watkinsx2 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 More than double gone to Boeing than SpaceX, what a waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingskippy Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 4.2B to build a spacecraft that uses the same basic design from Apollo with upgraded avionics. US Govt loves to get shafted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malenfant Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Good choices IMO. The lifting body was more trouble than it's worth I think. Advanced capsules and inflatables -already happening -and nuclear power and propulsion -one can dream -and things might actually start happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 16, 2014 Author Share Posted September 16, 2014 Boeing: $4.2 billion SpaceX: $2.6 billion Total: $6.8 billion Based on company proposals, so SpaceX is just cheaper. Goal: 2 operational systems, more than just ISS as destinations. Commercial stations, etc. At least 1 demo mission by 2017 per company, up to 6 each during CCtCap certification program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 16, 2014 Author Share Posted September 16, 2014 At the Dragon V2 reveal Musk said 2016 for their first orbital flights. Dragon V2 pad abort test in November 2014, flight abort in January 2015, unmanned orbital test in early 2016 and crewed orbital test later that year. Launch America program posters, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bguy_1986 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 DocM, on 16 Sept 2014 - 17:19, said: At the Dragon V2 reveal Musk said 2016 for their first orbital flights. Dragon V2 pad abort test in November 2014, flight abort in January 2015, unmanned orbital test in early 2016 and crewed orbital test later that year. Launch America program posters, I'm impatient... Why such a long wait between flight abort and orbital test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 16, 2014 Author Share Posted September 16, 2014 SpaceX: EC/LSS (environmental control & life support systems) integration and testing, risk reduction on landing systems (FireFly tests), avionics and flight interface work, robotic autonomous flight system software & ground tests etc. Boeing: "The spacecraft will undergo a pad-abort test in 2016, an uncrewed flight in early 2017, leading up to the first crewed flight to the ISS in mid-2017," plus everything SpaceX is doing, though Boring's landing system is air bags and not 8 big damned thrusters. So, with a slip Boeing's first crewed flight could end up in 2018. And in that time they may be working with Blue Origin on an RD-180 replacement engine for Atlas V. Yeah, you read that right. Those engine announcements will likely come in the next few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beittil Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Probably because the abort test articles arn't full up v2's. They are cargo variants with superdraco's attached if i am not mistaken! One could assume that SpaceX would want the orbital test to be done with an actual v2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malenfant Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Blue Origin -Billionaire dilettante or Dark Horse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 16, 2014 Author Share Posted September 16, 2014 Probably because the abort test articles arn't full up v2's. They are cargo variants with superdraco's attached if i am not mistaken! One could assume that SpaceX would want the orbital test to be done with an actual v2.No, the abort vehicle is a Dragon V2. They plan on using the same one for both abort tests. There are major changes to the pressure hull for the life support system, enlarging the service bay, moving the parachutes, mounting the SuperDraco thrusters, major changes to the upper bulkhead for docking adapters and the LIDAR, and strengthening everything for landings and mounting the legs. Their assembly line is now producing both Dragon V1 and Dragon V2 in parallel, though at different paces for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beittil Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Ah ok,good to know. Nm my previous comment then :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 16, 2014 Author Share Posted September 16, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsItPluggedIn Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 So they funded Boeing because they wouldnt have made it otherwise, and didnt fund the Dreamchaser because its going to be funded privately. Makes sense from a government point of view, now they have 3 craft instead of 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 17, 2014 Author Share Posted September 17, 2014 They funded the capsules because they more closely meet NASA's needs and goals. Dragon can carry large amounts of unpressurized cargo in its trunk, even more with the optional enhanced 34 m3 trunk. CST-100 can be adapted to do so. The specs for the upcoming second round of commercial cargo male clear this is a priority. Dream Chaser cannot carry unpressurized cargo, and a container attached to its rear hatch would get fried by its rear-facing engines. Both capsules have the potential to go beyond Earth orbit to perform cargo and crew runs to lunar orbit or Lagrange points. This wasn't a stated goal for CCtCap, but it's in the cards regardless. Dream Chaser cannot. IMO one of the things that hurt Dream Chaser was that they recently ditched the hybrid engines they've already certified in favor of the ORBITEC Liquid Vortex engines. This is a reset that absolutely increases the risk of their program not finishing by 2016-2017. Granted - liquid engines are the better choice because they're more efficient and lighter, but that was a decision that should have been made 2-3 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 9, 2014 Author Share Posted October 9, 2014 NASA just stiffed SNC's complaint, http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/index.html#.VDbt-vldW9E On Oct. 9, under statutory authority available to it, NASA has decided to proceed with the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts awarded to The Boeing Company and Space Exploration Technologies Corp. notwithstanding the bid protest filed at the U.S. Government Accountability Office by Sierra Nevada Corporation. The agency recognizes that failure to provide the CCtCap transportation service as soon as possible poses risks to the International Space Station (ISS) crew, jeopardizes continued operation of the ISS, would delay meeting critical crew size requirements, and may result in the U.S. failing to perform the commitments it made in its international agreements. These considerations compelled NASA to use its statutory authority to avoid significant adverse consequences where contract performance remained suspended. NASA has determined that it best serves the United States to continue performance of the CCtCap contracts that will enable safe and reliable travel to and from the ISS from the United States on American spacecraft and end the nation?s sole reliance on Russia for such transportation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 16, 2014 Author Share Posted October 16, 2014 SNC has filed for a federal court restraining order to stop NASA / CCtCap work http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_26733987/sierra-nevada-seeks-federal-injunction-stop-work-nasa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beittil Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 What an idiots :X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport Gov't req1:Despite SpaceX dev. lead, 2 fly 'NASA cert. vehicle' w/crew by 2017 must start CCtCap all-out now incl. much discussion w/Agency. Gov't req 2: So if SpaceX requires all-out to have crewed "NASA certification flight" by 2017, how can Boeing do it given its hardware lag? Gov't req'ts make 2017 a challenge;Cong. likely 2 underfund,force slip;Gerst. freaks re dubious 'risk' w/SNC's lower bid than Boeing. Sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsItPluggedIn Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Arg that hurt my head trying to read that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 21, 2014 Author Share Posted October 21, 2014 The truth of the translation hurts worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 The court has tossed SNC's protest of NASA's proceed order, http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/court-declines-sncs-motion-to-overrule-nasa-on-cctcap-authorization-to-proceed Court Declines SNC's Motion to Overrule NASA on CCtCAP Authorization to Proceed The U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued a verbal decision today declining to overrule NASA on its decision to allow SpaceX and Boeing to proceed in executing the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCAP) contracts. Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) is suing the government over NASA's October 9 decision to rescind a previously issued stop-work order while SNC's protest of the contract awards is under consideration by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). In a terse statement, Judge Marilyn Blank Horn said: "On October 21, 2014, the court held a hearing in the above captioned protest. Given the urgency to resolve the override issue, the court provided the parties with a verbal decision declining to overrule the override." "Override" refers to NASA overriding a provision of the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) under which work on a contract ordinarily would cease while a protest of the contract award is pending. NASA initially issued a stop-work order to Boeing and SpaceX in compliance with CICA after SNC filed its protest with GAO. On October 9, however, it rescinded that order, overriding the CICA requirement, on the basis that its statutory authority allowed it to avoid serious adverse consequences. > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SALSN Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Dragon can carry large amounts of unpressurized cargo in its trunk, even more with the optional enhanced 34 m3 trunk. CST-100 can be adapted to do so. The specs for the upcoming second round of commercial cargo male clear this is a priority. Dream Chaser cannot carry unpressurized cargo, and a container attached to its rear hatch would get fried by its rear-facing engines. Both capsules have the potential to go beyond Earth orbit to perform cargo and crew runs to lunar orbit or Lagrange points. This wasn't a stated goal for CCtCap, but it's in the cards regardless. Dream Chaser cannot. If the unpressurised cargo is a priority, then it seems quite dishonest to not release that information until now..? Also, does the CST-100 claim beyond earth capabilities, or is this just assumed since it is a capsule? Dragon has a heat shield apparently capable of reentering from a Mars return trip, does the CST-100 have similar capabilities, or is this something that will have to be developed further if necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 Neither Dream Chaser or CST-100 had unpressurized cargo and only Dragon proposed it, and it wasn't in the original NASA request, but as the program progressed it became a factor. As it turns out its easier to add to CST-100, just add a disposable rear extension to its service module. For Dream Chaser it's not so easy because of its rear-facing engines, which need to do a burn for orbital insertion. In the end, SNC's engine choices probably killed Dream Chaser. From day-one they planned on using hybrids, which use a liquid oxidizer (nitrous oxide) and a rubber based solid fuel grain (HTPB - hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene). At litetally the last minute, and possibly due to the difficulties Virgin Galactic has had with a related engine, SNC changed this to a pair of ORBITEC Liquid Vortex engines, which have never been tested at that scale. The largest public test of Liquid Vortex was 2 years ago in a sounding rocket. This presented a schedule risk NASA probably felt was too great. CST-100 is based on the pre-Constellation Boeing/Northop-Grumman proposal for the CEV (crew exploration vehicle) program, so it's assumed upgradable. CEV morphed into Constellation's Orion, which was won by Lockheed Martin. Boing/N-G CEV CST-100 SALSN 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2014/10/22/nasa-statement-on-court-of-federal-claims-decision/ NASA Statement on Court of Federal Claims Decision Posted on October 22, 2014 at 12:25 pm by commercial-crew-program NASA is pleased the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Oct. 21 allowed NASA to proceed with the performance of its Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts while the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) considers the GAO bid protest filed by Sierra Nevada Corporation. NASA will continue to work with Boeing and SpaceX on the contracts that will enable safe and reliable crew transportation to and from the International Space Station on American spacecraft launched from U.S. soil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted December 10, 2014 Author Share Posted December 10, 2014 In the 2015 US budget resolution now being worked on Commercial Crew will get $805M, and Sen. Shelby's certified cost and pricing language is now gone. About damned time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts