Author Topic: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1  (Read 640944 times)

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #200 on: 10/13/2014 07:11 pm »
brovane mentioned this quote from the leaked source selection document:
Quote
Of the three bidders Boeing “has the best management approach, with very comprehensive and integrated program management, and an effective organizational structure, further ensuring they will be able to accomplish the technical work in a manner that meets NASA’s standards.”

This is ultimately the fundamental justification for selecting Boeing. The Boeing program management culture will mean NASA can do its job vis-a-vis CST more easily than it can for the other offerers.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #201 on: 10/13/2014 08:07 pm »
brovane mentioned this quote from the leaked source selection document:
Quote
Of the three bidders Boeing “has the best management approach, with very comprehensive and integrated program management, and an effective organizational structure, further ensuring they will be able to accomplish the technical work in a manner that meets NASA’s standards.”

This is ultimately the fundamental justification for selecting Boeing. The Boeing program management culture will mean NASA can do its job vis-a-vis CST more easily than it can for the other offerers.

This seems to imply the most NASA-like management culture is the best... Seriously?
« Last Edit: 10/13/2014 08:07 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline WindyCity

Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #202 on: 10/13/2014 09:21 pm »
Maybe NASA simply didn't want to stick two feet into the future, so it chose to keep one foot in the past. Boeing's design struck the selectors as safe, stodgy, reliable, and predictable—Apollo redux. SpaceX's capsule design has futuristic elements (the SuperDraco's and propulsive landing on terra firma), but still has a parachute. It's a technological advancement over Boeing's concept, but it's not "out there". The Dream Chaser, on the other hand, is a mini-Shuttle, and two Shuttles crashed because of failed heat shielding. It's riskier than the other two, or so I imagine the selectors saw it. NASA is a conservative culture. It doesn't go out on limbs, even though, tragically, it occasionally cuts corners.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #203 on: 10/13/2014 09:40 pm »
Essentially why the upstart newcomers barely had a chance, and we might as well have avoided the time wasting charade and awarded Boeing a cost-plus contract years ago. The whole "commercial crew" thing was largely a farce.

Online Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #204 on: 10/13/2014 10:02 pm »
Essentially why the upstart newcomers barely had a chance, and we might as well have avoided the time wasting charade and awarded Boeing a cost-plus contract years ago. The whole "commercial crew" thing was largely a farce.

Well SpaceX has been given a seat at the table so I am not sure if you can call it a waste of time.  SNC just had to many variables in their design and NASA didn't feel comfortable with selecting them and SpaceX.  The biggest problem that SNC had was they where up against SpaceX which brought a complete package of launch vehicle, capsule and a lower bid to the table.  Which I suspect a chunk of that higher price was the vehicle development costs and that a Atlas-V just costs more money than a Falcon9v1.1. 

Quote
Discussing costs, Gerstenmaier says that “although SNC’s price is lower than Boeing’s price, its technical and management approaches and its past performance are not as high and I see considerably more schedule risk with its proposal. Both SNC and SpaceX had high past performance, and very good technical and management approaches, but SNC’s price is significantly higher than SpaceX’s price.”

I also thing that NASA has been backed into a corner because of continued budget cuts to the commercial crew contract.  Originally NASA already wanted the new capsules flying by now.  The cuts had forced a slowdown in the program.  NASA has to get something ready by 2017 which means they cannot take a chance and select two upstarts and have them both fail.  Now if SpaceX falls on it's face Boeing is their as old reliable.  Not saying that SpaceX but it has to be in the back of some people's mind at NASA.  So with the contest down to Boeing and whoever else SNC coulnd't beat SpaceX so they lost. 
« Last Edit: 10/13/2014 10:16 pm by brovane »
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline Nindalf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Canada
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #205 on: 10/13/2014 10:08 pm »
NASA has to get something ready by 2017 which means they cannot take a chance and select two upstarts and have them both fail.  Now if SpaceX falls on it's face Boeing is their as old reliable.  Not saying that SpaceX but it has to be in the back of some people's mind at NASA.  So with the contest down to Boeing and whoever else SNC coulnd't beat SpaceX so they lost.
If this is their actual reasoning, then we can expect SNC to win their case.

This is simply not what the solicitation described, and they're required to maintain consistency between the selection criteria given in the solicitation and the selection criteria actually applied.

Online Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #206 on: 10/13/2014 10:10 pm »
brovane mentioned this quote from the leaked source selection document:
Quote
Of the three bidders Boeing “has the best management approach, with very comprehensive and integrated program management, and an effective organizational structure, further ensuring they will be able to accomplish the technical work in a manner that meets NASA’s standards.”

This is ultimately the fundamental justification for selecting Boeing. The Boeing program management culture will mean NASA can do its job vis-a-vis CST more easily than it can for the other offerers.

From the bits and pieces I have been able to read their was enough subjective parts in the selection process scoring that essentially NASA could select Boeing despite the higher bid by Boeing.  Any GAO investigation is going to get into this and since it is subjective they are going to have a hard time second guessing NASA.  Dealing with this type of items it will be hard for GAO to come away with the conclusion that NASA was wrong in it's selection of Boeing. 

Quote
Commenting on the two winning capsule concepts, Gerstenmaier clearly singles out the Boeing design for most praise, being “the strongest of all three proposals in both mission suitability and past performance. Boeing’s system offers the most useful inherent capabilities for operational flexibility in trading cargo and crew for individual missions. It is also based on a spacecraft design that is fairly mature in design.” He also points to Boeing’s “well-defined plan for addressing the specific issues from Phase 1,” and says of the three bidders Boeing “has the best management approach, with very comprehensive and integrated program management, and an effective organizational structure, further ensuring they will be able to accomplish the technical work in a manner that meets NASA’s standards.” Phase 1, the Certification Products Contract (CPC), covered hazard reports, plans for verification, validation and certification.
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Online Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #207 on: 10/13/2014 10:13 pm »
If this is their actual reasoning, then we can expect SNC to win their case.

This is simply not what the solicitation described, and they're required to maintain consistency between the selection criteria given in the solicitation and the selection criteria actually applied.

They don't have to come right out and say it.  However if you are grading on technical and management approach and past performance Boeing is getting the higher grade.  If they can bring in such arguments like past performance in the grading then yes it can be a subjective part of the equation and they can rank a company higher based on it's previous performance. 

Quote
“I consider Boeing’s superior proposal, with regard to both its technical and management approach and its past performance, to be worth the additional price in comparison to the SNC proposal.”
« Last Edit: 10/13/2014 10:15 pm by brovane »
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #208 on: 10/13/2014 10:51 pm »

Isn't/wasn't 2016 the target date for NASA/LM/Boeing to deliver IOC for SLS/Orion?
Maybe SpaceX picking up human space flight responsibilities isn't needed, then...

Orion first crew flight isn't scheduled until around 2021.  Orion isn't a backup to the Commercial crew contract. 

It was supposed to be. That's how badly NASA completely screwed it up - royally.

Nope - can't blame NASA really for that - I think that is pretty squarely on congress.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #209 on: 10/13/2014 11:00 pm »


You can actually see a politician thinking. Enjoy.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #210 on: 10/13/2014 11:20 pm »

Isn't/wasn't 2016 the target date for NASA/LM/Boeing to deliver IOC for SLS/Orion?
Maybe SpaceX picking up human space flight responsibilities isn't needed, then...

Orion first crew flight isn't scheduled until around 2021.  Orion isn't a backup to the Commercial crew contract. 

It was supposed to be. That's how badly NASA completely screwed it up - royally.

Nope - can't blame NASA really for that - I think that is pretty squarely on congress.

I don't know about that. Orion is the long tent in the pole. You can't really say that Orion is being underfunded by Congress.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #211 on: 10/13/2014 11:42 pm »
It seems to me that if NASA cannot tolerate additional technical and schedule risk, the entire commercial crew program was completely unjustified.  Could we not have arrived at the obvious "safe" solution years ago by awarding Boeing a traditional cost-plus contract?  I don't even see this as having put any cost pressure on Boeing, given the disparity between its award and the award that went to SpaceX. 

Again, the whole thing seems like a time and money wasting charade to me, and I feel like we're throwing away most of the long-term potential that investing in the upstarts provided in order to meet a short-term mission requirement. 
« Last Edit: 10/13/2014 11:53 pm by vt_hokie »

Online Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #212 on: 10/13/2014 11:58 pm »
It seems to me that if NASA cannot tolerate additional technical and schedule risk, the entire commercial crew program was completely unjustified. 

How are you drawing that conclusion?  The entire commercial crew program has stimulated a lot of new development. 

If you just look at the Commercial Orbit Transportation Services program for the investment of $800 Million in money the US has two new launch vehicles and to cargo spacecraft. 


Could we not have arrived at the obvious "safe" solution years ago by awarding Boeing a traditional cost-plus contract?  I don't even see this as having put any cost pressure on Boeing, given the disparity between its award and the award that went to SpaceX. 
Again, the whole thing seems like a time and money wasting charade to me, and I feel like we're throwing away most of the long-term potential that investing in the upstarts provided.

We could have arrived at a obvious "safe" solution years ago if Congress was willing to fund the development of both Orion Capsule and a Earth Orbit capsule at the same time.  How are we throwing away the long term potential in the investment in the upstarts?  SpaceX has had remarkable success and is bringing commercial launch services back to US shores.   



"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #213 on: 10/14/2014 12:17 am »
Again, the whole thing seems like a time and money wasting charade to me, and I feel like we're throwing away most of the long-term potential that investing in the upstarts provided in order to meet a short-term mission requirement. 

What says SNC has long-term potential?
« Last Edit: 10/14/2014 12:18 am by Jim »

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #214 on: 10/14/2014 12:42 am »

What says SNC has long-term potential?

SNC had goals beyond ISS crew transport and had aims for a true commercial future beyond ISS.  CST-100 seems to be a one trick pony, and an expensive one at that. 

But maybe the question is, if it didn't have potential, why did we invest a couple hundred million dollars in it only to add it to the long list of abandoned programs?
« Last Edit: 10/14/2014 12:42 am by vt_hokie »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #215 on: 10/14/2014 12:49 am »
It seems to me that if NASA cannot tolerate additional technical and schedule risk, the entire commercial crew program was completely unjustified. 

How are you drawing that conclusion?  The entire commercial crew program has stimulated a lot of new development. 

If you just look at the Commercial Orbit Transportation Services program for the investment of $800 Million in money the US has two new launch vehicles and to cargo spacecraft. 


Could we not have arrived at the obvious "safe" solution years ago by awarding Boeing a traditional cost-plus contract?  I don't even see this as having put any cost pressure on Boeing, given the disparity between its award and the award that went to SpaceX. 
Again, the whole thing seems like a time and money wasting charade to me, and I feel like we're throwing away most of the long-term potential that investing in the upstarts provided.

We could have arrived at a obvious "safe" solution years ago if Congress was willing to fund the development of both Orion Capsule and a Earth Orbit capsule at the same time.  How are we throwing away the long term potential in the investment in the upstarts?  SpaceX has had remarkable success and is bringing commercial launch services back to US shores.   
The mess all started with CxP with Orion on Ares 1 with all its associated problems and Griffin has stated on record that he had all the money he needed...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #216 on: 10/14/2014 12:53 am »
TBH I was shocked at the high amounts awarded to both Boeing and SpaceX, but then I put it in the context that they received half of the funding in previous rounds vs Obama's recommendations. So now they have to play catch-up. Has CONgress approved this funding? Or is there a real possibility that this will get cut in half too.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #217 on: 10/14/2014 12:57 am »
Or is there a real possibility that this will get cut in half too.

It's an almost certainty.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Online Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #218 on: 10/14/2014 12:59 am »
TBH I was shocked at the high amounts awarded to both Boeing and SpaceX,

Were not the amounts awarded based on what the companies bid for the contract?
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Online Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #219 on: 10/14/2014 01:02 am »
Or is there a real possibility that this will get cut in half too.

It's an almost certainty.

Oh that would be funny.  Congress we cut your funding in half.  NASA ok, we are dropping Boeing and going single source with SpaceX because at 1/2 funding we can still afford SpaceX but not Boeing.
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0