magnemoe Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Boeing got more because they asked for more. That's genuinely it.This, standard then you do do an tender, downside of putting the bill to high is that you might be dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 Well, we started with capsules. Then we tried to move to winged, reuseable shuttles. It did not work out, so we reverted back to capsules. Not much of a progress there. It's like our ancestors decided to scuttle sailing boats and go back to using only paddle-driven canoes - just because you can always paddle, while wind does not blow all the time. Later the same happened with steam engines: Wind was free, while coal had to be mined and carried along, cutting into cargo capacity. And then internal combustion engines appeared: Coal was cheap and plentiful, while oil had to be drilled in far away lands, distilled and carefully stored. Looks like technological inertia and cosnservatism are worse enemies of progress than lack of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 It's more like going to predominately aeroplanes, then airships, then aeroplanes again. Winged spacecraft are an expensive dead-end, even RLV groups have abandoned them en masse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchz95 Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I don't have much of a problem with capsules for getting to and from LEO. They're small and relatively cheap, and above all they're a proven technology. Reusable SSTOs would be more efficient for the role, but I'm okay to wait until Skylon is up and running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky_walker Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 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 contractsBoeing was the only company in CCiCap to meet all of the milestones in time and within budget.I don't have much of a problem with capsules for getting to and from LEO. They're small and relatively cheap, and above all they're a proven technology. Reusable SSTOs would be more efficient for the role, but I'm okay to wait until Skylon is up and running.If it ever is running. And that's a huge if. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbleck Posted September 16, 2014 Share Posted September 16, 2014 I belive they are using a cost plus contract. If you go over budget you just eat into your profit. The contract is it self the caret and stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenpeach Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Spacex has been chosen, I don't know who is the other winner.Can someone tell me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDarkStar Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Spacex has been chosen, I don't know who is the other winner.Can someone tell me?Boeing. They were almost certain to get chosen, from what I have heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenpeach Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Well, we started with capsules. Then we tried to move to winged, reuseable shuttles. It did not work out, so we reverted back to capsules. Not much of a progress there. It's like our ancestors decided to scuttle sailing boats and go back to using only paddle-driven canoes - just because you can always paddle, while wind does not blow all the time. Later the same happened with steam engines: Wind was free, while coal had to be mined and carried along, cutting into cargo capacity. And then internal combustion engines appeared: Coal was cheap and plentiful, while oil had to be drilled in far away lands, distilled and carefully stored. Looks like technological inertia and cosnservatism are worse enemies of progress than lack of money.Well... what were you looking for exactly? And then define capsule... Because this is how things are going to be done for some time now. There is plenty of progress to be made in capsules.. Conservatism is the reason for the lack of money. But the fact that were sticking to a "capsule" design ( you have to look at the vehicle as a whole. It only becomes a capsule for one purpose. ) has nothing to do with that. The lack of money comes from lack of interest which come from lack of education and tainted roll models. Kids these days want to grow up to be anything but engineers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B787_300 Posted September 17, 2014 Author Share Posted September 17, 2014 The reason (IMHO) that they are sticking with the capsule is because they dont need the Cargo Bay of a Shuttle type design and all this contract is doing is paying for those companies to ferry astronauts and capsules are the simplest way to do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Dream chaser doesn't have (or wouldn't have had...) a payload bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aningaaq Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 The reason (IMHO) that they are sticking with the capsule is because they dont need the Cargo Bay of a Shuttle type design and all this contract is doing is paying for those companies to ferry astronauts and capsules are the simplest way to do itPlus... doesnt the ISS have like two soyuz on it? Maybe the U.S. wants a little more capsule presence on the ISS. I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Dream chaser doesn't have (or wouldn't have had...) a payload bay.More fun as dragon has a small payload bay in the trunk, it has been used for small modules to IIS and secondary satellites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky_walker Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 More fun as dragon has a small payload bay in the trunk, it has been used for small modules to IIS and secondary satellites.Check again. Dream Chaser is able to carry small payload just fine.One of it's advantages over Dragon 2 is that it's able to carry pressurized cargo from the ISS in a low-G environment unlike Dragon which pulls notably higher Gs on reentry.Though as Kryten mentioned - it won't/wouldn't have a dedicated payload bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Well... what were you looking for exactly? And then define capsule... Because this is how things are going to be done for some time now. There is plenty of progress to be made in capsules.. Conservatism is the reason for the lack of money. But the fact that were sticking to a "capsule" design ( you have to look at the vehicle as a whole. It only becomes a capsule for one purpose. ) has nothing to do with that. The lack of money comes from lack of interest which come from lack of education and tainted roll models. Kids these days want to grow up to be anything but engineers.What am i looking for? Think hot-air baloons and planes. Both fly - but there is a world of difference between them. Dragon (especially his second incarnation) is a step in right direction. It is still a capsule, but containing all components necessary to operate in orbit independently. It is also fully reuseable, capable of powered landing in more than just "Pop the chutes and pray" mode. That is a progress, and a substantial one. But Boeing capsule? From what we know it's just modern iteration of Apollo - nothing new and innovational. Guess NASA wanted a safe, fall-back option in case Dragon doesnt work as advertised. But if it does, then NASA just sank a mountain of money into system that will be redundant to much superior design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozen_Heart Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Was hoping it would be Dragon and Dream Chaser that got it. NASA wouldn't dare offend Boeing though.And Dragon is definitely not a step back. Reusable and precision landing like the Dream Chaser. Only downside is more Gs but it is a lot safer as it has an abort system.The CST-100 has absolutely no innovation at all and is very expensive as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky_walker Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Few facts:1) Every single competitor had an escape system. So don't think of it as an advantage for Dragon 2. It's not. Even stupid cheap Soyuz got escape system. Escape system is nothing you should praise as something new/great/unique - it's necessity. 2) Powered landing is more dangerous than landing on a parachutes. Parachutes are not "pop and pray" - powered landing is.3) Saying that CST-100 has no innovation is complete BS.I understand the hype on SpaceX, I know that SpaceX won the lobbying and PR war, but don't get blinded people. It's not /r/spacex here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 (edited) What am i looking for? Think hot-air baloons and planes. Both fly - but there is a world of difference between them. Dragon (especially his second incarnation) is a step in right direction. It is still a capsule, but containing all components necessary to operate in orbit independently.Not sure what that means or how it makes Dragon any different from the CST-100.It is also fully reuseable, capable of powered landing in more than just "Pop the chutes and pray" mode. That is a progress, and a substantial one. But Boeing capsule? From what we know it's just modern iteration of Apollo - nothing new and innovational. In the same way a 787 Dreamliner is just a modern iteration of the 707. It uses the same basic layout, the same old jet engines, the same wings and fuselage... Boring!Or in the same way a new Porsche 911 is just a modern iteration of the old VW Beetle, same 4 wheels, same 2 doors, same steering wheel, same rear-mounted engine... Nothing new or innovative there either!The architecture of a vehicle is the result of evolution: we try various architectures and shapes and we innovate within the layout that works best. We've tried biplanes and seaplanes, we've tried 3-wheeled cars or six-wheeled cars, and we've tried winged spacecraft, and those simply weren't practical designs. In a few decades, we will look back at the Space Shuttle and it will look like the Zeppelins of the 1930's, the Concorde, or the 1961 Chevy Corvair, all things that seemed like a good idea at the time, but turned out being technological dead-ends.But if it does, then NASA just sank a mountain of money into system that will be redundant to much superior design. How is CST an inferior design when you don't know the criteria that NASA used to rank each of the competitors? A superior design is the one that best meets the requirements. Evidently NASA considers that the two selected proposals were superior, otherwise they would have made a different choice.Was hoping it would be Dragon and Dream Chaser that got it. NASA wouldn't dare offend Boeing though.It's not about offending Boeing, it's about picking the most credible competitor. Boeing has met all its milestones. SNC has not. Boeing has a solid and reliable design. SNC has not. There was serious risk associated with SNC's proposal, including the fact that they were about to switch engines, which is a major redesign that pretty much cancels the milestones that they did achieve, and that its abort scenarios were less convincing, making it harder to certify. We also don't know the price of SNC's bid. It might have been on par with Boeing, which makes the choice a no-brainer.The CST-100 has absolutely no innovation at all and is very expensive as well.CST lands on land with airbags, has a pusher escape system, and it can reboost the station if necessary. That's all pretty innovative. And so are most its systems, avionics, propulsion, which are all state of the art or brand new systems.If anything, DreamChaser is less innovative since it's pretty much the old HL20 that was designed by NASA 20 years ago. Edited September 17, 2014 by Nibb31 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Check again. Dream Chaser is able to carry small payload just fine.One of it's advantages over Dragon 2 is that it's able to carry pressurized cargo from the ISS in a low-G environment unlike Dragon which pulls notably higher Gs on reentry.Though as Kryten mentioned - it won't/wouldn't have a dedicated payload bay.All crafts is capable of carrying cargo and replacing passengers with cargo, dragon has an small unpressurized cargo hold in the trunk. I guess dragon v2 will have this too.Unsure if dream chaser has this, my comment was just that capsules also have cargo holds. I wonder if they would keep the seats stoved away somehow to retain the 7 man return capability in an emergency. One option would be to store spare seats at the IIS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky_walker Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 All crafts is capable of carrying cargo and replacing passengers with cargo, dragon has an small unpressurized cargo hold in the trunk. I guess dragon v2 will have this too.Isn't it something like 0.1m3?Or you're talking about the one-way trunk which won't offer any access to the bay through spacecraft itself and has no ability of returning back to earth?Unsure if dream chaser has this, my comment was just that capsules also have cargo holds.As said - all of them offer something, in general: capability of brining down pressurized cargo is by far more useful than the unpressurised one, but as far as I remember - NASA didn't ask for a cargo bay.I wonder if they would keep the seats stoved awayWho? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Isn't it something like 0.1m3?Or you're talking about the one-way trunk which won't offer any access to the bay through spacecraft itself and has no ability of returning back to earth?As said - all of them offer something, in general: capability of brining down pressurized cargo is by far more useful than the unpressurised one, but as far as I remember - NASA didn't ask for a cargo bay.Who?Yes, i'm talking about the one way trunk, and yes returning stuff under pressure is far more useful and all have that capability, dragon has its trunk for its own reasons, its an structure during launch, stability during launch abort, a place to mount solar panels, might also store extra fuel and air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 What am i looking for? Think hot-air baloons and planes. Both fly - but there is a world of difference between them. Dragon (especially his second incarnation) is a step in right direction. It is still a capsule, but containing all components necessary to operate in orbit independently. It is also fully reuseable, capable of powered landing in more than just "Pop the chutes and pray" mode. That is a progress, and a substantial one. But Boeing capsule? From what we know it's just modern iteration of Apollo - nothing new and innovational. Guess NASA wanted a safe, fall-back option in case Dragon doesnt work as advertised. But if it does, then NASA just sank a mountain of money into system that will be redundant to much superior design. Dragon V2 can't operate in orbit independently (no solar panels as standard), and reusable capsule aren't remotely innovative. Soviet Zenit capsules were routinely reused, and they were literally the first capsule design ever built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streetwind Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 The Dragon V2 trunk carries solar panels. The capsule is designed to be able to operate for up to 30 days in orbit, IIRC. Not as long as the CST-100, but it's not like the only mission profile it can fly is a station rendezvous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibb31 Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Also, it's not like reusability provides much of an advantage when there are only 6 flights planned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts