CCiCap was announced, SpaceX and Boeing were selected

[Nibb31]

At least we now know how much NASA is going to pay for a Dragon V2 launch: $2.6 billion for 6 flights, that's $400 million, or $100 million per seat. So much for "cheap access to space".

Also, with 6 flights for each contractor between 2017 and 2024, it's easy to understand why reusability wasn't a requirement.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Nibb31

[Sky_walker]

I think it makes sense that they don't want to go with a Shuttle design.

As I said earlier on - many have tried to build a space shuttle and most of them failed. I know it's understandable that they skipped it, but still a shame. SNC was on a good path.

I wouldn't say the Dragon V2 is that much of a conservative approach.

Why not? In essence it's a modern-day Soyuz Descent Module.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Sky_walker

[TythosEternal]

Running commentary here...

* Wow, this is a lot of political vomit coming out...

* They're really bending over backwards to give the current administration for initiatives that started in 2006 and 2007, which isn't too surprising

* I love how they completely ignored the "why is Boeing getting twice as much money for the same requirements?" question

* Still no comments on the Atlas V dependency, Blue Origin rumors not withstanding

* Over! That was quick.

[Karriz]

At least we now know how much NASA is going to pay for a Dragon V2 launch: $2.6 billion for 6 flights, that's $400 million, or $100 million per seat. So much for "cheap access to space".

Also, with 6 flights for each contractor between 2017 and 2024, it's easy to understand why reusability wasn't a requirement.

The cost also includes the certification process though. I would imagine that that's what makes most of the cost, and later on NASA will only be paying for the launches.

[Kryten]

Running commentary here...* I love how they completely ignored the "why is Boeing getting twice as much money for the same requirements?" question

[Streetwind]

Apparently you people didn't pay attention to the stream past the initial announcement.

The things that those sums were awarded for were specifically spelled out, and they were a lot more than just "six launches". They included, in addition to those launches: 1.) a manned demonstration flight, so a seventh launch; 2.) the entire certification process, with every single required certification listed (I lost count, but think it was six of them); 3.) the remainder of self-chosen development milestones by the two companies, which were described as more or less "the same"; and 4.) an additional amount reserved for "special projects" (I forget the exact words used).

Basically, making statements about launch costs from the purse awarded makes you look about as informed and attentive as tabloid media. Come on now KSP community, you can do better than that.

[wasmic]

Dayum, I had kinda hoped that it would be Boeing and SNC. Mostly because that would ensure more diversity; SpaceX would be sure to get the Dragon V2 flying even without the help of NASA. SNC? I'm not so sure.

[Robotengineer]

Wow, that wasn't very scientific or straight forward, how many times did he say the 'beautiful ISS'? Almost sounds like the ISS is becoming the USASS.

[DigitalProeliator]

Running commentary here...

* Wow, this is a lot of political vomit coming out...

* They're really bending over backwards to give the current administration for initiatives that started in 2006 and 2007, which isn't too surprising

* I love how they completely ignored the "why is Boeing getting twice as much money for the same requirements?" question.

Noticed that too huh?... Yea it was damn annoying.

[TythosEternal]

I'm on the news teleconference right now (www.NASA.gov/newsaudio), we'll see what else we learn...

[Mazon Del]

Hoenstly, I'd been thinking that SpaceX was going to be the one cut simply because it would have reached completion anyway. But I am happy it got funding. More SpaceX, more better.

Anyway, poor grammar aside, it is possible that NASA went with SpaceX because at their core NASA has always been about manned exploration and colonization of space. Everything they do is geared towards supporting those goals. Even the rovers exist to help out such goals. They know what Musk wants to do (IE colonize Mars with 30K+ people) and they know what the other two want to do (be a space taxi and get money. End of list.). It is possible that crept up just a bit.

[Scotius]

So, as i expected conservative approach won. Two capsule projects in competition...with Orion on the horizon - since Apollo space exploration looks like "Two steps forward, one step back."

[gbleck]

Remember that its Dragon V2 on a Falcon9 or Dream Chaser or CS100 both on a Atlas 5. They couldn't really go with SNC and Boeing without creating a single point of failure. The Atlas 5 comes down to a reliance on Russian engines or possibly Blue Origin getting a new main engine for the Atlas 5 flight certified by 2017.

[Nibb31]

So, as i expected conservative approach won. Two capsule projects in competition...with Orion on the horizon - since Apollo space exploration looks like "Two steps forward, one step back."

What is the step back here?

[Sky_walker]

I'm on the news teleconference right now (www.NASA.gov/newsaudio), we'll see what else we learn...

That question from one of the journalists:

"Is it that Boeing is so much more expensive, or SpaceX is so much cheaper?"

[CaptRobau]

Hoenstly, I'd been thinking that SpaceX was going to be the one cut simply because it would have reached completion anyway. But I am happy it got funding. More SpaceX, more better.

With the extra funding SpaceX can reach man-rated much faster meaning less reliance on Russian vehicles, which is probably the reason for betting on the two sure deals.

[montyben101]

So, as i expected conservative approach won. Two capsule projects in competition...with Orion on the horizon - since Apollo space exploration looks like "Two steps forward, one step back."

I kind of see what you mean in moving back to capsules, they are reliable but I don't see much progression (apart from the SLS, even then the amount of launches planned for it are depressing)

[gbleck]

One conservative and one NOT AT ALL CONSERVATIVE won. The Boeing is a strait up Apollo like vehicle. The Dragon 2 will land at an exact landing sight under power. The only advantage a wing design like dream chaser has is slightly less G load for injured personnel and more cross range EDL. Dream chaser loses on mass and thermal protection. It's also an old design.

Bolden alluded to the fact that the NASA flights are only part of the flights these will do to space. Space X has Bigalo on the launch manifest for this 2015 and Boeing has an agreement to take tourists to Bigalo's space stations. There will be more launches to LEO then just NASA.

Edited September 16, 2014 by gbleck

[Nibb31]

I kind of see what you mean in moving back to capsules, they are reliable but I don't see much progression (apart from the SLS, even then the amount of launches planned for it are depressing)

I don't get this "moving back" thing. Capsules are pretty much the best form factor for a spacecraft, just like "four wheels-front engine" is the common architecture for cars for over a century, or "fuselage and wings on the side and tail at the back" is the best layout we've found for aircraft. We have tried other arrangements, but in the end, we pick what works.

By that logic, a Porsche Cayenne is a step back from a Robin Reliant, because it uses the same layout as a Ford Model T.

Winged spacecraft look cool but they have all sorts of problems. Capsules just work well. They are not a step back.

[TythosEternal]

That question from one of the journalists:

"Is it that Boeing is so much more expensive, or SpaceX is so much cheaper?"

It's still ongoing, but you can tell the reporters smell something fishy. They also don't like the lack of a description of the "special studies."

[Sky_walker]

It's still ongoing, but you can tell the reporters smell something fishy. They also don't like the lack of a description of the "special studies."

Reporters want a catchy headline for tomorrow news. That's more than clear.

[TythosEternal]

If you are interested, a much more detailed and interesting teleconference took place afterwards. You can hear a replay by dialing 866 385 0194, and entering the pass code 2739 ("crew"). This included a more extensive Q&A session, although there was still some tap-dancing on the part of the program manager.

[gbleck]

My guess for cost is price per launch of a atlas vs a falcon.

[magnemoe]

I don't get this "moving back" thing. Capsules are pretty much the best form factor for a spacecraft, just like "four wheels-front engine" is the common architecture for cars for over a century, or "fuselage and wings on the side and tail at the back" is the best layout we've found for aircraft. We have tried other arrangements, but in the end, we pick what works.

By that logic, a Porsche Cayenne is a step back from a Robin Reliant, because it uses the same layout as a Ford Model T.

Winged spacecraft look cool but they have all sorts of problems. Capsules just work well. They are not a step back.

Yes, low weight, abort posible over almost all of the mission, can land everywhere with the exception of very rugged mountains.

Pretty easy to integrate on other rockets, the man rating is the main issue.

And yes the reason for going for two different rockets is that you can have one grounded and still fly,

[DigitalProeliator]

What Im suspecting is that Boing had the political pressure (dont tell me you didnt see the politics in the briefing)but they have a habit of going over budget and deadline on government contracts, so they are also going with Space X as a stick to beat them with if they dont stick to the guidelines. "Oh your late/over budget? Well Space X is doing it on LESS money maybe we should just go with THEM!..."

Edited September 16, 2014 by DigitalProeliator
clarification