama’s planning to take away our guns! Obama wants to ban golf courses [seriously.]
He’s spent four years not doing the things the nuts claimed he would do… but then that just means he’ll do it in the second term!
Do me a favour, find a local liberal, someone you know IRL who rolls their eyes and sighs every time you bring out one of your conspiracy claims. And make a clear bet with them, big enough to hurt, that Obama will do the things you believe (like shut down NASA in his second term.)
Thank you.
Obama wants to shut down NASA! Obama’s planning to take away our guns! Obama wants to ban golf courses
check out the movie
You have been Trumped !!!
funfun LOL
fourrrrrrrr lolololol
THEY pile dirt by our houses while THEY play golf lololol
my grampa was a scratch golfer lololol
In honesty, the big problem that Liberty has is that, of the front-runners, it has the furthest to go. SNC, Boeing and SpaceX already have operational LVs and are bending metal on the spacecraft (SpaceX have even flown a non-crewed version of the spacecraft). ATK/EADS still has a VERY long way to go to get Liberty and its associated crew vehicle to flight test status.
Given that General Bolden was talking about a 21-month period for this phase, you really have to wonder if Liberty could have managed to meet the timeline, even if fully-funded. If you accept that ending dependence on Soyuz sooner rather than later is an objective, then going with the late-starter is a counter-intuitative decision.
As I have said above, it will be interesting to see if ATK and EADS still proceed at their own cost. I know that there are some at NASA who would would still like to use an RSRM-V-based launcher.
I’m hearing Boeing and Sierra Nevada at full funding and SpaceX at partial.
What I heard to.
Could it be that Barbree … heard it from a ATK source out drinking?
Be interesting to see what SpaceX says if they get partial and how much they asked for — VERY key. I suspect they came in as “low bidder” on this round, even with line items for testing and integrating thrusters plus a couple of test flights (one escape, one manned to ISS I’ll wager).
KSC is doing two things on the same Friday. A press conference on CCiCap and a tethered test flight of the Morpheus lander. If you can see the runway from the roof of the building camera men may wish to take a long lens with them.
If true, technical analysis and merit beat lobbying (for once).
Wonder if ATK will try to protest the contract awards….
They will not try…
Never underestimate policy makers desires. Example: SLS.
As Liberty doesn’t seem to be on the list of winners, then it will be interesting to see if ATK and EADS follow up with their publicly-stated pledge to continue their work at their own cost.
3.5 hours to go. This is nailbiting. I hope the reports are true!
Reminder: whoever wins the final actual contract will be operating under the FAR, and Boeing are probably in the best position to cope with that. In the meantime, SpaceX and perhaps SNC will have gained a manned orbital capability which can be used in a more expansive private sector (Bigelow, tourism?).
Blue Origin will carry on with their program independently; Excalibur can look for more private sponsership, and ATK can go [snip] themselves.
It sounds too perfect somehow!
Whoop! Hooray!
Looks like my source had it wrong. I though it strange that SpaceX would only get half based on their recent performance with Dragon. For Dream Chaser the dream continues.
good to see no funding for liberty. just an observation though: it’s time to stop talking about SpaceX like its some kind of radical capitalist space start up. they have a customer. and it’s the government. just like LM, Boeing, ATK, NG, etc. the danger for them however is that LM takes in as much money in a single day as Musk invested as seed money to start getting NASA money. they need to have a plan to survive if NASA changes their mind about direction (as they have a long track record of doing). could spacex survive a cutoff like LM did with the Obama termination of a moon program and still be around 3 years later? just a thought…
Of course SpaceX would survive if NASA changed their minds and cut them off. Just go to the SpaceX web site and take a look at their launch manifest. They have lots of non-NASA customers.
Without NASA they wouldn’t have a customer for Dragon, but Falcon launch vehicles would continue as a good business for them.
As to your claim that SpaceX is “just like LM, Boeing, ATK, NG, etc.” — sorry, no, you’re completely wrong there. All those other companies do their business with the government through cost-plus contracts with large numbers of government employees in the loop dictating many of the details. SpaceX has never done any business with the government that way. Instead, they’ve always done business with fixed-price, milestone-based pay-for-performance contracts. All the risks have always been borne by SpaceX. All the design decisions have rested with SpaceX. All the incentives have been to design for cost as well as performance.
The difference is like night and day.
Chris & RF:
Spacex set the tone for NASA’s commercial program by helping NASA build the ground rules from day one. They wanted nothing to do with cost plus contracts or NASA oversight stifling innovation. When they needed help, they asked. NASA provided. Good working relationship. I wouldn’t be surprised if Spacex gave NASA the inspiration to preserve hardware and documentation better because it might be useful to a commercial vendor someday instead of being stuff that never would get government funding. Important distinction here.
When Sierra Nevada acquired the plans and data for the NASA HL-20, NASA had no idea that down the road they’d actually get government funding to further the project. A gamble that paid off handsomely.
Also, look what Bigelow has done with Johnson’s Transhab expandable living module. That program was very inexpensive and a bit of a lark for some very talented professionals. A bit of ‘Silicon Valley’ entrepreneurial spirit right in the heart of Space USA! We’ll see how that one pays off but it’s moving forward.
Does it look like LockMart is getting shut out?
tinker
boy it doesn’t take much to stir up spacex cheerleaders. LM has Orion. Boeing is betting that there will be some business in launching humans to station. if it doesn’t pan out neither will be bothered much. even if the SLS gets built everyone knows it will have at best 1 launch per year. if that. the days of rocketdyne and ATK getting half a billion a year plus sustaining engineering support are over. everyone knows it. so i suspect that if space x is succesful at launching humans to station LM doesn’t really care much.
as for their manifest if they blow a flight stack most of it will transition to something more reliable. that something is Atlas if they can find room in a swamped manifest for it.
reliability in the launch business means not just success when you fly but being able to say you’ll go on some date and the only thing that stops it is weather or the payload. not the LV
LM has Orion.
Yes. But for how much longer?
add:
… a lot easier for boeing or lm because being pig space they have the people on the payroll who are technical experts in every subject that’s relevant. and they’re more than one deep
Yes, but … coming off that “cost plus”, “pig out” addiction, “cold turkey” … can’t be fun.
I don’t think there’s a sane expert on the planet that questions thier skills.
But lets cut to the chase – with COTS 2+, SpaceX moved into the lead, pulling the primes shorts over their head. You’ve got a bunch of smart elephant seals waddling about, they’re not much for excercise (or managerial effectiveness), where do we see some movement first to suggest that they can untie those shorts, pull thier heads out, and show some worthy competition?
They don’t have to get a “gold” in the next minutes/months, but a bronze in a year or two might make for seeming something other than the “SpaceX show”.
Do you get where I’m heading?
as long as NASA drags out the SLS. and in the background I’m sure they have plans to migrate it to something that would compete with spacex and boeing. everybody on here seems to talk like it’s a given that anything that needs to be done in space is going to be done by spacex if we just get out of their way and write them a check. a lot of casual chatter is dropped about how easy it’s going to be for them to upgrade dragon for humans. maybe, maybe not. But it’ll be a lot easier for boeing or lm because being pig space they have the people on the payroll who are technical experts in every subject that’s relevant. and they’re more than one deep
I wouldn’t say Dragon is out of a job without NASA. Bigelow was itching to start launching BA-330s, now their factory floor is having to sit idle because crew transportation development didn’t progress as fast as Bigelow was hoping. If any one of these craft does get near completion, I’d bet they’ll be getting a call from Mr. Bigelow to start planning trips.
Musk and Bigelow are already teaming up to market stations to countries that want to do more orbital science but can’t afford to build the whole kit themselves. It’s a pretty logical arrangement for countries that have little or no presence on ISS.
One of the biggest reasons he isn’t already sending people up to BA-330s is he isn’t interested in doing business with the Russians. And who came blame him, at the rates they’re charging.
“I wouldn’t say Dragon is out of a job without NASA. Bigelow was itching
to start launching BA-330s, now their factory floor is having to sit
idle because crew transportation development didn’t progress as fast as
Bigelow was hoping.”
I’d be as happy as anyone to see Bigelow succeed.
Unfortunately, I have yet to see any hard evidence that Bigelow has any serious interest from any customer that has anywhere near the money Bigelow would need to launch and operate one of their stations.
Bigelow may spin it as a lack of affordable crew transport, but the real problem seems to be a lack of customers.
No, its a lack of logistical support.
Folks:
It’s no surprise that Boeing got 20 million more than Spacex. First, they need it because they simply can’t spend money as efficiently as Spacex and second, to throw a bone at ‘old space’ to give them the illusion of still being No.1
Yay, with Sierra Nevada, we’ll have ‘Shuttle’ landings again!
As for ATK? Nah, nah, nahnah, nah!
tinker
Folks:
Now watch ATK’s ‘Liberty’ (they should be sued for brand infringement) sink slooowly and quietly into the sunset.
tinker
“Now watch ATK’s ‘Liberty’ (they should be sued for brand infringement) sink slooowly and quietly into the sunset.”
I hope not. I’m not an ATK fan or a fan of SRBs for manned flight but I’m not wishing anyone to sink. Their proposed system, if they could eventually bring it all together and offer it at a competitive price (doubtful in my opinion), looks like it would have a lot to offer. But I don’t like the idea of putting people on it even if a lot of others are okay with the idea.
I like the fact that the briefing included the milestones. What I don’t understand is why there is no Pad Abort and In-Flight Abort test milestones for DreamChaser and CST-100?
I would think these would be required for safety.
The abort test milestones aren’t there for DreamChaser and CST-100 like they are for Dragon because Dragon is much farther along. It will cost more time and money for DreamChaser and CST-100 to reach that point than CCiCap provides.
The CCiCap money is enough to essentially get Dragon to operational status. DC and CST-100 will require a follow-on to CCiCap before they can get there.
I thought this round was for the winners to provide an operation solution. Why don’t we just give Sierra Nevada and Boeing a credit card them and tell them to go wild?
I hope the 20M additional that Boeing got includes any additional costs for man-rating the Atlas-V. And while we are on the subject, NASA should really pressure ULA to reduce the cost of the Atlas-V to be in line with the costs for Falcon-9.
Competition should take care of that … I have a feeling Boeing will sell reusable capsules like 747’s and that company will launch on the vehicle of it’s choice.
Congrats to all three.
The details of what they signed up for tell a lot of where this is likely going.
SpaceX will perform a Pad abort and an in-flight abort (they have already done the launch and entry on the Dragon side and are already progressing on F9 upgrade). They will still have to do landing and complete the crew systems – no small effort, but I think not the biggest hurdles in the program.
Boeing will get far on paper (CDR) and have some components developed (avionics lab, on-orbit engines, launch vehicle adapter). Boeing gets $20M more than SpaceX.
If they both succeed in their milestones and schedules, it would be very difficult to see how Boeing could win the final post CDR down select (if that is still the plan). Boeing will either have to hope SpaceX fails or push for multiple winners of the next phase.
Sierra Nevada will of course have to hope one of the two drop out early enough for them to take over (similar to Rocketplane Kistler and Orbital Sciences). Then they have to find a way to beat out the competitor for the final downselect (hope it is SpaceX that drops and beat Boeing on cost or hope it is Boeing that drops and that SpaceX fails). Not a good position to be in. I hope for their sake they are not throwing a lot of their own money into this.
SNC gets $200+ million for investing say $20-$50m. Yes–they are not as far along as SpaceX or Boen. But guess what–there are other business that SNC are after…remember SNC brought the design from J. Branson and the goal then was to go to space…
This is our best chance to “close the gap” that CxP so miserably allowed with it’s 6-year slip in schedule. I’m proud that NASA made a good selection. This field of competitors will eventually result in a variety of options to get to LEO, for both private and government customers.
Please note that Craig Stiedel was blamed by many for his “spiral development” … as being too slow to achieve HSF… back in the first few years of George W. Bush’s administration. When what is now called Orion got started …
Harrison Schmitt for the Heartland Institute:
“It killed Stiedel’s Spiral development, which was necessary to avoid loss of American HSF access to space well before Shuttle conclusion.”
[Spiral or incremental development is basically what SpaceX has been using.]
So we got Mike Griffin to speed things up a bit with CxP. Great job Mike.
Way to go Elon! Humans to LEO by 2015. If he can pull that off, I believe he can then go on to lunar orbit by 2020. Who knows, maybe even a lunar landing by 2025 and a trip to Mars by 2030. I can’t wait to see what happens over the next 20 years.
SpaceX has yet to hit a preliminary announced launch date. Take mid-2015 with a grain of salt. Let’s see if they can hit the mark on the pad abort test (late 2013) and the flight abort test (2014) before placing bets on a manned test flight in mid-2015.
Also be interesting to see if SpaceX will use an unmanned Dragon “2.0” configuration (thrusters, landing gear) for CRS cargo runs to ISS. On the one hand, it’s more expensive. On the other hand, Dragon would deliver cargo on land, so they could shoot for a couple of different sites for touchdown.
Spacex would have a choice–they are under contract to provide services using model a. Model B is more expensive so they might not use it for cargo runs. The only reason to use the model b–I want flight tests and data of my model B.
When did hitting a preliminary launch date become such a factor? The agency has been pretty terrible at it for a while.
NASA is going to be about 50 years late getting to Mars!
Hitting any predicted date is a sign of accuracy and experience. It’s hard to believe someone when they never meet their predictions.
Musk has continually said he could have crews going to space in 3 years. I had said back in 2009 or so that it would be doubtful that they would be flying crews until 2017 to 2020. Many here ridiculed that prediction as extremely unlikely and me and others as pessimists and non-supportive of commercial space. I thought of us as realists based on our experience.
Now, NASA is saying they could be flying crews in 5 years or less. Guess what, 2012 + 5 is 2017. And that is probably optimistic and would likely be attained by Boeing.
” Musk has continually said he could have crews going to space in 3 years.”
You’re leaving out a critical part of what Musk actually said — he said 3 years *if* they were fully funded. Until today, they were never anywhere close to fully funded.
It’s true that SpaceX has missed many other projected dates, and it’s fair to ding them for all those others. It’s just not fair in the case of crew because they never claimed they could do it in three years without funding.
It’s also fair to point out that SpaceX’s schedule slips have been trending down — their biggest slips were the farthest in the past and as time has gone on they’ve been getting better and better about hitting or nearly hitting their dates.
The biggest funding need was for a LAS which they received a year or two ago. So even after that, they are still forecasting 3 years. Also Musk originally forecast 2 and 1/2 years back around 2009.
We’ll see how well SpaceX does in launching the forecasted 2 ISS supply missions by the end of the year. And then there are the commercial missions that have slipped from last year until this year and perhaps into next year. At spaceflightnow.com I only see one commercial launch scheduled for launch next year.
As I’ve also mentioned, sustaining a launch rate will stress their quality assurance so we may not see how well they perform at that until 2013 to 2014. Hopefully they do well, but these are the things that can trip up a new company.
Boeing’s concept is promising but they’re seeking a hand-out from NASA while Space X has already been proven and being continually developed,Sierra Nevada is in development,testing.All three would be a well investment.
ATK is doomed from the beginning with a failed concept at rebooting a program proven to be cost prohibitive. Boeing should step up to the plate and proceed with their development,testing to prove they’re reliable as Space X.
How is Boeing not proven? Ever heard of the Apollo program or Space
Shuttle? Boeing is launching on an Atlas
V which has over 30 successful launches and over 500 if you count the heritage vehicles. How many does SpaceX have? What about the NASA hand outs? I don’t see anyone, including SpaceX, turning
down NASA money so it is hard to single any one company out for accepting the
money.
Look, I like SpaceX and find what they’re doing a
great story and very exciting. But let’s
not forget they are wholly dependent on NASA for funding at this point. By Musk’s own admission he has contributed a
couple hundred million while the public figures put NASA contributions at >2
billion. At best you can say they are 15%
privately funded. The dream they sell is
inspiring but they are no different than LockMart or Boeing when you skip the Kool-Aid.
Did anyone notice what Mr. Bolden said at the end of the briefing? A caller asked how many companies was competing for CCiCap awards. Bowman said, “I have no idea how many companies have been involved with this, I do not know who they are, and I do not want to know. ” That woke me straight up, and I blew some coffee at the screen. Wow he sounded mad at the whole Commercial deal. I only caught the end of the briefing because of last nights CCiCap leak, I slept like a baby and missed the real deal haha. Guess I will have to watch it again to see if Mr. Bolden is really bored by this. And set my alarm for Curiosity in the morning.
Who’s Bowman?
wow!!!!
I went back and re-watched the video, and I’d say it was simply an acknowledgement of the political realities of a decision like this. He kept himself out of the process so that when the decisions were made, nobody could cry foul about the winners being picked because they were the White House’s favorites. Remember the uproar after the Shuttle museum winners?
Of course, despite that, Utah’s congressional representatives stood up in record time (Pretty spry for a bunch of old guys) to cry foul anyway, which IMHO makes it blindingly obvious that ATK was relying on lobbying pressure more than technical capabilities to win the award. Hell, they probably had their “we’re disappointed and will start an investigation” statements written ahead of time, just in case.
🙂
Why does Boeing get 40 million more than Spacex ???? Why not 450 each??? why pay extra to slop the hog??? I dont understand why Nasa rewards those that cost more????????
If you feed a pig less he gets in better shape?
farming 101
Here’s the theory. We’ll see about how it works out in practice.
You want two winners. Realistically, you can’t treat them the same … because you’re best competitors come from very different worlds.
So you examine (as NASA) what they can do … to get you what you want … and you see how it can “go wrong” … so you budget accordingly to “head things off”.
The issues with Boeing are “modern” management structures. Came in with a “fashion trend” known as “matrix management”. Ironically, SpaceX uses more of a “functional management”, an early rival that some smaller defense contractors used in WWII, and most Internet start-up companies made popular once again.
Realize that the “pig” is already on a diet. He was used to being fed more and more, when he was less and less active. Now, overweight and sluggish, he’s having to hump it to keep up, and you have to worry that in losing weight he’ll have a heart attack. 🙂
And we don’t want just two competitors – then they can play “duopoly”. Best if you have three – big, medium and small.
If two buddy up (to jointly “slow down” – see the Olympics in badmitton w/China and Korea), then the third might beat them.
And the obious is made clearer still 🙂
Mr.McGoo
Haha, I like it. Also now we get the chance to see if Boeing can get it done as well as SpaceX can. It sounds like the Boeing people know they got the green light and are under the gun now to perform, and hopefully they thrive with that.