Comments on: CJS report offers more details on proposed NASA spending

By: Michael Kent

Michael Kent — Mon, 12 May 2014 01:35:53 +0000

First of all, interplanetary re-entry speeds are not a requirement of NASA's Commercial Crew Program and will not be among the source selection criteria NASA uses to determine a winner. Using non-requirements to determine a winner will lead to a protest that would easily be upheld and will result in substantial program delay. Second, there are at least two configurations of the CST-100 in-work. Here is the NASA version with recently added solar panels. If it is chosen, it will be the version NASA uses to fly crew and some cargo to the ISS. In addition to NASA's version, here is a commercial version being designed to ferry a ten-man commercial crew to and from a proposed Bigelow space station. Boeing is also partnering with Space Adventures to offer the CST-100 for tourist flights. It's unknown at this time whether Space Adventures would use the commercial version above or a third configuration. Boeing doesn't have a customer for it yet, but seeing as they are the only one in the world who have ever designed and built a manned BLEO spacecraft, they could easily develop a BLEO CST-100 (CST-200?) for a small fraction of the cost of an Orion. NASA won't be the customer, though, since they are committed to spending more money for an Orion. Unless, of course, if CST-100 flies and certain presentations are made.... The point is that Boeing is moving in the commercial manned space arena on multiple fronts. It shouldn't be surprising. In their history they've done more commercial space than anyone else, including SpaceX. In fact, they're probably done more commercial space than everyone else combined.

By: josh

josh — Sun, 11 May 2014 10:42:25 +0000

cst-100 doeesn’t have solar panels according to the latest info i could find. it runs on batteries. but please, show me i’m wrong and provide a link to more recent information if you have one.
cst-100 can’t handle interplanetary reentry speeds which makes it clearly inferior to dragon in that regard. doesn’t really matter if it’s required for commercial crew or not, the fact remains that dragon can be used for beo missions while you’re stuck in leo with cst-100.
and boeing has done impressive stuff in the past but that doesn’t really matter today. it’s like comparing 60s nasa to today’s nasa.

By: Robert G. Oler

Robert G. Oler — Sat, 10 May 2014 00:01:00 +0000

almost none of the Boeing experience in legacy programs is useful. First it is from an era long gone in technology and none of it was done for any particular price point, which is a main selling point of commercial crew.

Boeing is in my view one of the high risk providers. RGO

By: Jim Nobles

Jim Nobles — Fri, 09 May 2014 15:15:12 +0000

NASA is not going to choose Boeing over SpaceX for commercial crew. Not unless something terrible happens anyway. If it comes to a 1.5 award I expect the 1. to go to SpaceX and the .5 to go to Boeing.

SpaceX offers the whole package. Boeing, talented as they are, looks like they will have an adequate capsule but they have a launcher problem. Those Russian engines could evaporate at any time given Vladamir’s tantrums. Or given politicians tantrums in Congress.

It is possible that Boeing’s superior lobbying power could help them but I don’t think they can beat out SpaceX on the merits of their system. They need to fly one of their vehicles and let us all have a look at it.

By: Michael Kent

Michael Kent — Fri, 09 May 2014 06:55:27 +0000

First off, the CST-100 has solar panels. Second, Commercial Crew is designed to service the ISS and LEO, neither of which require interplanetary re-entry speeds.
But the main point is that Boeing has done manned spacecraft before many, many times.
They built Mercury, Gemini, the Apollo CSM, and the X-15. They were the prime contractor on Skylab. They designed & built the Space Shuttle orbiter. They are the prime contractor for the International Space Station, having developed both the truss backbone and the American pressurized modules.
In fact, every single vehicle NASA has ever used to launch a crew into space was designed and built by Boeing.
SpaceX’s unmanned Dragon is a good start, but their experience absolutely pales in comparison to Boeing’s.
And thus far, Boeing’s capsule development is both cheaper and faster than SpaceX’s. If you’re going to use the unmanned Dragon capsule as a basis to compare the two contractor’s, then you also have to include Dragon’s $400 million development cost and its 2006 start date.
Personally, I hope Boeing and SpaceX get a full-size CCtCap award. Boeing is the low-risk provider, and in the end, SpaceX will be the low-cost provider. But if there must be only one, NASA should go with the low-risk provider. Commercial Crew is too important to do otherwise.

By: josh

josh — Fri, 09 May 2014 06:01:18 +0000

Dragon has been to space several times, all that’s left is the las. Meanwhile Boeing got the most funding to develop a capsule that unlike Dagon can’t handle interplanetary reentry speeds, runs on battery power (lol) and uses a ridiculously overpriced launcher. It’s still sitting on the ground.
You have no argument.

By: Michael Kent

Michael Kent — Fri, 09 May 2014 05:32:14 +0000

“Inferior”? As in, “most likely to actually work, on time and on budget”?
That’s a strange definition of the term, but alright, I’ll go along with that.

By: Michael Kent

Michael Kent — Fri, 09 May 2014 05:29:14 +0000

No. This, with the recent push to make safety the top criterion for Commercial Crew, strongly suggests that key House members expect Boeing to be the chosen contractor. I don’t know that NASA will play along, but that’s what the House expects.
If you think back a few years, there wouldn’t even be a Commercial Crew program without Boeing.

By: Hiram

Hiram — Thu, 08 May 2014 14:44:29 +0000

“That is Boeing out, since the CST-100 was the outsider and they have just lost their engine supplier.”

Atlas was simply the “initial launch supplier” for CST-100. It is well understood that multiple launchers, including Falcon 9, are suitable. In fact, I believe a special adapter will be needed for an Atlas. AvWeek reported last year that Boeing was talking to SpaceX, and concluded that if the price point was right, Falcon would be the best choice.

By: josh

josh — Thu, 08 May 2014 14:18:51 +0000

hasn’t the senate been a bit more sane on this in recent years? i mean not sane sane, after all they’re wasting 3 billion on a make work project every year but a little less crazy than the house?