Once Again Washington Post Makes Claims – Without Fact Checking
Dream Chaser has rough landing in test flight, but firm hails ‘successful day’ for space plane
“Sierra Nevada is perhaps the underdog in the competition to win the NASA contract to haul astronauts to the international space station.”
Keith’s note: You just toss this out there, Joel Achenbach, and never provide a source or data to substantiate your statement. Why is SNC the “underdog”? Boeing has yet to fly their CST-100 in space. Why aren’t they “underdogs” too? There’s a pattern to your reporting.
– Let’s Throw Away Yet Another Space Station, earlier post
“Joel Achenbach at the Washington Post does not seem to think that the ISS does much, is dangerous, and will just be dumped in the ocean. He clearly went looking for ISS problems – not the promise and potential of the ISS when he wrote this article.”
– Hit and Run Space Policy Analysis, earlier post (2004)
“This article is a classic example of simplistic, hit and run “analysis”. First you make up your mind. In this case: “Humans bad; robots good”. Then you find selective quotes or events to back up your point. And by all means do NOT reference an opinion that is contrary to yours – since it would interrupt the flow of one liners and cute observations you have already written. How do I know this? Because the author (Joel Achenbach) called me early in the process of writing this article and blurted out that simple premise – before I even had a chance to provide any insight – and then he admitted that he knew nothing about the process that lead up to the development of the policy. I then spent 20 minutes filling him in – from my perspective, of course. Oh well.”
In the author’s defense, SpaceX has to be in the lead, having sent cargo capsules to ISS. Boeing might be regarded as the second place competitor simply due to their expertise in space systems. And Sierra Nevada is the underdog – small company trying to buck the conventional wisdom. Remember, America loves an underdog!
When is the last time Boeing designed and built a manned spacecraft? Since they bought Rockwell the answer would be late 1970s early 1980s. No one stops to think about that. Boeing had to go dig up expertise outside the company just like SNC did. The playing field is far more level than people think.
One of the very first things Boeing did when the VSE was announced was to try to buy up anything and everything in the way of Apollo spacecraft documentation, especially drawings, from anyone who had any. I know of one book author who sold them his detailed drawings (they were well done) that he had created from photographs. Aside from what was in their own model shop, Boeing didn’t have much to work with prior to starting CST-100. That makes what they’ve apparently accomplished to date all the more impressive, but it also, I would say, puts them in the under dog category, too. Everything considered, SpaceX wasn’t really way ahead of either SNC or Boeing at the start of COTS. All three have performed impressively, as far as I’m concerned, starting almost from scratch as far as spacecraft experience goes.
They have indeed “performed impressively” (a pity Khrunichev in Russia hasn’t with MLM). But which system – capsule or spaceplane – do you think will be the least complex and costly for NASA?
Good point, and NASA will almost certainly go for a capsule for that reason. However, down the road, will it be NASA’s decisions that define the mainstay of the industry or what industry itself decides? In the long run, requirements (should) always decide what solution is chosen. So it all comes back to what we (the human race) decide to do in/with space. Despite what NASA does or doesn’t do, are we prepared to repeat another 50 years just like the last 50 (except without the Shuttle fleet)? If not, then I think the capsule’s days are numbered.
Being able to “buy success” pretty much by definition rules someone out as the “underdog”.
I agree, but I don’t think Boeing, or any of the other players, is in that position in this game. Past successes and financial resources help, of course, but won’t by themselves win the game. The final product has to perform as required and cost an amount that the buyers/users are willing to pay. For all of the great tests we’ve seen, nobody has demonstrated final success yet, and ther are still some high hurdles to cross.
I’m surprised they did that, having been on the last team eliminated from the Orion bid. They had access to a lot of data and design info, unless the CST-100 team was firewalled off from Orion.
Boeing was on the Northrup-Grumman team for the Orion bid, and did substantial work on ISS and support for the STS.
Well, in terms of funding, Sierra Nevada is clearly the underdog, since the funding they won for the latest phase of commercial crew is half the amount that Space-X and Boeing won.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-…
“This arrangement in which two companies would receive substantial
funding and a third that is called backup funding was part an agreement
reached with Congress earlier this year.”
Dream Chaser is the “backup.”
http://arstechnica.com/scie…
When is the last time Boeing designed and built a manned spacecraft? Since they bought Rockwell the answer would be late 1970s early 1980s. SNC did not just drop out of the sky either. More flyby analysis.
I agree. If NASA had funded Boeing’s X-37C under an SAA, it would have made more sense than CST-100, not only for the sake of advancing the technology, but also cross range, down mass, risk control (X-37B experience), and a divergent design (not another capsule).
I also find myself wondering how much of a service life the CST-100 will have, and note that Boeing’s enthusiasm for it is limited, according to my friends there. The minute the federal funding wavers, CST-100 could disappear. Not sure it has much future in a purely commercial environment either, press releases to the contrary notwithstanding.
There will have to be another down-selection soon, and I’d like to see SNC and SpaceX as the finalists. CST-100 really isn’t bringing much that’s new, superior, or less costly to the party.
Sierra Nevada is clearly the underdog in the commercial crew program and the funding levels illustrate this. Boeing may not have designed a manned spacecraft in 30 years but Sierra Nevada has never designed a manned spacecraft (and neither has SpaceX) so I don’t see the point of that question.
SNC is a better choice if congress gets off their fat ashes and fund this program the way it should. SNC is the only design that can bring cargo back from an orbiting platform with a soft landing.
Realistically congress should fund all three programs
No disagreement with that!
astronaut means space sailor. A sailor deals with the operation of the ship, versus a passenger. I would imagine that a lot of NASA astronauts would prefer the stick and the yoke of the dream chaser versus a capsule. So for my thinking I always believed the capsules would be cheaper and would service the ISS AND the commercial stations while Dream chaser would end up a nasa bird.
I just hate it when these news outlets trash any of our Fixed Price Space Wonderkins. They truly are the shining stars of our space program. I think Joel of WP was trying to play it safe with “underdog” (sounds negative in my mind). That way if Sierra becomes a super star then they can say they was always cheering for the underdog (sounds good now). On a side note about Sierras drop test, that ship looked ROCK STEADY landing. and people that know, know the mockup donated ex-fighter landing gear is not going to be same system the actual ship will use. Underdog WP? I don’t think any of these 3 companies that can pass COTS and CCDev and do what Nasa can’t do for the price should ever be called a Underdog. long live the mini shuttle.