What is the reality though?

I see a press release about the commercial manned vehicles getting closer to
flight tests, but realistically, will there be actual customers for three
different systems when it comes down to the line?
I'm still not sure what Boeing is doing. Being the biggest and presumably
best connected of the three, one has a sneaking suspicion they might get the
contract for Nasa. Dragon is well advanced as well, and seems to be fairly
popular on the ground, so to speak, butthe Dream Chaser,w which is a winged
vehicle, seems to have lurched from mishap to mishap as one might expect for
an innovative idea developed from scratch. Where does this fit in exactly
and who is footing the no doubt large bill?

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active

In article ,
says...

I see a press release about the commercial manned vehicles getting closer to
flight tests, but realistically, will there be actual customers for three
different systems when it comes down to the line?

Three? No, that's doubtful. I'd expect a down-select at some point to
eliminate at least one of the three front runners. The point is that
competition is useful. It's one of the main reasons that capitalism
tends to drive costs down for commodity items. Socialism on the other
hand (e.g. sole source contracts like SLS/Orion), has no competition so
there is little to no incentive to reduce costs.

I'm still not sure what Boeing is doing. Being the biggest and presumably
best connected of the three, one has a sneaking suspicion they might get the
contract for Nasa.

Possibly, but they have to innovate in order to reduce costs with the
competition nipping at their heels.

Dragon is well advanced as well, and seems to be fairly
popular on the ground, so to speak,

IMHO, Dragon is popular because the manned version will be an evolution
of their already flying COTS vehicle which has already flown missions to
ISS. Flying hardware shows more (visible) progress than PowerPoints and
mock-ups.

butthe Dream Chaser,w which is a winged
vehicle, seems to have lurched from mishap to mishap as one might expect for
an innovative idea developed from scratch. Where does this fit in exactly
and who is footing the no doubt large bill?

Innovative? Not on the surface. It's outer mold-lines are borrowed
from past NASA efforts. So to some, it would provide the appearance
that NASA was on the right track all along with its fascination with
gliders landing on runways. One could call it a "mini-space shuttle"
that gives the appearance of being "more advanced" that its capsule
brethren. But appearances can be deceptive. The real test is how
quickly, and cheaply, can Dream Chaser be made to work.

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

My thoughts exactly, though I think the main new parts of the Dream Chaser
will be the software that its flown through. Its really only relatively
recently that this sort of thing has actually been safe to use, well
almost.
I can recall that Fighter jet that was always crashing due to overload in
its hardware.
Probably use a mobile phone to drive it these days!

I think there are times when you really want a more dignified and normal
landing of course, but since everyone is suffering the rather rough ride of
Soyuz right now, maybe anything is going to be better.


Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

I see a press release about the commercial manned vehicles getting closer
to
flight tests, but realistically, will there be actual customers for three
different systems when it comes down to the line?

Three? No, that's doubtful. I'd expect a down-select at some point to
eliminate at least one of the three front runners. The point is that
competition is useful. It's one of the main reasons that capitalism
tends to drive costs down for commodity items. Socialism on the other
hand (e.g. sole source contracts like SLS/Orion), has no competition so
there is little to no incentive to reduce costs.

I'm still not sure what Boeing is doing. Being the biggest and
presumably
best connected of the three, one has a sneaking suspicion they might get
the
contract for Nasa.

Possibly, but they have to innovate in order to reduce costs with the
competition nipping at their heels.

Dragon is well advanced as well, and seems to be fairly
popular on the ground, so to speak,

IMHO, Dragon is popular because the manned version will be an evolution
of their already flying COTS vehicle which has already flown missions to
ISS. Flying hardware shows more (visible) progress than PowerPoints and
mock-ups.

butthe Dream Chaser,w which is a winged
vehicle, seems to have lurched from mishap to mishap as one might expect
for
an innovative idea developed from scratch. Where does this fit in exactly
and who is footing the no doubt large bill?

Innovative? Not on the surface. It's outer mold-lines are borrowed
from past NASA efforts. So to some, it would provide the appearance
that NASA was on the right track all along with its fascination with
gliders landing on runways. One could call it a "mini-space shuttle"
that gives the appearance of being "more advanced" that its capsule
brethren. But appearances can be deceptive. The real test is how
quickly, and cheaply, can Dream Chaser be made to work.

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