One will get voted off the island...

[Streetwind]

For those following NASA's commercial crew program (and by extension, anyone with interest in the ISS), there is news today: on either August 22nd or August 29th, NASA will announce the selection of who proceeds to the final round. Despite congress pressuring to downselect more aggressively, NASA plans to stick to their guns and award two full contracts. Of course we won't know for sure until it happens, but it appears multiple insiders have heard very similar things in this regard.

In other words - out of Boeing's CST-100, Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser and SpaceX's Dragon V2, two will receive funding until completion... and one will be "voted off the island", so to speak. An article describing each project and the strategies of the three players is here: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php?cmpid=twitter-premium&t=dea1ae16b3057dc840&_ga=1.44881510.351050156.1405448246#/0

But as a TL;DR version, have a quick comparison:

• Manufactured by Boeing
  
• Capsule type
  
• Seven seat capacity
  
• Propulsive abort system integrated
  
• Lands via parachute
  
• Water and land landing capable
  
• Launches on ULA's Atlas V rocket
  
• Project will be cancelled by manufacturer if it doesn't proceed to the final round
  
• Boeing is an old NASA "insider", and has been one of the most important NASA suppliers since the dawn of the space age
  
• Boeing is essentially blackmailing NASA with 500+ jobs on the line and is leveraging political and business connections with influential individuals within NASA and Senate
  

• Manufactured by Sierra Nevada Corporation
  
• Spaceplane type
  
• Seven seat capacity
  
• No idea about abort system
  
• Land landing only, needs 737-sized runway
  
• Special mission capabilities (it has an airlock)
  
• Launches on ULA's Atlas V rocket
  
• Project will be continued by manufacturer even if it doesn't proceed to the final round
  
• Sierra Nevada is a well respected, large company with tons of history and experience; "probably the biggest aerospace company most Americans have never heard of"
  

• Manufactured by SpaceX
  
• Capsule type
  
• Seven seat capacity
  
• Propulsive abort system integrated
  
• Lands propulsively, backup parachute landing also possible
  
• Water and land landing capable
  
• Launches on SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket
  
• Project will be continued by manufacturer even if it doesn't proceed to the final round
  
• Project is a bit ahead in schedule compared to the other two, and will likely cost NASA the least to fly
  
• SpaceX is a high-profile upstart; intensely popular with the public but limited reliability records due to recent market entry
  

In my opinion, if NASA will indeed select two, then they'll select the Dream Chaser and one of the capsules. Not only is there a significant "our shuttle is back" factor for the public, but the integrated airlock allows it to fly missions the other two projects cannot address. In addition, the two capsules are largely identical, so it's more beneficial for variety's sake. Of course, I have no idea how much the Dream Chaser is expected to cost compared to the capsules.

On the capsule side though, it's tough to decide. SpaceX has the somewhat more compelling story - launches on a different rocket for redundancy, is available sooner, costs less to fly. On the other hand, the Dragon V2 will be finished whether NASA supports it or not, whereas the CST-100 will face cancellation... and Boeing has a massive leg up in influence. I can't say how that ends.

In all of thise, there's obviously a whole lot of stuff factoring in that we don't know, i.e. how the latest design reviews and milestones went down for each of the contestants.

What do you guys think? Which of the three contestants will be going home by the end of the month?

[Kryten]

Dragon and one other for redundancy reasons; otherwise they'd be dependent on Atlas V. The other will probably be CST-100; the experience with Kistler in COTS means they're wary of the risk that comes with small, less diversified competitors. SNC going belly-up requires a lot less disruption than Boeing doing the same.

[shynung]

I'm under the impression that SNC and SpaceX are being the underdogs in a competition in which Boeing had the upper hand. However, as I see it, Boeing relies heavily on the 'insider' leverage to get the job; the CST-100 doesn't offer anything much than being a capsule spacecraft.

Personally, I'd like to see SpaceX and SNC given the green light.

[R0cketC0der]

Dragon and one other for redundancy reasons; otherwise they'd be dependent on Atlas V. The other will probably be CST-100; the experience with Kistler in COTS means they're wary of the risk that comes with small, less diversified competitors. SNC going belly-up requires a lot less disruption than Boeing doing the same.

Actually the CST-100 is designed to also be compatible with the Delta IV and Falcon 9, not just the Atlas V.

I personally would like to see Dream Chaser and Dragon V2 getting into the next round. There is just nothing that makes CST-100 special, unlike the other two capsules.

[Borklund]

Actually the CST-100 is designed to also be compatible with the Delta IV and Falcon 9, not just the Atlas V.

No, it is designed to go on Atlas V or Falcon 9. Delta IV is not human rated.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Borklund

[ZedNova]

It'll most likely be Dreamchaser and CST-100 in my opinion.

[Streetwind]

No, it is designed to go on Atlas V or Falcon 9. Delta IV is not human rated.

Maybe they're prepping it for the Delta IV anyway, just in case. Depends entirely on the effort involved. If it's barely costing anything, they might as well. If it comes to the worst, even a non human rated launcher can send humans up without killing them, and an empty capsule to fetch people from the station could ride like any other cargo.

I'm under the impression that SNC and SpaceX are being the underdogs in a competition in which Boeing had the upper hand.

As SpaceX is a newcomer and SNC has yet to complete a prototype, that impression isn't unfounded. I'm still hoping that NASA will recognize the potential that the Dream Chaser has; while SpaceX needs to prove with all their might they can deliver, SNC isn't known for not delivering. Even if they're a little behind, they predict to be able to launch in 2017 just like Boeing does, and that's some time yet. It's SpaceX who's rushing for a 2016 inauguration flight because they really need to set themselves apart to have a chance.

[crazyewok]

Id like to see Space X and the Dream chaser. See Boeing and Lockheed monopoly on the space industry start to collapse.

But politics being politics the monkeys in suites sitting in congress will pick bowing as the one of the ones to go ahead.

[Borklund]

Maybe they're prepping it for the Delta IV anyway, just in case. Depends entirely on the effort involved. If it's barely costing anything, they might as well. If it comes to the worst, even a non human rated launcher can send humans up without killing them, and an empty capsule to fetch people from the station could ride like any other cargo.

No, ULA has been awarded money to human rate Atlas V. IIRC they estimated it would cost a billion dollars to human rate Delta IV. Non human rated launchers or spacecraft are not going to launch NASA astronauts anywhere.

As SpaceX is a newcomer and SNC has yet to complete a prototype, that impression isn't unfounded. I'm still hoping that NASA will recognize the potential that the Dream Chaser has; while SpaceX needs to prove with all their might they can deliver, SNC isn't known for not delivering. Even if they're a little behind, they predict to be able to launch in 2017 just like Boeing does, and that's some time yet. It's SpaceX who's rushing for a 2016 inauguration flight because they really need to set themselves apart to have a chance.

There's so much wrong with this paragraph that I can't be bothered to explain everything. For one, SNC has built and flown an engineering test article. Boeing is not going to spend a single dollar of their own money on CST-100, so they're not going to launch in 2017 unless they're awarded a contract. SpaceX isn't ahead, their pad and flight abort tests are behind schedule. They really don't have to "set themselves apart to have a chance"; their proposal will be judged on its own merit.

Id like to see Space X and the Dream chaser. See Boeing and Lockheed monopoly on the space industry start to collapse.

But politics being politics the monkeys in suites sitting in congress will pick bowing as the one of the ones to go ahead.

Nobody in Congress is picking the winner. There is a NASA selection committee and a selecting officer making the decision after reviewing the proposals.

[montyben101]

I really like dream chaser and very glad that if they do get voted off (which they probably will reading the text) that they are still continuing the project.

[xenomorph555]

CST-100 and Dragon will win, this I am sure of. Dreamchaser is more expensive, more dangerous and finally SN does not have it's own rocket, Boeing won't just let them have their rocket and win, and neither will Spacex.

[Borklund]

CST-100 and Dragon will win, this I am sure of. Dreamchaser is more expensive, more dangerous and finally SN does not have it's own rocket, Boeing won't just let them have their rocket and win, and neither will Spacex.

You have no factual basis with which to claim that DreamChaser is more expensive and more dangerous than either Dragon or CST-100. It's definitely more safer than Orion, which can only use its launch abort system for certain periods after launch, unlike all the proposed commercial crew vehicles. Why would Boeing (and Lockheed Martin) and SpaceX say no to free money because DC has to use another launch vehicle to get into orbit? You're wrong on so many levels.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Borklund

[xenomorph555]

You have no factual basis with which to claim that DreamChaser is more expensive and more dangerous than either Dragon or CST-100. It's definitely more safer than Orion, which can only use its launch abort system for certain periods after launch, unlike all the proposed commercial crew vehicles. Why would Boeing (and Lockheed Martin) and SpaceX say no to free money because DC has to use another launch vehicle to get into orbit? You're wrong on so many levels.

Well I read a while ago about the costs of the 3 craft, with dreamchaser coming out as the most expensive, I am sure though that you are right and it is on the same level of price as the others though we will have to wait and see.

As for danger I was not referring to the LAS but the landing, I understand that the shuttles have done the feat 131 times but it still scares me to think of if something went wrong.

And finally to the final comment, sure Boeing and Spacex could get money from SN however why add competition?

[Nicholander]

I think they should decide to select the Dream Chaser and the CST-100, because the Dragon will still be completed no matter who get's chosen, so you get 3 spacecraft! (4 if you count the Orion) Though, well, I'll be fine if NASA decides to fund the Dream Chaser and the Dragon, even if that means no CST-100, which is what I think they'll do. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

[cpast]

Nobody in Congress is picking the winner. There is a NASA selection committee and a selecting officer making the decision after reviewing the proposals.

On the other hand, those in Congress do decide NASA's budget in future years (and can always do things like cut funding for this program if they so choose). Congressional pressure can influence NASA, even when Congress isn't directly deciding the winner.

[Borklund]

Well I read a while ago about the costs of the 3 craft, with dreamchaser coming out as the most expensive, I am sure though that you are right and it is on the same level of price as the others though we will have to wait and see.

As for danger I was not referring to the LAS but the landing, I understand that the shuttles have done the feat 131 times but it still scares me to think of if something went wrong.

And finally to the final comment, sure Boeing and Spacex could get money from SN however why add competition?

What makes you thinking landing gear are more dangerous than either a parachute landing in the ocean or retropropulsively landing on land? Boeing and SpaceX are already in competition for Commercial Crew. Even if they lose and DC is selected as the sole winner, either or both of them get launch contracts. I don't follow your reasoning.

I think they should decide to select the Dream Chaser and the CST-100, because the Dragon will still be completed no matter who get's chosen, so you get 3 spacecraft! (4 if you count the Orion) Though, well, I'll be fine if NASA decides to fund the Dream Chaser and the Dragon, even if that means no CST-100, which is what I think they'll do. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

There exists no other customer or purpose for Dragon than NASA and serving its Commercial Crew programme.

On the other hand, those in Congress do decide NASA's budget in future years (and can always do things like cut funding for this program if they so choose). Congressional pressure can influence NASA, even when Congress isn't directly deciding the winner.

If they cut funding for Commercial Crew there would be no CST-100 either. They can't influence the selection committee because their identities are not public knowledge.

[cpast]

If they cut funding for Commercial Crew there would be no CST-100 either. They can't influence the selection committee because their identities are not public knowledge.

It's irrelevant whether selection committee members' names are public knowledge; there can be no direct consequences to their career (that's pretty much the point of the civil service system), but on the other hand, a cut in NASA funding is something NASA doesn't want and generally tries to avoid. Keeping the people who give NASA money happy is something which NASA generally has to do; federal agencies generally have a hard time completely ignoring Congressional preferences (for instance: although NASA wants to fund two projects, Congress can respond by forcing them to pick a single contract; NASA doesn't want that to happen, so doesn't generally want to annoy Congress). I'm not saying they'll certainly pick CST-100; I'm saying that it's not irrelevant what Congress prefers, because, although the decision is made by civil service employees at NASA, they're still subject to Congressional pressure.

[xenomorph555]

What makes you thinking landing gear are more dangerous than either a parachute landing in the ocean or retropropulsively landing on land? Boeing and SpaceX are already in competition for Commercial Crew. Even if they lose and DC is selected as the sole winner, either or both of them get launch contracts. I don't follow your reasoning.

I'm not talking about landing gears (although that crash in 2013 could break a few necks) no I'm talking about if some sort of malfunction happened with the auto-flight, flying a glider through the atmosphere to landing strip and successfully landing is quite difficult I'm guessing and these the passengers are scientists and tourists...

[shynung]

Anyone going to space is likely to get some training beforehand, things like high-G training, self-orientation and navigation on micro-G, and study the workings and capabilities of the spacecraft to be used, from the occupants' perspective. Even more, the autopilot systems installed within the DC is likely to be at least as redundant, if not more, than the old Shuttle's avionics: 4 different systems carrying identical software, cross-checking each other as they compute(and vote out any errors), and a fifth backup system with a custom-designed software, brought online when the last remaining main system either failed, or gives erroneous results.

[Borklund]

It's irrelevant whether selection committee members' names are public knowledge; there can be no direct consequences to their career (that's pretty much the point of the civil service system), but on the other hand, a cut in NASA funding is something NASA doesn't want and generally tries to avoid. Keeping the people who give NASA money happy is something which NASA generally has to do; federal agencies generally have a hard time completely ignoring Congressional preferences (for instance: although NASA wants to fund two projects, Congress can respond by forcing them to pick a single contract; NASA doesn't want that to happen, so doesn't generally want to annoy Congress). I'm not saying they'll certainly pick CST-100; I'm saying that it's not irrelevant what Congress prefers, because, although the decision is made by civil service employees at NASA, they're still subject to Congressional pressure.

I still can't follow your logic. The winner or winners of Commercial Crew will be announced before the end of this month, a whole month before the next NASA budget automatically kicks in (in the form of a continuing resolution) unless an actual budget is passed (which is looking unlikely). A continuing resolution would fund Commercial Crew at identical levels to last year and would fund at least 1,5 winners. With this in mind I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that unless Boeing gets picked, NASA isn't getting any money for commercial crew, or that if Boeing doesn't get picked, Congress will cut funding. Furthermore, only the NASA Administrator and Deputy Administrator have to "please" Congress, not some mid-level civil servants picked for a committee. Congress does not influence decisions at this low level of procurement. Besides, the funding Boeing would get from winning Commercial Crew might as well be an accounting rounding error, given their vast aerospace and defence contracts. Let's not forget the 3 billion dollars or so they receive every year for work on SLS and Orion. Congress is a lot more interested in defending that pork (hence "Senate Launch System") and ULA's EELV monopoly. To summarise: you are mistaken in your beliefs about how Congress and NASA operate.

I'm not talking about landing gears (although that crash in 2013 could break a few necks) no I'm talking about if some sort of malfunction happened with the auto-flight, flying a glider through the atmosphere to landing strip and successfully landing is quite difficult I'm guessing and these the passengers are scientists and tourists...

That landing gear was temporary. The actual landing gear going on the real DC has flight heritage. Where do you get the idea that the passengers are scientists and tourists? DC is going to service the ISS with NASA and EU, Japanese and Russian astronauts/cosmonauts, all of whom will have undergone extensive training before any flight. NASA has a lot of pilots who become Shuttle pilots and NASA in general knows a lot more about landing a Shuttle-like spacecraft than it does about any other mode of transportation - they just spent the last 4 decades flying something very similar to DC.

[SpaceXray]

I hope the CST-100 gets voted off. It's just another boring capsule, nothing much.

Boeing should stick to planes for now.

The DreamChaser is like a shuttle(shuttle fan here) and the Dragon is just awesome in every way and has already actually FLOWN to space.

I think the current Crimea and MH17 situation is good. Congress is getting worried about national pride and is now more interested in beating ROSCOSMOS.

We might be starting a space race again soon, and then before you know it we got to Mars by 2024!

Edited August 16, 2014 by SpaceXray

[xenomorph555]

That landing gear was temporary. The actual landing gear going on the real DC has flight heritage. Where do you get the idea that the passengers are scientists and tourists? DC is going to service the ISS with NASA and EU, Japanese and Russian astronauts/cosmonauts, all of whom will have undergone extensive training before any flight. NASA has a lot of pilots who become Shuttle pilots and NASA in general knows a lot more about landing a Shuttle-like spacecraft than it does about any other mode of transportation - they just spent the last 4 decades flying something very similar to DC.

One of the main aims of the CCP was to fly passengers with minimal training.

[Borklund]

One of the main aims of the CCP was to fly passengers with minimal training.

Minimal training, not no training. As shynung pointed out the avionics will be redundant and probably very sturdy given NASA's vast experience flying a shuttle type spacecraft. I still don't know what if any evidence you have to suggest that DC is less safe than the alternatives? If anything, DC is safer because it offers low-G reentry and landing.

[sgt_flyer]

Well, if they automate the various orbital & landing systems, that could be enough to make the systems usable by passengers with minimal training (ex : tell the computer where you want to go, and it will make the manoeuvers for you - while retaining the passengers capability to tell the computer to abort the current manoeuver in case of problem - and the computer doesn't detect the problem by itself (which it most certainly could in most of the cases, with a much faster response time than humans)

After all, the soyuz capsule is almost fully automated, and Buran and boeing's X-37 spacecraft already performed fully automated landings - Buran was even able to do a turn around on it's own before landing after detecting the crosswinds.

Automatic systems on spacecraft helps a lot to minimize risks of human error.

(Heck, current airliners have autoland capabilities - with only one accident caused by an autolanding system - because one of the radio altimeters was not giving the correct altitude.)

Edited August 16, 2014 by sgt_flyer

[NFUN]

Heck, current airliners have autoland capabilities - with only one accident caused by an autolanding system - because an of the altimeters was not properly adusted...

Jealous.

On topic, I don't think Congress cares whether or not the decision is made by the brass at NASA or random mid-level servants; Congress can influence the leaders into choosing the capsule they like, or were persuaded to like, and the NASA executives will put some amount of effort into not pissing off the legislators. On the other hand, I don't think Congress is in the position to do anything. We will see how it goes.