The alternate headline for this story could be “Boeing Has No Intention Of Funding It On Its Own.” If they’re not selected, it’s over.
73 thoughts on “Boeing’s Commercial Crew Program”
Comments are closed.
The alternate headline for this story could be “Boeing Has No Intention Of Funding It On Its Own.” If they’re not selected, it’s over.
Comments are closed.
I wonder if some Internet billionaire would take the nearly-completed project off Boeings hands, getting a leg-up on rival Internet billionaires in the race to fly a manned capsule?
What? I thought they had a deal with Bigelow. Something happened that I’m not aware of? Bigelow was at the SpaceX Dragon 2.0 unveil after all.
I’m sure their deal with Bigelow is/was contingent on getting a NASA contract.
Would halting CST have an effect on Orion as well?
Orion is being built by a different company (LockMart) for a different program (SLS) so, superficially, the answer has to be, “No.” Of course if Boeing is bounced from Commercial Crew it would be an indication that the business-as-usual ice of legacy aerospace and parochial Congressional finagling of NASA is breaking up. That would not bode well for Orion as a long-term proposition. But then, Orion has a lot of intrinsic problems with respect to long-term viability and a lot of them are engineering-related before even getting into the question of the corrupt politics that have sustained it to this point.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your question, but that multi-billion dollar boondoggle known as Orion is being built by Lockheed, not Boeing. I doubt halting CST would have any effect on Orion. Halting the SLS would, though.
No, there’s no relationship.
As news, this falls decidedly in the category of “dog bites man” stories. It’s been obvious since inception that Boeing’s interest in Commercial Crew was pretty much limited to the availability of government money.
I suspect no one will step forward to make Boeing the offer George suggests. Even should someone “kick the tires” I suspect enthusiasm would dampen quickly when the actual status of things was revealed. I’m not at all certain that “nearly-completed” is a fair description of CST-100’s current state. Boeing seems to have done the minimum necessary to keep the milestone money coming, but no more.
And then there’s the recently-minted problem any potential acquirer-and-finisher would have to face – what would they launch the thing on? CST-100 is currently engineered for Atlas V boost. Delta IV would be more expensive, involve significant delay while a lot of detail engineering was rejiggered, not “man-rated” and, as the reality of Atlas V’s imminent demise is accepted in national security circles, unavailable, as all production will likely soon be reserved for milsat launches. Falcon 9 is a possibility, but rejiggering CST-100 to interface to F9 would be both a schedule and cost setback even if probably not quite so severe as for doing a repotting to Delta IV. Then there’s the problem of attempting competition with your major competitor’s booster, bought at retail, when your competitor only has to cover his own costs of production. Scratch-building one’s own booster and upper stage is certainly possible, but would also set back any initial operation schedule by years. No attractive options here.
Rand is right. If Boeing isn’t selected to go forward in Commercial Crew, CST-100 is toast.
Boeing was claiming a few years ago that the CST was designed to work with the Delta IV, Atlas V and Falcon 9. They selected the Atlas V as their vehicle of choice for the test flights but unless something has changed, it would be compatable with the other rockets as well.
@ Larry J
They can only use Delta IV for unmanned test flights at most, because Delta IV isn’t human rated, and making it so would be a slow and very costly process (as well as causing some major performance hits).
So that leaves Atlas 5 and Falcon 9 as their only options for manned flight. With Atlas 5, there’s the well-known huge roadblock of the Russian engine availability – no engines means no flying. With F9, there’s also a major issue; ULA. ULA is owned equally by Boeing and Lockmart, and I think it’s safe to say that there’s no love lost between ULA and SpaceX. So, I think there’s a very significant chance that, if Boeing, after acing SpaceX and SNC out of the CCP with political maneuvering (That’s the only way they’ll win it against SpaceX baring some technical issue popping up), the LV issue alone would keep them out in a sane world) asked SpaceX to sell them some F9 launches for CST-100, I’m betting the response could well be “shove it!”. Either that, of they’ll ask for a billion per launch.
So, as I see it, the LV issue is a very real one for Boeing; they have two options other than Atlas, and one isn’t human rated, and the other has a good chance of not being available to them.
I also suspect that their warn notices are politically driven; they’re shoring up their congressional support with this. I hope I’m wrong, but I still expect a downselect to one CCP, and it’ll be Boeing.
I don’t see why SpaceX would pass up perfectly good money to launch CST-100 on Falcon 9; the PR value alone would probably justify a discount from retail rather than a punitive surcharge. If anybody nixes this alternative, it would be Boeing. And, of course, if they fail to make the cut for Commercial Crew, they’ll shut the whole thing down anyway.
But CST-100, even launched on Falcon 9’s would have a competitiveness problem. It is not, so far as I know, reusable, though it might be rebuildable. As with CRS, NASA will probably insist on a new spacecraft and launcher for each ISS crew transport mission so CST-100 might be competitive in this niche. But for launches to Bigelow habs, reused Dragon V2’s and F9’s will probably come to dominate traffic, especially with NASA footing the bill for a lot of low-mileage, only-driven-Sundays-by-little-old-ladies hardware.
Boeing has always claimed that they designed CST to fly on both Atlas and Falcon.
I actually hope that’s true. But I’m dubious Boeing has spent much, to this point, even on design of the necessary interface for F9, never mind bending any metal.
Actually, it may not be able to. The CST-100 is a big, fat spacecraft, weighing well more than twice as much as the Dragon cargo. It’s possible that the manned variant will be so heavy that it won’t actually be able to ride on the Falcon 9 due to payload alone (the Atlas V has the option of SRBs which increase payload). More so when you consider that boosting into the high inclination ISS orbit comes at a significant performance hit as well.
I actually hope that’s true. But I’m dubious Boeing has spent much, to this point, even on design of the necessary interface for F9, never mind bending any metal.
A Boeing advertising paper that I got from them in 2011 claims the CST-100 was designed to be compatible with both EELVs and the Falcon 9. Since they made the decision to go with the Atlas V early on, it’s unlikely they did any additional work on developing a Delta IV or Falcon 9 interface. However, I doubt they did anything to preclude the possibility. Given the limited number of RD-180 engines available and the uncertainty of obtaining any more, if the CST-100 goes forward, it’ll almost certainly have to be on one or both of the other rockets. Any effort to develop a replacement engine for the RD-180 will likely take five years or more. Unless it were a copy of the RD-180, ULA would have to essentially create the Atlas VI around it. Rocket engines aren’t exactly plug-n-play. Since the push is for cost-plus development in the future (same old, same old), Boeing would just push the costs on to the taxpayers.
You may be right, but I lack the ability to do the necessary calculations to be sure. According to Wikipedia, the CST-100 weighs in at 20,000 lbs. and the Falcon 9 can put 29,000 lbs. into LEO. It takes an Atlas 5 with two strap-on solids to match Falcon 9’s LEO lift capacity. How much gets subtracted from that for an ISS run because of the inclination I don’t know. As I noted elsewhere, an adapter structure of some kind is needed to fit a CST-100 to a Falcon 9 and that would weigh something too. In any event, if F9 can’t lift CST-100 to ISS, then it would take an Atlas V with at least two solid strap-ons to do the job. Given that only 15 more Atlas V’s are ever likely to fly, that makes for a problem. It doesn’t look straightforwardly solvable by substituting a Delta IV configuration for Atlas V or Falcon 9 either. Even a Delta IV Medium+ (5,4), with four solid strap-ons – the most capable Delta IV except for the Heavy – can only lift about a metric ton more to LEO than can a Falcon 9.
It doesn’t look straightforwardly solvable by substituting a Delta IV configuration for Atlas V or Falcon 9 either. Even a Delta IV Medium+ (5,4), with four solid strap-ons – the most capable Delta IV except for the Heavy – can only lift about a metric ton more to LEO than can a Falcon 9.
According to my handy-dandy ULA rocket performance card, a Delta IV with 4 strap-ons can put 13,360 kg (29,440 pounds) into a 28 degree LEO orbit and 11,300 kg (24,920 pounds) into a 90 degree LEO orbit. My guestimate for ISS orbit would be around 27,000 pounds. According to SpaceX, a Falcon 9 can lift 13,150 kg (28,991 pounds) to LEO with inclination unspecified. Either one should be able to lift the CST-100 with adapter. A Delta IV with two strap-ons might be able to do the job depending on adapter mass.
Thanks for the info Larry J. Good to know there seem to be options for CST-100 even if Boeing never exercises them. The Russians do not seem to have sated their appetite for pieces of Ukraine. The Atlas V is looking increasingly like that old Saturday Night Live routine about Generalissimo Franco – it’s still dead.
It wouldn’t actually be crazily expensive to “man rate” the Delta IV. The problem is that it’s just too expensive. It only flies now because there are payloads that can’t be flown on the Atlas and because the massive amount of cash the DoD throws at ULA works out to nearly half a billion per core so they can get away with doing whatever they want.
Right. If it was not for Delta IV Heavy it would probably have died by now. However I think the complexity of man rating Delta IV is probably exaggerated. IIRC the main cost issue was NASA wanted the engines to use regenerative cooling rather than an ablative nozzle. SpaceX did that much in Merlin-1B -> 1C and I never heard about it having high design costs. They even switched nozzle designs again in 1C -> 1D to channel wall nozzle.
I mean do you really think launching astronauts has more difficult launch condition requirements (noise, vibration, acceleration, etc) than a national security payload like the mirrored spysats the NRO puts up there? I kind of doubt it.
As there’s no such thing yet as a NIST-standard interface for launch vehicles and orbital crew transports, CST-100 can’t be used, truly interchangeably, on multiple launchers. As things stand, CST-100 is a bit like the old joke among motorcyclists about so-called “universal” accessories – they fit nothing.
Just the diversity of diameters involved is instructive. CST-100 has a base diameter of 15 feet. The Atlas V Centaur upper stage has a diameter of 10 feet. That’s good for an inverted conic adaptor right there, just to bridge the diameter gap. Delta IV would present the opposite problem as it is 5 meters in diameter (16.4 feet) all the way up, including its version of Centaur. Falcon 9 is 12 feet in diameter.
My understanding is that Atlas V is the reference platform for the physical and digital connections to CST-100. Support of any other launch vehicle would involve a different adapter ring. I’m not aware that such adapters have yet been designed for Delta IV or Falcon 9. Given Boeing’s minimum-to-get-by approach to Commercial Crew participation, this is understandable.
@ Dick Eagleson
Those are some good points regarding the issues involved with actually placing CST-100 on Delta of Falcon 9 – it’s no simple thing, even if (and it’s a huge if) those options were even available (Delta 4 isn’t human rated, and SpaceX might decide to tell Boeing to stick CST-100 regarding using F9).
However… maybe we’re looking at this all wrong? Maybe, if we try looking at it like a congresscritter, the reliance on Atlas 5 is a good thing. It’d sure simplify the CST-100 design details (thus cutting costs as well as speeding up availability.). For example, life support; instead of a complex and expensive cabin air system, they could just make the windows open and let in outside air – a far cheaper option, and easy to do as they’d no longer have to worry about operating in a vacuum. There would be no need to design things to work in 0 G, another big savings. The heat shield wouldn’t be needed, nor would the LAS (They could avoid any need of the pad abort system by not fueling the Atlas, thus rendering it safe while having no impact on its performance Vs fueled but still with no engine). Communications could be via wire instead of radio. Food aboard would improve dramatically; the crew, instead of making do with packaged food, could simply phone to have a pizza delivered at any point during the mission.
Wicked good, sir!
““I think it would be hard to close a business case without that backstop of NASA development funds,” Mulholland said. ”
That looks like an admission that they can’t compete against the Dreamchaser or Dragon on the private market. Take a look at the 3 vehicles, which one would you rather ride on? CST-100 ranks dead last for me, the interior is atrocious, but that is because I am a consumer concerned with my comfort and not the government concerned about nothing.
This shouldn’t be surprising. They are a publicly traded firm. If they tried doing it without government funding the analysts and stock market would punish their stock price short term for the risk, and executives for such large firms are very tuned to what their stock price is since its often the key metric for measuring their success. That is why large firms that are no longer controlled or run by their founders lose their ability to innovate.
A visionary leader as president or CEO might turn this around, but Boeing doesn’t have one…
I am not at all surprised. I never expected them to spend their own bottom-line money on it.
They don’t see the business case.
Say a passenger pays $20 million, and you can carry 5 passengers. that’s $100 million in revenue.
The problem is CST is tied to the Atlas 5. So that’s $150 Million/launch.
Even if Boeing get’s a lift from SpaceX Falcon 9 is advertised at $59 Million.
So say Boeing gets $40 million gross margins, that has to cover Pad costs, capsule costs,
training costs, etc….
Not a lot left..
CST-100 can carry seven people, but even so, your point remains. As I noted elsewhere, it’s tough to compete when you have to pay retail for a booster your main competitor makes. If your main competitor is also coining bank from non-NASA crew transport missions done with used vehicles and boosters, you’re even further behind the eight ball if your capsule is either not reusable at all or only reusable after significant refitting. You won’t be competitive in any non-NASA market.
http://bigelowaerospace.com/ still is adverstising Boeing at 30 million a seat. Bigelow said it would cost 3 million a month for a stay at their facility. You get a 2 month stay for 36 million. so 30 million a seat for boeing, 20 million a seat for spacex.
So that’s more confirmation that dn-guy’s analysis above is basically correct; CST-100 isn’t profitable at $20 million per seat and isn’t competitive at $30 million per seat.
But it doesn’t have to be inexpensive, it will fly under a NASA contract and once SpaceX drops out it will be easier to return it to a cost-plus model like Sen. Shelby wants.
Regrettably true. But SpaceX, if aced out of Commercial Crew, will finish Dragon V2 on its own and put on a full-court press to get FH flying and some Bigelow habs on orbit. They will almost certainly be a going crew transport concern as much as two years before NASA has anything else flying, especially if it’s CST-100 as a sole-source, cost-plus deal. Once SpaceX has flown people to orbit and gotten them back at posted Internet prices, NASA will be forced to cave and make a deal with them. I don’t think this scenario will come to pass because the death of Atlas V means NASA will have painted itself into a rather obvious corner. I’m not convinced even Sen. Shelby can engineer something that stupid while a lot of outsiders are watching and throwing spitballs. At least we won’t have too long to wait to find out how this upcoming decision goes.
I don’t buy most of that. Orbital is publicly traded, and they developed Antares/Cygnus substantially on their own money. I wouldn’t describe any of Orbital’s leadership as “visionary” either. Amazon is publicly traded as well and they put enormous funding into long-term development programs. As do many other publicly traded companies. It may be a convenient excuse, but it’s just that, an excuse.
Orbital had a big NASA contract
They won the contract after successfully demonstrating a vehicle they developed mostly using their own money, just as SpaceX did.
Orbital got even less money from NASA to develop its rocket and capsule than SpaceX did. Remember they were funded with what was left after Kistler failed to meet objectives. I have a lot of respect for Orbital. They are like the complete opposite of SpaceX in that they outsource nearly everything except overall design and integration and still they consistently manage to build decent products with much lower costs than Boeing or Lockheed Martin.
Robin,
But its Founder, David Thompson still runs things. Also, because of its smaller capitalization fewer hedge funds and institutional holders own it as compared to Boeing, which is where the pressure to avoid risk comes from.
And of course with Amazon the founder, Jeff Bezos, still calls the shots as is the case with Google. You will find that is same will be true of the other corporations that are publicly traded. Either the founders are still around calling the shots (and owning a large block of stock) or they have a “super star” CEO that has some immunity from the pressures of Wall Street analysts.
The counterexample is Bell Labs, which continued to innovate long after A.G. Bell let slip the mortal coil.
… and people complain that Elon won’t IPO SpaceX until the MCT is in “regular operations”…
I wonder what Bill Boeing would think? I guess Boeing is the Curtiss-Wright of it’s time wrt to transitioning to spacecraft. Even Airbus is stumbling around with lifting body design for a spacecraft (not that I expect anything real will come of that either).
We might just might end up seeing SpaceX and SNC as the leading spacecraft manufacturers.
I’m not surprised BB was at the Dragon V2.0 reveal, nor the fact, according to comments, that Elon put more windows into V2.0 at BB’s behest.
I do not put much faith into SNCs Dream Chaser proposal. I mean I think it is neat that NASA is funding something like that as a research vehicle but for actual use I think it would be late, if ever, and expensive. There is a reason why everyone that proposed such vehicles i.e. Dyna-Soar, Hermes, HOPE gave up on the project and why X-37 is launched inside an aeroshell. Can those fragile little wings survive Max Q *and* not bork the launch trajectory?
Given the hush-hush nature of the whole X-37 program, it’s not entirely out of the question that the reason it goes up shrouded is the shell game aspect of making enemies wonder exactly which Atlas V missions really are X-37’s and which aren’t. It may well have nothing to do with aerodynamics at all.
That isn’t very likely because several governments and some talented amateurs have the ability to image spacecraft including the X-37. It isn’t that easy to hide in space.
True. Though one has to know roughly where and when to look. The government could certainly do a better job of keeping X-37’s orbital elements confidential. I understand the X-37 also has at least a modest ability to change its orbital elements, including inclination, after launch and initial orbit. I wasn’t much impressed by the quality, or even the recognizability, of the amateur astronomy images. Governments, of course, have more resources to keep track of things and better incentives to do so. Russia’s “trawler” fleet has been making a comeback in recent years, for instance.
Its not only stress on the wings, its also stress on the launch vehicle since the payload is asymmetrical.
Seems like that could be neutralized by cranking the control surfaces, before launch, to settings that null out any lateral aerodynamic load asymmetries and locking them until orbit is achieved or an abort is initiated.
Except the asymmetries are probably a function of Mach number.
Good point. Guess it would require active control on ascent then. Still doable, but a more complicated, and software-intensive, problem. My understanding is that Dreamchaser has been fairly extensively wind-tunnel tested at different velocities. I wonder what changes have already been made to its aerodynamics in light of these tests? Could be SNC has already reduced this potential problem to manageable levels.
“They are a publicly traded firm. If they tried doing it without government funding the analysts and stock market would punish their stock price short term for the risk,”
Stock prices fall and then Boeing could buy back stock showing they have confidence in their investment. There are any number of scenarios we can imagine.
You are assuming the CEO wouldn’t be ejected by the Chairman of the Board who is paid for and answers directly to the major investors in such companies which are nearly invariably staid bank, insurance companies, and crap like that with zero tolerance to any risk.
zero tolerance to any risk
You don’t know a whole lot about banks and bankers do you?
The real question, to my mind, is what SNC will end up doing with Dreamchaser. If they manage to get it operating – perhaps with the French – then Bigelow will have his two providers for crew transport.
SNC says it wants to proceed with Dreamchaser even if they’re cut from the next round of Commercial Crew. I think they could probably do it, though probably on a slower schedule and almost certainly not on Atlas V, which I think is going to be embargoed for any further commercial missions fairly shortly. If Dreamchaser flies, it’ll either be on Ariane 5 or Falcon 9.
They’re also trying to put CST-100 into running for commercial cargo. That highlights the question of what they’re going to launch it on, of course. It’s barely cost effective to launch on the Atlas, it’d be financial murder to launch on the Delta. But right now there aren’t any engines for new Atlas launches.
Yeah, that’s an issue that’s only going to get more pressing. ULA claimed to have 16 RD-180’s on-hand before their most recent Atlas V launch of an NRO bird. Now they’re down to 15. The Spaceflight Now launch schedule shows five more Atlas V missions scheduled in the next nine months. Only two of these are milsats – both GPS birds. The other three are a commercial imaging satellite for DigitalGlobe, the CLIO prototype gravity wave observatory and a magnetospheric NASA science mission.
Three of these, including the DigitalGlobe and CLIO missions, are supposed to launch in the next 90 days. That’ll have ULA down to an even dozen RD-180’s by mid-September. If Russian counter-sanctions are not lifted by then, or even before – and I don’t expect them to be – then the national security apparat may well step in and commandeer all remaining Atlas V’s for milsat launches.
In that case, they’d reserve Atlas V launches for birds that need upper-end multiple solid booster configurations and shunt lighter birds onto other launch vehicles. This would make the future of ULA’s block buy contract even more problematic than it is now.
It might also prompt acceleration of the on-going EELV new-entrant certification process for SpaceX so they can take over things like GPS launches where ground spare birds exist to offset theoretical reliability risks. A lot would depend on how quickly ULA can ramp up Delta IV production vs. how fast SpaceX can continue its on-going program of production rate increases for Falcon 9 cores. I’m guessing SpaceX will come out way ahead on that one.
Interesting times.
I don’t really see this as a problem for ULA regarding the block buy. The RD-180 costs what, approx 7% of the Atlas 5 launch cost? So, all ULA has to do is refund that 7% and everyone’s happy, right?
/politician mode
Ba-dump-bump! Hey, folks, he’ll be here all week!
There are currently payloads such as AEHF and MOUS that are too heavy for a Falcon 9. The only alternatives currently available are the more powerful Atlas V versions such as the 551 or the Delta IV Heavy. There’s a pretty big gap in capacity and a huge leap in price between those two rockets, but until the Falcon Heavy is operational and certified (likely a few years from now), those are the only choices. At this point, it’s wasteful to be launching relatively lightweight government payloads like a GPS on an Atlas. It’s too late to remanifest those GPS launches scheduled for this year but going forward, they should save the remaining Atlas Vs for payloads that can’t be carried on anything else affordably.
Quite agree about rationing Atlas V’s for essentials. In a previous comment I suggested this might well be mandated by the government within the next 90 days or so.
As for how long it might take to certify Falcon Heavy for EELV milsat missions, the F9v1.1, assuming it gets certified by year’s end, will have taken 14 months from first flight to certify. SpaceX may not have their production of F9 cores up enough to launch three FH’s as quickly as they launched their first three F9v1.1’s without impacting the servicing of their manifest. On the other hand, this will be both SpaceX’s and the Aerospace Corporation’s second pass through the certification process. Given the huge commonality between F9 and FH components, a lot of the work on the F9 certification should probably be cut-and-pasteable for the FH certification. It’s not entirely inconceivable that FH could be certified in as little as a year after F9.
It depends on how long it takes them to fly FH three times, whether the configuration remains stable*, and if there are any incidents that could slow the certification process.
*There seems to be some question as to whether the first FH flight will use the propellant cross-feed or not. Cross-feeding the propellant adds a lot of capability but also complexity and risk to the first flight. It’s going to be hard enough to get all 27 engines going at the same time and maintain control during the flight. Does anyone know if they’ve tested their cross-feed at McGregor or not? It isn’t just running the engines using cross-feed but keeping the central core running during and following separation that present engineering challenges.
Agree with your assessment of risk factors for FH certification. Also agree that it would be nice to have answers to all of the questions you raise.
As I said in an earlier thread, I’m starting to come around to Thomas Matula’s view. SpaceX might be better off in the long run if they don’t get NASA money.
The next announcement anent Commercial Crew is due in 90 days or so. That’ll tell us all a lot no matter how it comes out, including whether we’ve been shunted onto the track to Matula World.
Hi All,
An Interview with Elon Musk indicating Dragon will go forward with or without NASA.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101767056
With eyes on NASA, Mars, Elon Musk still dreams big
Karma Allen | @iam_karma
19 Hours Ago
[[[As his other venture, SpaceX, vies against established players such as Boeing for a big NASA contract, Musk said his firm will just keep going, even if the contract falls through.]]]
Also it looks like President Obama’s administration agrees with Rand on the provision by Sen. Shelby. Maybe they read his article.
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2014/06/17/white-house-nasa-bill-would-raise-costs-delay-shuttle-replacement/10707387/
[[[WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is concerned a provision in a NASA funding bill being debated on the Senate floor this week would add costs and delays to the program that will replace the mothballed space shuttle with private rockets.]]]
And of course Boeing is doing the usual “reminders” of the ‘unfortunate’ things that will happen in different Congressional Districts IF its not funded for Commercial Crew in the next round.
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2014/06/17/boeing-brevard-employees-could-be-laid-off/10702701/
Boeing: Brevard employees could be laid off
James Dean, FLORIDA TODAY 6:39 p.m. EDT June 17, 2014
[[[The Boeing Co. this Friday will notify about 45 local employees that they could be laid off within 60 days if the company does not win a contract from NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, a spokesman confirmed.]]]
This is why I expect Boeing and Sierra Nevada to win the next round. Boeing because of its PR campaign on how funds to NASA districts will be lost if not selected. Sierra Nevada because its the largest government contractor that is owned by a woman, something they boast about on their website.
http://www.sncorp.com/about_snc.php
[[[. Headquartered in Sparks, Nevada, SNC is the Top Woman-Owned Federal Contractor in the United States based on its size, significant achievements, and resources to deliver high-technology systems and integration programs. ]]]
Plus since Elon Musk as already stated he will go forward even without NASA money, NASA knows it will still have the Dragon V2 as a safety net if both Boeing/Sierra Nevada fail.
You may well be right about all your surmises. In light of Atlas V’s imminent demise, picking SNC and Boeing to go forward would be a dumb move, but less dumb, at least, than picking Boeing as a solo participant. I have a certain equanimity about this whole matter as, no matter what NASA decides, SpaceX will remain the player. I await NASA’s decision with interest, but no real trepidation.
A puzzling phenomenon is taking place: ULA has announced that it has already signed contracts with “several suppliers” to come up with a replacement for the RD-180. Who are “several” suppliers? The only liquid rocket engine company in the United States big enough to do such a thing is Aerojet-Rocketdyne.
Further, ULA says they expect to have a new engine in 5 years. The only company that has the demonstrated ability to design, build, and fly a big new engine in that time frame is SpaceX, and they are unlikely to do it for a competitor.
As a side note, the government recently did a study on the RD-180 and what its loss would mean. I’m not sure that has been released yet, but two of the “key findings” were amusing. They were that a new LOX/hydrocarbon engine could be developed by FY22, and a new launch vehicle employing it could be available by FY23. Let’s look at those predictions, and one historical fact:
From today, FY22 is 3,027 days away. We could have a new engine by then.
From today, FY23 is 3,392 days away. We could have a new launch vehicle by then.
From May 25, 1961 to July 20, 1969, 2,613 days elapsed. On the start date, JFK asked Congress to fund the Apollo Program. On the end date, Apollo 11 landed on the moon.
I can only conclude that no one considers access to space particularly important.
Elon seems to. I think that Jeff Greason does as well.
Yeah, that’s basically the point I was making above in commenting on Matula’s stuff. What happens in space is quickly passing from a matter of what government bureaucrats and legacy aerospace companies decide to what NewSpace CEO’s decide. The wooly mammoths and mastodons can struggle for awhile longer in the tar pits, but their future as fossils is pretty much on rails.
The smart move is to setup a Russian space startup company as a front. Then have that front company acquire RD-180s, smuggle them to the US and pass them off as domestically produced replacements until you get actual domestic replacements running.
It’s about a sensible a plan as anything ULA has come up with so far.
Sounds like the plot for a bad paperback novel. As a practical matter, all it would take is the launch of one more Atlas V than our current stock of engines allows and the Russkies would know for sure something was up.
Funny, at a conference I attended last week Michael Gass (ULA Pres and CEO) was a keynote. I was surprised, but he actually addressed the RD-180 issue in his speech. He said that Rogozin was reminded by Putin that *he* is the boss and watch your tongue, and now the RD-180 supply chain is secure thanks to pappy Putin. I might be paraphrasing, and he might have been lying.
He didn’t bring up the sole source contest by SpaceX, and didn’t bring up Sen. Shelby’s Frankenstein CCP construction using mismatched FAR parts. Unfortunately, he didn’t stick around for many questions (I didn’t get to ask mine), just some real nailbiters like “what do you think the future of space travel looks like”.
So you passed Gass then?
I could see Putin telling any of his underlings to “zip it” since he is “the man” in Russia. Both sides want to hold each other over a barrel due to Crimea, such a reversal in tach suggests that some pre-occupation over money is of concern. If true either Putin and cronies don’t want to loose the revenue stream from the RD-180. This seems less likely due to oil and gas revenues, or somehow the pot has been sweetened. Could ULA have gotten in there that quickly?