Jump to content

4PM EST - NASA Announces the New Contractor ...

RW-1

By RW-1
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

RW-1

RW-1

Posted
Posted

4PM EST today, NASA will hold the announcement of the contractor for the Commercial Crew Program (LEO/Station Delivery Vehicle).

We have front runners Boeing, SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada Corp.

Wall St Journal is already saying Boeing will get it.

My Thoughts, spaceX already has a contract for LC-39, and the Dragon has flown, just has to be man rated.

Boeing - to me, I would hate this, I think while that would be the political choice, it would be "Business as usual" (Large Gov't contractor already), no cost cutting and lots of Pork for the personel involved (sorry).

SpaceX and even SNC would be a welcome choice IMHO, new blood and ways of doing things.

Let discussion commence ... We'll hear from Bolden at 4PM ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AngusJimiKeith

AngusJimiKeith

Posted
Posted
For gods sake... Why the fu*k do NASA need two capsules.... I just hope the dream chaser crew don't go bust, or give up

Because Boeing has powerful lobbyists. Around three weeks ago the decision was delayed, and at that time, it was understood that SpaceX and SNC were well ahead of Boeing. It doesn't take much imagination to find out how Boeing "passed" SNC in that time.

Dream Chaser is probably done, I'm sad to say. It's pretty doubtful that SNC has the money to continue without NASA support, even with the German and Japanese interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kryten

Kryten

Posted
Posted
Because Boeing has powerful lobbyists. Around three weeks ago the decision was delayed, and at that time, it was understood that SpaceX and SNC were well ahead of Boeing.

Boeing have completed their milestones, SNC and SpaceX haven't. They've been ahead in terms of milestones for weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nibb31

Nibb31

Posted
Posted
More diversity, to be honest I do see your point, what ever combination they choose it will always be like that. They could have chosen just one. (though two might be safer if one dosent go to plan)

Dragon V2 and CST-100 are pretty diverse already. One lands on rockets, the other lands on airbags. One flies on Atlas V, the other flies on a Falcon 9. One is reusable, the other isn't.

I don't see why SNC's proposal would have been more "diverse". I don't even think that "diversity" was among NASA's goals.

They had selection criteria, and those two proposals were the ones that best met those criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Woopert

Woopert

Posted
Posted

Why does the government have such an affection for Boeing... I mean, the Air Force choosing to stay with the Atlas V for satellite launches instead of the cheaper and 100% American (I think..) SpaceX, and now they chose CST-100 as one of the two candidates?

Dream Chaser had a lot going for it, the lower G's on re-entry and greater crossrange over the CST-100.. Not to say the CST-100 is bad (and I congratulate the Boeing engineers for designing such a complex machine), it's just a change of pace contractor-wise is nice. All in all, I think choosing the Dragon V2 would be the best decision overall for SpaceX's low cost and so far, outstanding reliability (though that's yet to be seen for their manned spaceflight aspect).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kryten

Kryten

Posted
Posted
Why does the government have such an affection for Boeing... I mean, the Air Force choosing to stay with the Atlas V for satellite launches instead of the cheaper and 100% American (I think..) SpaceX, and now they chose CST-100 as one of the two candidates?

Atlas V is made by Lockheed Martin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Woopert

Woopert

Posted
Posted
Atlas V is made by Lockheed Martin.

Atlas V is by Lockheed Martin and Boeing which make up the United Launch Alliance. :)

Also, I just found this from the LA Times.

SpaceX, which will use the Dragon V2 capsule it unveiled in May, is getting a contract worth $2.6 billion, and Boeing, which will use the CST-100 capsule it is developing, is getting a contract worth $4.2 billion, NASA said.

So yeah, Boeing is receiving around 1.6 times more money than SpaceX for the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nibb31

Nibb31

Posted
Posted

People keep on using "but ... crossrange!!!" and "but ... lower Gs!!!" as if they were huge advantages of DreamChaser compared to other vehicles. Well, it turns out that NASA is not interested in crossrange or lower Gs. Those things were not part of their requirements. And on the other hand, DreamChaser has some serious shortcomings that were much more troubling:

DCs hybrid engines were the same that are causing the delays on Virgin's SpaceShipTwo. They are running into severe development roadblocks and changing the engines at this stage in the design process is a major redesign, which would put the program at risk and require new certification and new milestones.

And of course, there is the problem of aborts at low speeds. A lifting body requires high speeds to "glide", and when it does glide, it doesn't fly like a plane. Its controllability and survivability during all stages of an abort pose a lot of questions that haven't been convincingly answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...