Updates NASA Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap)

[Kyle]

To be honest in my own opinion, SNC was the most active busy with the Dream chaser then Boeing was with the CST-100 and SpaceX with using the Dragon V2.

I don't know with what for argument NASA did choice the CST-100 and the Dragon V2 instead of the DC

It was a question of who had the better lobbyists. SNC and SpaceX were the favorites to win before apparently Boeing decided to step it up in Congress. Whoever has the most money will get the most money, apparently.

 

[Alfastar]

It was a question of who had the better lobbyists. SNC and SpaceX were the favorites to win before apparently Boeing decided to step it up in Congress. Whoever has the most money will get the most money, apparently.

Sadly but I think you sum up the total reason why SNC lost and SpaceX and especially Boeing won in one short post.

 

[Unstung]

I'm not sure, what happens if you have to abort during the launch from Japan? From the US it's at least possible to go to Europe. From Japan you go...where?

Dream Chaser will be unmanned.

 

[ISProgram]

To be honest in my own opinion, SNC was the most active busy with the Dream chaser then Boeing was with the CST-100 and SpaceX with using the Dragon V2.

I don't know with what for argument NASA did choice the CST-100 and the Dragon V2 instead of the DC

But don't forget, SpaceX has flown Dragon V1 already, and V2 is essential derived from it.

Frankly, I'm a little annoyed that Boeing won. Just shows you that politics can play the cards in spaceflight.

If though SNC lost, they're not out of the game yet, since they made it clear that they would continue if they lost out on funding. NASA also won't abandon them. I think I can safely say that I'm still looking forward to the reflight of the ETA.

The Dream still lives.

 

[MattBaker]

Dream Chaser will be unmanned.

Then it doesn't seem to serve any purpose you couldn't to better with something else.

 

[Urwumpe]

Frankly, I'm a little annoyed that Boeing won. Just shows you that politics can play the cards in spaceflight.

Well, before you complain: Boeing has also played perfectly by the rules. Their capsule is not even half as sexy as the Dragon V2, but on the other hand, it is a plain boring design to specs.

If the Dragon V2 turns out so exciting that it is dangerous, the CST will be so boring, that it hurts.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

IIRC wasn't ESA also showing an interest in Dreamchaser? Seems I remember reading about a MOU between SNC and ESA, but that'd be buried in a mess of web pages somewhere.

I wouldn't call the dream dead just yet.

 

[Unstung]

Then it doesn't seem to serve any purpose you couldn't to better with something else.

Dream Chaser can reenter and is reusable unlike most, if not all, other supply vehicles and laboratories. So far, there hasn't been official discussion on manned European or Japanese flights.

What are the possibilities with the Ariane V rocket? It’s not human rated. Can you launch people?

“Yes, the Ariane V could lift the Dream Chaser, not in a human capacity but in an unmanned capacity.”

Therefore, if you were to launch on either the H2B or Ariane V, it would definitely be unmanned for cargo purposes?

“Yes.”

Could you eventually launch a manned Dream Chaser on either the H2B or Ariane V? Are you exploring that possibility to launch with people in the future?

“That’s not part of the discussions at this time.”

It's a shame since Dream Chaser is such an inspiring manned launch vehicle. NASA's selection was the most disappointing possible combination to me, without Dream Chaser even being second to either Boeing or SpaceX.

---------- Post added at 07:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 PM ----------

I want to add a question to this post.

I can't help but feel Boeing was chosen, and with a significantly larger contract than SpaceX, only because of its political clout as Kyle said. Is there any solid evidence to this assumption? The CST-100 is the most expensive and conservative of the three, so are there really any advantages to it over both Dragon and Dream Chaser?

 

[Urwumpe]

I can't help but feel Boeing was chosen, and with a significantly larger contract than SpaceX, only because of its political clout as Kyle said. Is there any solid evidence to this assumption? The CST-100 is the most expensive and conservative of the three, so are there really any advantages to it over both Dragon and Dream Chaser?

It has much lower technological risks than both. Also the higher contract is likely a pork barrel, but then, it is not a that obvious one. Unlike the competition, Boeing played absolutely by the rules and did everything that NASA demanded from them. Their design is so boring, that it was easy to answer even the hard questions.

If you go by which of the two has the higher chance to succeed, be available in time and have the necessary reliability, the boring CST-100 would be the clear winner.

SpaceX has always been the underdog there and played the role great by betting enough on the innovation card to have a medium technological risk, while the SNC proposal had been so badly lost in technological debt right now already, that its doubtful that it will fly in time.

EDIT: Also, it is possible that SpaceX boasted too often that they can do it for less than Boeing and thus had to give NASA a much lower calculated offer for a contract, than Boeing.

 

[Unstung]

SpaceX has always been the underdog there and played the role great by betting enough on the innovation card to have a medium technological risk, while the SNC proposal had been so badly lost in technological debt right now already, that its doubtful that it will fly in time.

This helps clarify some things, but I've been struggling to find specifics. What are examples of the technological debt Dream Chaser has? Dragon V2 has a radical new touchdown method for example, while Dream Chaser is based on old ideas and studies. I don't think autonomy is an issue, as Russia was able to fly a Buran in the 1980s and Dream Chaser had it own mostly successful landing test except the front gear. Otherwise not any hardware failures have been in the news. I recall Dream Chaser's hybrid rocket engines have been contested, but there's not much else I know.

As for Boeing and SpaceX, historically capsules have not been reusable so reusability is a technological hurdle for both companies.

EDIT: Also, it is possible that SpaceX boasted too often that they can do it for less than Boeing and thus had to give NASA a much lower calculated offer for a contract, than Boeing.

So cost restrictions were a major factor in the selection of any two winners.

 

[Urwumpe]

So cost restrictions were a major factor in the selection of any two winners.

Likely yes... but how much... you can be sure, politics are involved there and the full lack of transparency is normal for NASA.

 

[Unstung]

Likely yes... but how much... you can be sure, politics are involved there and the full lack of transparency is normal for NASA.

But as you said, Dream Chaser has considerable technological debt that will make it unlikely to fly on time. That's not politics, so what technologies are too underdeveloped? The answer to this question is what I really want to know because Dream Chaser has some very enticing advantages that may not be realized.

 

[Urwumpe]

But as you said, Dream Chaser has considerable technological debt that will make it unlikely to fly on time. That's not politics, so what technologies are too underdeveloped? The answer to this question is what I really want to know because Dream Chaser has some very enticing advantages that may not be realized.

For example, the hybrid engine issues. Also SNC had been way behind testing schedule, which is also a bad sign.

 

[ISProgram]

For example, the hybrid engine issues. Also SNC had been way behind testing schedule, which is also a bad sign.

Um, what issues? You mean the switch to ORIBITEC engines? I don't think that's a problem for the manned Dream Chaser.

Have you changed the Dream Chaser’s propulsion system from a hybrid solid/liquid system to an all liquid system as some have claimed recently, and readers asked in Part 1?

“We have not announced a change in propulsion systems and that was not a quote from us.”

“It was likely meant to refer to our acquisition of Orbitec as we now have an expanded base of propulsion solutions and are exploring their use for future Dream Chaser variants.”

“There is no schedule change related to engines.”

Of course, the quote/issue is still open to interpretation...

 

[Urwumpe]

Um, what issues? You mean the switch to ORIBITEC engines? I don't think that's a problem for the manned Dream Chaser.

The problem had been rather earlier problems with large scale hybrid engines failing to deliver the expected performance.

 

[ISProgram]

The problem had been rather earlier problems with large scale hybrid engines failing to deliver the expected performance.

Well...you're right about that, but it seems the only "large scale" hybrid engine that failed to deliver its expected performance was that of SS2 (at least if I'm correct). I haven't heard of any other examples, and SS1's worked perfectly.

I don't see how a instability problem with SS2 would affect DC, since they have different designs (even if there are a lot of similarities between the two, since SNC makes both).

 

[Donamy]

Also, Boeing can funnel the money, to other projects it is working on with NASA.

 

[RonDVouz]

Well, before you complain: Boeing has also played perfectly by the rules. Their capsule is not even half as sexy as the Dragon V2, but on the other hand, it is a plain boring design to specs.

If the Dragon V2 turns out so exciting that it is dangerous, the CST will be so boring, that it hurts.

I couldn't agree more. I'm slightly annoyed with all the Boeing hate going into this decision. Despite it's exterior sexiness, what I've been dubbing as a "sports car feel", I think the Dragon V2 lacks a sexy interior. And the CST-100's interior looks nicer, who cares what the outside looks like as long as it performs because that exterior paint job is going to get scorched off anyway.

 

[Kyle]

Charles A. Lurio ‏@TheLurioReport 8m
CCtCap rumor1: Was to be SpaceX/SNC at about $5b total until the announcement delay about 2 wks ago. No disrespect Boeing but what happened?

CCtCap rumor2: ULA stunned at Boeing selection-based on proposal, had concluded dead in water. Again:No disrespect Boeing but what happened?

Interesting.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Likely yes... but how much... you can be sure, politics are involved there and the full lack of transparency is normal for NASA.

More accurately put, NASA needs to play the political game for survival, whether they want to or not. What NASA would select on pure technical merit and what they select on the need to keep our congress-critters happy are two separate things, sadly. I'm glad to see that SpaceX, a relatively new entity, has its foot in the door and is making things interesting.

The decision also cuts in a slightly different way - Boeing now (hopefully) feels a little heat from SpaceX to get their price point down. If SpaceX continues to deliver in CRS and demonstrates manned capability plus the bells and whistles of reusability at their current cost rate, Boeing is going to have to up their game, either by dropping costs for their tried-and-true rocket know-how, or by developing something truly innovative. I think NASA likes Boeing but wants to shake it up out of its complacency.

I hope USAF, ESA, and perhaps Japan have enough interest in DreamChaser to keep that project alive. I think if that flew a few full missions and came coasting on in for a few beautiful landings like the shuttle did, I think that would get some attention. A spaceplane does have some advantages. The problems with STS were with the boosters and external tank - the orbiter itself was an engineering wonder. I really see DreamChaser as a STS 2.0, learning from our mistakes.