An article in the Denver Post on how Shelby’s antics may affect it. First, a brief rant:
Louisville-based Sierra Nevada Corp.’s Space Systems, California-based Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, and Chicago-based Boeing Co. are the remaining businesses vying for a chance to be the next U.S. shuttle service, a contract expected to be awarded in August.
Gaaahhh! Stop calling space ships “shuttles.” There was only one Space Shuttle. It’s not a generic term, as “kleenex” seems to have become. There will never be another one. I hope, anyway.
This is wrong, too:
Cost-plus estimation allows contractors to account in advance for ballooning costs.
No, it doesn’t. It allows the contractor to be reimbursed for their costs, if the contract is a cost-plus contract, which this one isn’t, which is why this is so stupid.
Rand,
Actually its technical name was the Space Transportation System (STS). The public referred to it as a “shuttle” because its basic mission was to shuttle between the Earth and destinations in LEO, which is the basic definition of what a shuttle is.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shuttle
[[[a vehicle that travels back and forth between places]]]
Given that the whole purpose of the Commercial Crew Program is to select one or more vehicles to travel between the ISS and Earth the use of the term is correct and matches the definition. And yes, the Soyuz is also a shuttle since it main function now to to travel between the ISS and Earth although folks don’t refer to it by that name.
The public called it the Space Shuttle because NASA called it the Space Shuttle. It did a lot more than “shuttle” things. It is very misleading to call anything the “next space shuttle.”
Rand,
Like or not use of the term is technically correct for the function being performed, which is to shuttle between space (LEO) and Earth (two destinations) as the first space shuttle did. The term spacecraft really should be reserved for vehicles that do more than just shuttle to and from LEO. Notice I left the Dragon out as it is intended for better things than being a mere space shuttle.
They said “shuttle service”, not Shuttle. Before there was a Space Shuttle, airlines offered shuttle service between cities like NYC and DC. Carrying astronauts to and from the ISS would be a shuttle service so their choice of words seem appropriate.
Small-s “shuttle” was a generic term for small transport spacecraft before NASA made it a proper noun. It was used on all the Star Trek series, for example, from the 60’s right up until the present day.
Calling everything a “shuttle” was annoying and confusing while the Shuttle was flying. Now that the Shuttle is retired, the potential for confusion will gradually diminish. Perhaps we should consider taking the term back again.
I had an opportunity to hear SNC’s Craig Gravelle speak last week and ask him some questions. He didn’t bring up Shelby’s monkey wrench, but I talked to him about it. He seemed very sincere when he told me that he’d prefer not to have it inserted in the CCP, but SNC has the capability if it ends up being required. They (SNC) as of last week aren’t getting involved in the fight against Shelby because it doesn’t outright hurt them like it will SpaceX, just inflate cost and price and waste time. He said they’d prefer real competition they might come in second place to (like SpaceX) vs. Boeing’s leveraging legislative barriers to entry, because that kind of activity could hurt them in the future. Practical, pretty much exactly what you’d expect.
Yep, and SpaceX will say the same thing. “We’d *prefer* that you didn’t do this horrible thing to us, but we’re so desperate for money we won’t walk away no matter what. Just like the last six horrible things you did. So, please don’t take our protests seriously.”
“Whip me, beat me, use me as your spaniel!”
Agreed. These days I doubt SpaceX would even walk away from a requirement for clock punching – which was the objection that got FARs dropped the last time.