Who Will Win the Next Round for the Commercial Crew Program?
3 commercial companies compete in new space race, Houston Chronicle
“NASA should make its decision on the “commercial crew” competition in the next few weeks. At stake is not just a $4 billion contract, but prestige. The next spacecraft that flies U.S. astronauts will have an American flag, yes, but also a prominent corporate logo. That company will also join the elite club – whose only members include the United States, Russia and China – that has flown humans in space.”
Marc’s note: Insider vs outsider, who will win?
Also, while the article overall is worth reading, the characterization of Senator Bill Nelson as “a former astronaut” is misleading if you don’t the know history. Nelson indeed did fly as a mission specialist on STS-61C, but he was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives at the time and like Senator Jake Garn who preceded him the year before, he flew on the Space Shuttle because of his role in the House of Representatives.
Call me selfish, but I’d like to see all three get partial funding… or at least Dragon v2 and Dream Chaser.
The more options to get into space, the better!
SpaceX and SNC have both made it clear that they’ll move forward regardless of whether they are funded. If Sen. Shelby has any say in it, it would not surprise me to see Boeing get all the money in a single-project award. As it regards proximity to flight, I think SpaceX has the upper hand. I, too, would love to see all three get funded – as the wisest option that provides the most benefit to the country.
SpaceX should get a contract because it is closest to flight status. Sierra Nevada should get one too as it has built and flown an engineering test article and has two flight-capable Dream Chasers under construction at Michoud. Boeing, having no production facility and no flight-ready hardware in the works should be dropped. The undeserved money Boeing would otherwise get will go much further and faster split between SpaceX and SNC.
I wouldn’t exactly county drop tests of the Dream Chaser as being a “flown” test article.
I didn’t say powered flight. But a drop and glide test is certainly a flight. If you don’t think so, I’d advise you never to walk into a bar where sailplane pilots are drinking.
Given that Dream Chaser has wings, low-altitude, low speed and automated runway navigation and landing tests are clearly on its critical path. Dragon V2 and CST-100, both being capsule designs, lack a requirement for such testing. They each have other requirements the Dream Chaser lacks.
I look forward to more drop tests of Dream Chaser and to the two unmanned launch abort tests SpaceX plans for Dragon V2 in November and January.
SNC’s Dream Chaser engineering test article isn’t capable of flight to space, but it has most of the flight-capable subsystems installed, many of which were tested on that first glide flight. Boeing has yet to assemble anything remotely as complete as that anent CST-100. They’re footdraggers and backmarkers who refuse to spend any real money of their own and should be dropped from CCDev.
There’s an elephant in the room that the author fails to address. Both the CST-100 and the Dream Chaser are baselined to launch on the Atlas V. Not only is the Atlas very expensive, it uses a Russian built RD-180 engine, the supply of which the Russians have threatened to cut off. Ending our reliance on the Russians for manned access to space by going to a system that relies on a Russian engine is not the answer. Besides that, all the political ass kissing by Boeing on this makes my stomach turn.
As much as I like Dream Chaser, NASA should choose SpaceX for the primary contract with Boeing as a backup (since Boeing has stated that the CST-100 could also launch on Falcon 9). That gives the most bang for the buck while still having a viable fallback option.
Speaking of the Atlas and reliability (because someone will bring it up), it’s worth noting that in 11 Falcon 9 launches, SpaceX has now flown more the Merlin engine more than double the amount of times the RD-180 has flown on the Atlas V.
If we’re going to count engine-launches, then it’s only fair to note that one of those Merlin engines blew up. As far as I know, no RD-180 engine has failed on an Atlas V flight.
Equally fair, the engine failure didn’t have any impact on the mission. A similar RD-180 event would be a catastrophic loss.
It is fair to count that, which results in a Merlin 1D engine success rate of 98.99%
And to be fair to SpaceX, the engine that failed did not blow up. The fuel dome above the nozzle of the engine engine ruptured, the fuel within it vented (the source of the large flash of flame), the flight computers detected the loss of pressure in the engine, and commanded the engine to be shut down.
It was actually a Merlin 1C that failed. And, more importantly, the part that caused the failure is not in the Merlin 1D.
oh, i completely forgot, and you are absolutely right. well then the Merlin 1C’s success rate is 53/55, 96.36%, (one failure on the first flight of the Falcon 1 (the engine was significantly modified after that incident) and one failure on the Falcon 9) and the Merlin 1D’s success rate is 54/54, 100%
I think that should be 60/60 for Merlin 1-D. Still 100%.
well, the 1D-vac is pretty different from the 1Ds on the first stage, but if you wanted to count them, i wouldn’t argue against you.
You seem to have counted the five Merlin 1-C Vacuum engines along with the regular 1st-stage 1-C’s in your tally for the F9v1.0. Just trying to keep things consistent.
As to the difference between the Merlin 1-D Vacuum and a 1st-stage 1-D, I think its mostly the vacuum-optimized bell, though I think the turbopump exhaust nozzle is also steerable on the 1-D Vacuum and may not be on 1st-stage engines. In nearly all other respects, my impression is that 1st-stage 1-D’s and Vacuum 1-D’s are pretty much identical.
no, I included the Falcon 1 launches.
however, I only recently found out that the first two Falcon 1 launches actually used the Merlin 1A, so these numbers are off.
you’d think that a SpaceX fanboy would have already made a blog post or a website breaking all this down before, but it seems no one has. not even Wikipedia was a concise source in this regard. i’ve had to reference numerous sources to piece it all together.
as for the 1D-vac, I’m pretty sure the ignition system is different, since the fuel flow is different in microgravity and the system has to account for that. we know also that it has more insulation on it. it is probably not as dissimilar from the 1st stage 1D engines as I first assumed, but since there’s a distinct lack of information on the specifics of their designs it’s difficult to know for sure. as I said, if you want to include them in the count for 1D successes, i wouldn’t argue against it.
All you Space-X honks need to sit back & watch. They have no business in Human Space Flight! Space-X needs to try and perfect and have a reliable LV just like what they have been hired for already.
LOL
the Falcon 9 is a very reliable launch vehicle. it will serve the crewed version of the Dragon very well.
All you Space-X honks need to sit back & watch.
I’ve been sitting back and watching for years. Even with one bad eye I seem to see a lot better than you do.
They have no business in Human Space Flight!
By 2017 they’ll have quite a tidy little business in human spaceflight, thank you very much.
Space-X needs to try and perfect and have a reliable LV just like what they have been hired for already.
Falcon 9 has a perfect record of 11 successes in 11 missions, a better record at this point in its launch history than Ariane 5, Atlas V or Delta IV. How, exactly, is perfect not good enough?
Doug
I think MerlinC should be 54/55
Falcon 1 never had an engine failure.
I watched them all
I recall
First fight failed do to a tank bolt that failed
2nd flight didn’t make orbit do to no fuel baffles in the tank.
3rd flight failed do to miscalculating leftover thrust after cut off where the first stage bumped into the second stage. The engine worked fine
4th success
5th success
Right???
The first flight of the Falcon 1 was an engine failure – it suffered a rupture to the fuel line, very similar to what happened on the fourth flight of the Falcon 9. if you call that an engine failure, then the first flight of the Falcon 1 was an engine failure as well.
They may have photos of all three competitors, but from the article it’s obvious there’s no love lost between the Houston Chronicle and SpaceX. Way to pass out the backhanded compliments, Mr. Berger. Unveiling one’s new spacecraft while wearing an open-collar shirt may indeed be the fashion faux pas you seem to think it is, but one cannot avoid the fact that, regardless of Mr. Musk’s love of glitz, his rockets fly. As Babe Ruth said, “It ain’t bragging if you can do it.”
Nelson wields influence?! Or just a yes man for Boeing (commercial crew/SLS) and Lockheed Martin (Orion/SLS). If SpaceX isn’t chosen (possible considering how many haters they’ve amassed) will Musk retain the lease on KSC Pad 39A or transfer everything from Central Florida to South Texas?
Elon Musk said he would self fund it, regardless, it would just take longer for first flight.
Hope so, but losing such a high profile and high value contract could be demoralizing and detrimental even for a billionaire.
Or it could be liberating. Dragon V2 will fly. SpaceX probably already has the test articles for the two upcoming abort tests mostly or fully assembled and ready to go. It’s probably not possible to move up the dates for either of these tests, but, absent NASA constraints, SpaceX could do initial unmanned and manned orbital tests of Dragon V2, perhaps even reusing the abort test vehicles to do so, sometime in 2015.
I have wondered if Spacex could fly sooner without NASA money? Say Spacex didn’t get funded.
Wouldn’t it be likely that Bigelow and Spacex would team up to jump start commercial Space Stations?
I know that Robert Bigelow is tied in with Boeing’s capsule now. He did that back when Spacex was struggling. But now Spacex will provide the cheapest flights for tourists as well as they have already made Falcon Heavy’s faring large enough to launch Bigelows big Hab. Just seems they need each other? Doesn’t Bigelow need Spacex’s cheaper launch to survive? If Spacex didn’t get funded wouldn’t Spacex need Bigelow? Could it be a faster route to commercial Space if Spacex didn’t get funded?
That seems to be at least a possibility, though I’m not sure the total amount of speed-up, even if everything breaks SpaceX’s and Bigelow’s way, would exceed a year.
LC-39A has facilities for crew ingress and vertical payload integration for unmanned missions. SpaceX has a 20 year lease on the site. Dragon V2 will launch from there, for Bigelow if not for NASA. The Falcon Heavy will also launch from there for all heavy USAF missions to low-inclination orbits once it is EELV-certified.
Dragon needs funding because the reusable Falcon is critical. Dreamchaser is an elegant design but is not critical for lowering the cost of human spaceflight and is not optimal from an aerodynamic sense. I would prioritize it second. The CST-100 is a solid design, simple and reliable, but Boeing doesn’t have a clear path toward reducing cost on the launch vehicle side. I would list it third. Still, all three have unique assets and should at least be taken to the flight test stage.
Boeing has stated that the F9 is an option as a launch vehicle. It therefore does have a low cost launch option if ULA does not solve its Atlas V issue.
You’re assuming SpaceX will sell them launch services.
Unless SpaceX is production capacity limited in some way, they’ll sell to all comers. Orbital Sciences is their competitor for CRS, but SpaceX is happy to launch Orbital-manufactured comsats for its comsat operator clients. Personally, I don’t think the CST-100 is ever going to fly on any rocket.
I concur,
80% to spaceX
10% to Dreamchaser
10% to CST-100
if CST-100 pulls the plug then 20% to dreamchaser
NASA agrees to hire the runner up from time to time if project is completed
NASA will require and pay for at least one demonstration mission involving docking of the cargo and crew providers with one another
Dragon/Cygnus
Dragon/Dreamchaser
this means it least one of the spacecraft needs to have independent ability to conduct an approach and docking so one of the spacecraft is crewed.
http://yellowdragonblog.com…
NASA will likely do what it did with CRS, award more of the business to the lowest bidder, but award some to the runner-up as well to preserve competition. Bigelow might well elect to do the same for his LEO stations and that will be a much larger market than runs to ISS for NASA.
We have spent 9 to 10 billion on Orion.
Surely it is ready to fly by now.
Why not just fly that?
That way we save some money.
ADD
I stated this as an absurd joke.
I think Orion and SLS should be stopped immediately if that were possible and the money used in practical ways to build affordable highways to Leo, the moon and Mars. Saving NASA’s robotic science program too. Real exploration
Save money? Orion’s missions will cost several times what the Commercial Providers will charge. Orion is a vehicle for missions beyond earth orbit, taxi missions to the space station will be much much more affordably done by the Dragon, DC, or CST options.
Orion is not even a vehicle yet, simply a test article which hasn’t even flown to orbit. It’s in the nature of the Dragon test article that first flew in December 2010 and lead to the first successful ISS resupply flight of May 2012, some 15 months after the test flight under the COTS Program.
Orion has no mission or even funding for a mission as yet and how long has it been in progress? It’s still struggling with technical issues that are being slipped into an indefinite future such as being slightly over-weight!
I predict that Orion will may test flight but with astronauts on a real mission – not very likely.
Both SLS and Orion are going to lose out big-time to commercial.
My $0.02
Cheers.
NASA wants to get out of the biz of flying to LEO and back. Of course, good luck to them in accomplishing anything farther than 200 miles up.
MPCV/Orion currently does not have a rendezvous sensor, so it cannot replace crewed Dragon/CST-100/Dream Chaser. It cannot rendezvous with ISS.
It may fly (without crew) this fall but it is a few years away from being ready to fly people. I am not sure if the first Dragon V2 (etc) will fly with a crew, it would be safer to fly it first without people.
The first two Dragon V2’s to leave the ground under power will certainly fly unmanned; these will be the pad and in-flight abort tests. The first orbital test flight will also be unmanned. The second orbital test flight is the first one that may have crew, though probably not the maximum of seven.
It’s worth noting Orion will not fly this year. What will fly will be basically an aerodynamic test article with only a small proportion of the systems the actual vehicle will have. The actual Orion is not currently expected to fly for the first time before September 2018, nearly a year behind schedule.
A first flight without crew would, unlike cargo, mean something. They will reuse it, so all the bugs can be worked out. With cargo there is a new one each time so there are possible defects that only show up in space. NASA has always used new capsules though. I wonder how much it would cost to repaint, pack the parachutes and build a new service section. It might reduce the 140 m. $ flight costs some.
Nor anything else. They really aren’t committing to that whole “multi-purpose” part of the name, are they? Can’t dock, can’t rendezvous, can’t go BEO, can’t last more than 2 weeks anyway… America’s Future In Space. Woo!
Orion has nothing to do with Commerical Crew and neither does SLS.
Our tax money is spent on SLS Orion exploration, instead of supporting commercial Space Companies like NACA used to support the airline industry, which would lead to real exploration soonest.
Read Dave huntsman post and thread here.
http://nasawatch.com/archiv…
Better to fund all three capsules cots and get that money straight from SLS and Orion after shutting them down.
You don’t understand politics if you think it’s even possible that if SLS were cancelled, the funds targeted for SLS would go to Commerical Crew or restructuring of NASA and its missions.
Regardless of possible or not that’s what should happen. It is an option how ever remote. Where are plans to go to the moon using commercial rockets and fuel depots? Where are alternative ideas to SLS and Orion? Hiddin some where. Read Paul’s comment about the 9 billion “Deep Space Vehicle” The program is farse!
Fear
Afraid when SLS is canceled no more money. Well NASA should be down sized starting with SLS and Orion. In the area of human Space flight it flat doesn’t work. Did you watch that exploration thing in the other thread where they pretend SLS will go to Mars? Sad stuff Mr. Squared. I guess you will tell me these very smart NASA people really believe in SLS and Orion.
Some one should say what should happen!
You’re prone to making bad and ill-founded assumptions, especially about what you think people will do, how they vote, or any of number of whoppers you’ve written.
Really
What do you think people will do Mr. Squared. How do you think they will vote? Generally I believe people will vote in their interest. Isn’t that the problem here Mr. Squared or am I completely wrong. Explain it to me Sir.
Explain why people pretend to support SLS and Orion when they know the vehicle is completely to expensive and not suited for any worth while deep space exploration. Or do they start to believe that which is in there interest?? Are not other good NASA programs being starved for the SLS Orion fantasy Mr. Squared?
I want a super heavy lifter but I know it can’t be SLS and Orion. It has to be reusable and affordable. Hopefully Spacex can build one. If the powers that be don’t crush Spacex first.
Perhaps you should conflate more issues.
Perhaps
Orion does matter does when NASA has to rob Peter to pay Paul with its ( mostly ) fixed budget bottom line. Or rather, rob everybody else to pay James Webb.
Actually it does. Those involved with SLS/Orion see CC as a clear political threat to the justifications used for their programs and funding. The campaign against CC and especially against SpaceX is coming from the major SLS/Orion vendors. And inside NASA, coming from SLS/Orion project management.
Although not necessarily connected, and certainly not proof, I still believe that NASA’s decision to sign a 20-year lease for pad 39A with SpaceX bodes very well for them in commercial crew. Musk has in the past said that if they get a commercial crew contract, that launches to ISS would occur from KSC, and Shotwell repeated that when she was at KSC in April for the lease signing. Whether they say it publicly or not, I would bet that’s exactly what NASA wanted to hear.
I would hope that NASA will take the following approach and totally ignore any political considerations:
Technical:
IMO should cover everything from design through to manufacturing and operations. I also would hope (although I don’t know) that there would be some sort of ranking based on pushing the technology although that’s not required if you just consider getting crew to leo.
Further, future design development follow-on, improvement, flexibility and so on may, could or should be included as part of the technical assessment, i.e. does the spacecraft have a future development path?
Business:
This should include not just the existing NASA business but also how the companies consider their vehicle to have a lifecycle beyond NASA. This is a bit more pie in the sky thinking but perhaps will address the underlying corporate culture. Part of the business assessment should include the estimated life cycle cost for each vehicle. So thinking about this should evaluate vehicle lives including any reusable components and the impact to NASA on this set of activities.
Launch vehicles:
Launch vehicle costs and how these may impact on life cycle costs for each company’s product including future development paths, reliability, supply chain, etc.
Safety and risk:
This will no doubt be a contraversial comment however IMHO these aspects are so dependant on the technical and business aspects of each company including culture, that they should NOT be explicitly addresssed other than through the aforementioned technical and business evaluations.
Conclusion:
How do the technical and business aspects interract and support each other? What synergies does each company obtain from their chosen solution? How do the various aspects support and improve the overall product? etc. etc.
Now the COTS Program followed very much the above process so here’s hoping NASA has learnt from that experience and proceeds to evaluate the commercial crew companies usiing a similar framework and approach.
My $0.02.
Cheers.
When has NASA ever ignored political considerations? It is a government institution and always has and always will make decisions of a political nature….just the way it is.
I suspect the basic evaluation will be made along the lines BeanCounter suggests. That would likely rank SpaceX first, SNC second and Boeing a distant third. After that, political considerations may modify things.
The question is, just what will those politics be. International politics may play a large role. ULA is expecting two RD-180’s to arrive on Aug. 20. Unless the CCDev contract decision is announced before then, the arrival or non-arrival of those engines will have an impact on NASA’s decision because both SNC and Boeing plan to use Atlas V launchers. It the engines don’t arrive and Atlas V is suddenly off the table, everything gets iffier except for SpaceX.
Then there are domestic U.S. politics. Boeing is politically very well-connected in Washington, but – especially if ULA doesn’t get its expected engines – I don’t see any effort by Boeing to cut SpaceX entirely out of CCDev to succeed.
Even if the engines arrive on time this time, no one in Washington with sense is going to want to be caught resting the entire weight of America’s future capability to ferry its own astronauts to and from ISS on the problematical future availability of Russian engines. Been there, done that. This issue has achieved too high a profile to make anything really raw and egregiously stupid a political possibility.
The best Boeing might be able to manage is to hold SpaceX to equal or a bit below itself in the divvy of funding as has been the case in past CCDev rounds. Even this looks iffy to me. Boeing’s vaunted “juice” won’t avail it much if its henchcrew in the House and Senate feel efforts to jam up either or both SpaceX and SNC are attracting too much unfavorable publicity. Most politicians have no particular objection to being corrupt hacks, but they’re as allergic to sunlight as vampires.
The smartest political choice for NASA would probably be to announce relatively big shares of funding for SpaceX and SNC and a much smaller partial share for Boeing. Boeing would then, in all likelihood, drop out as it’s always been about government money and not the project for Boeing. NASA could express pro forma regrets and divvy what would have been Boeing’s share up between SpaceX and SNC, then get on with real business.
This tweeted overnight,
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
NASA Comm. Crew CCtCap award likely on 22 or 29 Aug.: allows finalization of contracts before likely Contin. Res. (CR) for next FY at 1 Oct.
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
Also: CCtCap probably two “full” awards, no “half;” depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration.
I have seen reactions to that. They think that means Boeing is out. If so would be a good message to send to the good old boys and girls. Put a little skin in the game or you are out.
Boeing has admitted to having a hard time making their business case, partly due to the high cost of Atlas V HR. They even said after their 2 contracted flights they’d look at Falcon 9 for CST-100. The business case is a big part of the CCtCap selection criteria. What may also indicate Boeing’s exit is their issuing WARN notices several weeks ago, indicating an unwillingness to continue on their own dime (as the others say they will.)
What would Dream chaser fly on??
They are launcher agnostic. Atlas V I’d the baseline, but SNC says F9 would work itth a new launch adapter. They’re also talking to.Germany/ESA about Ariane 5 and JAXA about H-II or H-X.
Here’s hoping.
But by building in-house, and pressing employees to work long hours, there’s no question SpaceX is cutting the cost of access to space and shaking up the establishment. -Houston Chronicle
So that’s how SpaceX is shaking up the launch business with lower costs. It’s all about salaried employees working long hours!
And I had thought it was about SpaceX hiring the brightest engineers and then unleashing them to innovate unconstrained by the whims of Congressional designers or Cold War defense procurement procedures.
I think that’s what they call ‘negative spin’. It ain’t just antimatter that does that!
Actually, SpaceX does about 70% of its work in house. Cut out vendors and you can control your costs and delivery a lot better. As for the hours, there will always be those that thrive and those that wilt with a long work week. Depends on what your personal goals are.
Pick the one that has a Toilet.
So… none of them?
AFAIK, none of them do.
The Soyuz does.Not that it looks anything like a standard toilet, but you can perform a bowel movement. Sidenote: The Russians get 2 enemas prior to launch (source: Chris Hadfield).
They’re all basically space taxis to LEO. You don’t find too many Checker Superbas or Ford Crown Vics with toilets either.
All depends on whether SpaceX is going to use a Russian styled fast-track trajectory or not. If not, your looking at a few days between launch and dock.
they do indeed plan to use the “fast track” series of orbital maneuvers
Out of curiosity, when did SpaceX announce that? If so, then I imagine they’ll try fast tracks out on the Dragon supply capsule in the nearer future.
i don’t think it was ever “announced,” per se, but i know it has been mentioned a few times in interviews. i think the simple fact that you’ve got 7 people jammed into a relatively small capsule that doesn’t have a toilet means you need to make the “fast track” series of orbital maneuvers in order to get to the ISS in 6 hours.
Cargo Dragon has no human passengers who might need to go potty. Hence, no need to use the fast-track profile. Also, Cargo Dragon uses the time-consuming berthing operation to attach to ISS. Dragon V2 will be capable of much quicker automated dockings like Progress and Soyuz.
SpaceX will win. At least they will make the first ISS crew rotation flight in Dec. ’17. SNC DC came out with a schedule for a crewed flight in Nov. ’17. That would certify them to carry crew to ISS. I doubt that NASA would have them do a ISS crew rotation flight on the first crewed flight. Probably a few orbits and land more likely. SpaceX has half of ’15 and ’17 and a full year in ’16. It would be a good idea to have 1/2 a year available to get ready for th 1st flight to ISS. They can make launcher available any time they want. They do not have to schedule 2.5 years in advance. They say they will be ready a year in advance. Plenty of slip time.
Boeing has very little slip time. If it takes as long to build CST-100 as Orion they will not be ready. They said they will use spin casting to make a pressure vessel. Spin casting has been around a long time, but something large is difficult. It is suppose to be fast to make a mold. Has that been done or they waiting for the contract? They may have delays with that. Still have 2 aborts and 2 test flights and get ready for a third flight before Nov. ’17. Unlikely they will make it.
So, SpaceX since they are the only ones to be ready. Bolden said if he had done COTS-D, he would only have one. So another one will be funded. Maybe for the 2nd ISS crew rotation 6 months later. SpaceX would not mind a mission every 6 months or year. The others maybe not. I do not see any joy riders, since Dragon has to stay as a life boat for 6 months. Maybe they will figure out a way to transfer tourists to the outbound Dragon. Wonder if Elon would be one of those? The pad abort will use a mock up. I wonder if they will use the Shuttle pad to keep their regular pad open?
Because Boeing has made it abundantly clear they’re in CCDev strictly for the money. They have spent trivial amounts of company funds compared with both SpaceX and SNC. They have no production facility, just an option on some space at KSC.
Dragon V2 is being built at SpaceX’s Hawthorne works. Flight-capable Dream Chasers are being fabricated at LockMart Michoud under contract.
If Boeing receives no funding for the next round of CCDev, it has already stated its intention to drop CST-100 like a hot potato and lay off everyone associated with the project. They’re basically doing for real what the old National Lampoon did for a joke. “Buy this Magazine or We’ll Shoot this Dog!” has become “Pay Us More Money or We’ll Shoot these Employees.”
SpaceX and SNC, in contrast, have both stated publicly that they will continue development and testing of their vehicles regardless of how the upcoming CCDev contract awards turn out.
NASA should make its awards based on track record to-date and commitment to the program. On both scores, SpaceX and SNC should be the ones to go forward. Boeing should be terminated so we can all be rid of the charade that CST-100 was ever a serious project.
I’m beginning to see a possible secondary motive to SpaceX’s lawsuit regarding the recent EELV award.
Contract awards like this one are rarely made on the basis of economic or engineering merit but on the basis of pure politics. There is no doubt that SpaceX does not have the political muscle of Boeing or ULA. However, this lawsuit might make some decision-makers, particularly in NASA wary of too obviously shafting Musk for fear of the decision being trapped in litigation and counter-litigation for years.
If I’m right, it’s a high-risk strategy. However, that does seem to be how Elon Musk likes to play the game!
Iron Man’s litigation gun.
A fearsome weapon. It’s some kind of light beam. right?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?…
Maybe not litigation but it gets them thinking that they may have problems if they make an obviously unfair decision based on technical merit.
MEMO
From: Taxpayer
To: Boeing
Re: your CST-100 space capsule
We would love to have you join the club of commercial manned space vehicles and participate in the ISS Round Robin crew shuttles. However, we cannot afford to fund all the participants at the same time. Our Accounting Department has determined that Boeing Inc. has recieved many billions of dollars above stated funding goals in contractor cost overruns . Further, Boeing has repeatedly overbilled the US Government for a wide range of military and civilian aerospace products and vehicles for several decades. We believe the other civilian participants are more deserved of limited funds than the nation’s second largest military-industrial contractor at this time . Therefore we have decided you can and should pay for the CST-100 program out of your petty cash , substantial offshore bank cash accounts, and/or lobbyist slush funds. We regret if this causes some of your executives to lose corporate jet time or country club memberships, but in these critical budget times we feel a little financial sacrifice from Boeing is not untoward if you wish to remain a participant in manned space flight going forward. Sorry for the inconvenience. We do like your Dreamliner .
Sincerely;
Ralph in Poughkeepsie
Because Boeing has apparently been actively campaigning against not only SpaceX, but the entire Commercial Crew management team at NASA, for several years with the aim of: Replacing the CC team, bringing it back under traditional NASA management; downselecting to Boeing (duh); dropping the goals for CC, especially dev co-investment, commercial potential beyond NASA, and early capability; and revert back to the traditional cost-plus approach.
Why on Earth would SpaceX want to give those guys a break?
“Hey why don’t you use Delta IV? Hahahaha!”
🙂 lol
SpaceX wants to fly as many missions as possible. If Boeing buys a ride on one of their rockets, SpaceX makes money on the deal. It wouldn’t do SpaceX any damage from a public relations standpoint either, but that’s just gravy.
But it’s not an argument against SpaceX selling to Boeing a Falcon 9 launch.
I made no such argument. On the contrary, one of my previous comments made exactly this point. SpaceX will sell launches to Boeing or anyone else who signs a contract and pays their price.
I merely find this scenario unlikely on the Boeing side, not the SpaceX side. Boeing is the one which has said it will drop CST-100 development if it is dropped from CCDev. My guess is that they would do that even if they were still in the program, but at only a fractional funding level compared to SpaceX and/or SNC. Boeing has always gotten the biggest slice of funding in each prior phase of CCDev. I think they have a corporate attitude of entitlement.