CNN headline is "Boeing, SpaceX to build NASA's next taxi"

Boeing got $4.2 billion to do the same job SpaceX is doing for less than $3 billion.

In article ,
William Mook wrote:

Boeing got $4.2 billion to do the same job SpaceX is doing for less than $3
billion.

I would rate Boeing a better chance of success.

In article orfairbairn-74C76F.23135916092014@70-3-168-
216.pools.spcsdns.net, says...

In article ,
William Mook wrote:

Boeing got $4.2 billion to do the same job SpaceX is doing for less than $3
billion.

I would rate Boeing a better chance of success.

Why? Because it's going to cost them more money? Because they're
somehow ahead of SpaceX despite Dragon V 1.0 flying to ISS on actual
missions and CST-100 not having flown a single test flight to space, let
alone orbit?

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On 9/16/2014 11:13 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
I would rate Boeing a better chance of success.

I wouldn't be so sure. It's not hard to find examples of breathtaking
Boeing cost overruns and delays on government projects. But those are
mostly cost-plus arrangements. This one is different because it has
both a fixed cost and direct competition. To succeed, Boeing will be
forced to change their culture to be more like Space-X.

I admit; If it were my ass to be strapped atop a rocket today, I would
rather it be the far more mature Atlas 5 (Russian engines and all) than
the Falcon 9.

In article ,
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article orfairbairn-74C76F.23135916092014@70-3-168-
216.pools.spcsdns.net, says...

In article ,
William Mook wrote:

Boeing got $4.2 billion to do the same job SpaceX is doing for less than
$3
billion.

I would rate Boeing a better chance of success.

Why? Because it's going to cost them more money? Because they're
somehow ahead of SpaceX despite Dragon V 1.0 flying to ISS on actual
missions and CST-100 not having flown a single test flight to space, let
alone orbit?

Jeff

Because they have more experience in building launch vehicles -- from
the Douglas history of Thors, delts to the Boeing history on the Saturn
V.

In article orfairbairn-27EF57.13235917092014@70-3-168-
216.pools.spcsdns.net, says...

In article ,
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article orfairbairn-74C76F.23135916092014@70-3-168-
216.pools.spcsdns.net, says...

I would rate Boeing a better chance of success.

Why? Because it's going to cost them more money? Because they're
somehow ahead of SpaceX despite Dragon V 1.0 flying to ISS on actual
missions and CST-100 not having flown a single test flight to space, let
alone orbit?

Because they have more experience in building launch vehicles -- from
the Douglas history of Thors, delts to the Boeing history on the Saturn
V.

Launch vehicles aren't manned spacecraft. How much manned spacecraft
experience does Boeing have that is fairly current? How many engineers
on those programs have retired or moved on to pursue other interests at
other companies?

While it's true SpaceX doesn't have the history of Boeing, I'm not sure
it matters much. Engineers are the ones with the knowledge, and SpaceX
has hired some very competent people, as evidenced by their very current
track record with Falcon 9 and Dragon (version 1).

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

On 9/16/2014 11:13 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
I would rate Boeing a better chance of success.

I wouldn't be so sure. It's not hard to find examples of breathtaking
Boeing cost overruns and delays on government projects. But those are
mostly cost-plus arrangements. This one is different because it has
both a fixed cost and direct competition. To succeed, Boeing will be
forced to change their culture to be more like Space-X.

I admit; If it were my ass to be strapped atop a rocket today, I would
rather it be the far more mature Atlas 5 (Russian engines and all) than
the Falcon 9.

The track record of Falcon 9 to date has been impressive, to me. One
engine failure on one first stage on one flight which did not impact the
primary payload/mission. Other than that, their record for Falcon 9 is
just about flawless in terms of mission success.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news

In article ,
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article orfairbairn-74C76F.23135916092014@70-3-168-
216.pools.spcsdns.net, says...

In article ,
William Mook wrote:

Boeing got $4.2 billion to do the same job SpaceX is doing for less
than
$3
billion.

I would rate Boeing a better chance of success.

Why? Because it's going to cost them more money? Because they're
somehow ahead of SpaceX despite Dragon V 1.0 flying to ISS on actual
missions and CST-100 not having flown a single test flight to space, let
alone orbit?

Jeff

Because they have more experience in building launch vehicles -- from
the Douglas history of Thors, delts to the Boeing history on the Saturn
V.


And so...?

They're not building a launch vehicle here, they're building the crew
vehicle.

That's the new and more important part and so far Boeing has flown 0 to
orbit.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...

Note that Atlas isn't Boeing; it's LockMart. Boeing does Delta.

I would not ride either of those in their 'base' configurations (solid
boosters). The 'heavies' replace the solid with a pair of liquids.

There are no reliability numbers for Falcon 9 because they can't do
the numbers until you have a major launch failure.

Given that record, I'll ride the Falcon 9...

Everyone here should know that I'm not a fan of solids either. It's not
the reliability that makes me uneasy, it's the extremely violent failure
modes we've seen in the past that typically have no warning signs until
the "boom". I'd rather be on top of a Falcon 9 that loses a first stage
engine on the way to orbit than on top of an Atlas V or a Delta IV that
loses a solid during first stage burn. :-(

It will be interesting to see which launcher(s) CST-100 uses for its
rides to orbit. I wouldn't be surprised to see a non-man-rated EELV
with solids used for unmanned tests. But, for a manned test, NASA will
demand man-rating. For manned missions, Delta IV Heavy is a possible
option, but it is a rather expensive one. Atlas V Heavy has never flown
and Falcon 9 would be admitting that EELVs really aren't up to the task
of safety combined with the low cost demanded by "commercial crew".
But, Boeing has a couple extra billion dollars to blow, I mean spend, on
CST-100 (compared to Dragon V2), so we'll see.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

last I heard orion would launch on its designated format SLS.

each launch will cost about one billion.....

a billion here a billion there it all adds up

besides orion is not necessary for deep space flights! no one can live for weeks or months in a orion capsule.

far better to do deep space in a inflatable, the capsule should only be used for return from orbit.....