ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[MarekCyzio]

Should this be true (and rumors have been wrong in the past), I would expect a 2 SPX, 1 ORB, 1 SNC award (my personal speculation). But we might have to wait for it another three months to know.

Aviation Week recently hinted that Orbital ATK may not get the award.

http://aviationweek.com/space/independent-antares-review-could-affect-commercial-resupply-award

[BrianNH]

The Florida Today article has been updated to say that Orbital ATK has also confirmed that they are still in the competition.

[psloss]

SpaceNews story from Jeff Foust:
http://spacenews.com/nasa-delays-award-of-commercial-cargo-contracts-again-drops-boeing/

Couple of news-y excerpts:

Boeing spokeswoman Kelly Kaplan said Nov. 5 that NASA informed the company shortly before announcing the award delay that it was no longer considering the company for a contract.
.
.
.
Sierra Nevada Corp. spokeswoman Krystal Scordo said Nov. 5 that the company has been notified by NASA that it is still being considered for a contract. NASA, she said, “has decided to re-open discussions with offerors in the competitive range for NASA’s CRS-2 contract,” and that Sierra Nevada was “selected to re-open discussions regarding its CRS-2 proposal.”

[Coastal Ron]

Should this be true (and rumors have been wrong in the past), I would expect a 2 SPX, 1 ORB, 1 SNC award (my personal speculation).

I would hope that it would be more evenly distributed, like 40/30/30 for SpaceX, O-ATK, and SNC.  Cost is dependent on volume, and with SpaceX being fairly mature and a complete solution the risk would be low in case something happened to SNC.  Plus both Commercial Crew vehicles can fill in if needed for both upmass and downmass.

[Prober]

SpaceNews story from Jeff Foust:
http://spacenews.com/nasa-delays-award-of-commercial-cargo-contracts-again-drops-boeing/

Couple of news-y excerpts:

Boeing spokeswoman Kelly Kaplan said Nov. 5 that NASA informed the company shortly before announcing the award delay that it was no longer considering the company for a contract.
.
.
.
Sierra Nevada Corp. spokeswoman Krystal Scordo said Nov. 5 that the company has been notified by NASA that it is still being considered for a contract. NASA, she said, “has decided to re-open discussions with offerors in the competitive range for NASA’s CRS-2 contract,” and that Sierra Nevada was “selected to re-open discussions regarding its CRS-2 proposal.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-05/boeing-dumped-from-nasa-s-3-5-billion-cargo-flight-contest?cmpid=yhoo.headline

[Prober]

This is noteworthy......

http://www.wsbt.com/news/business/nasa-to-award-new-international-space-station-supply-contract/36275316

"SpaceX is the only bidder that's proposing to use a US-made rocket engine, which gives it an edge over the other competitors which are using Russian rocket engines, Caceres said."

"Winning a share of the existing supply contract was crucial to the early success of both SpaceX and Orbital ATK, according to Marco Caceres, senior space analyst for the Teal Group."

Then you have this....

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-photos-show-massive-rocket-explosion-virginia-185458958.html

This stinks, clearly it appears someone has chosen to use negative PR to obtain contracts.

[rayleighscatter]

Oh for crying out loud!  What could possibly be going on behind the scenes to cause a last minute delay after already delaying the decision by months?

To be this last minute I would have to think someone up the chain in NASA refused to sign off on the final decision. There had to have been plenty of meetings and briefings on how it would proceed so either the final decisions weren't well enumerated or said executive didn't agree with the weighting of certain attributes. My guess at least.

[Lars-J]

Oh for crying out loud!  What could possibly be going on behind the scenes to cause a last minute delay after already delaying the decision by months?

To be this last minute I would have to think someone up the chain in NASA refused to sign off on the final decision. There had to have been plenty of meetings and briefings on how it would proceed so either the final decisions weren't well enumerated or said executive didn't agree with the weighting of certain attributes. My guess at least.

There appeared to be similar oddities during the last Commercial Crew down-select. Rumors that Boeing was cut, then apparently re-instated. (If my memory is correct)

[ChrisWilson68]

NASA thought it had redundancy with two cargo vendors.  Both had failures.  Two aren't enough.

No, two is enough.

1) In an pinch you could still fly another cargo mission on a supplier that has had a failure without waiting for the accident investigation.  Each has had a number of missions succeed, so odds are pretty good the next will succeed as well.  The consumables are what is time-critical, and they are low cost if there's another failure.

2) Just because you get unlucky once doesn't mean you should change the way you bet.  If you stand on a 20 at blackjack and get beaten, that doesn't mean you were wrong to stand, or that you shouldn't stand next time you have a 20.

3) The problems that caused these failures are being fixed, so odds of failures in the future will be lower.

If I were NASA, I'd want to continue to grow this new space economy.

I would spread my awards across all four reported vendors.

Spreading an award across more vendors does not grow the space economy.  It does the opposite.  It means no one provider has very much volume.

If you're just interested in helping the new space economy, the way to do that is by choosing just one vendor.  The extra economies of scale for that vendor will allow that vendor to provide services to others at cheaper prices, enabling the rest of the space economy to grow more.

[ChrisWilson68]

The term Government in that statement is most interesting. So it is not NASA but probably Congress.  :(

You might not understand but the term Government.   NASA is a government agency so it's their call to make.

I am not US citizen but I do understand that NASA is part of Government. Still if it were NASA's call they would state NASA. I am also aware that formally Congress has no influence. But in the real world if people from a related Committee express the desire for a delay do you believe NASA would go ahead anyway?

The fact alone that the delay was announced only today indicates to me that NASA tried to get the contract done to the last moment and that external influences were responsible.

It is speculation and I may be wrong.

You're reading way too much into one word.  We use the term "government" all the time in these discussion forums to mean NASA when the issue is a contract between NASA and a private contractor.  I can't see any reason to think NASA wouldn't use the term "government" similarly.

[Star One]

NASA thought it had redundancy with two cargo vendors.  Both had failures.  Two aren't enough.

No, two is enough.

1) In an pinch you could still fly another cargo mission on a supplier that has had a failure without waiting for the accident investigation.  Each has had a number of missions succeed, so odds are pretty good the next will succeed as well.  The consumables are what is time-critical, and they are low cost if there's another failure.

2) Just because you get unlucky once doesn't mean you should change the way you bet.  If you stand on a 20 at blackjack and get beaten, that doesn't mean you were wrong to stand, or that you shouldn't stand next time you have a 20.

3) The problems that caused these failures are being fixed, so odds of failures in the future will be lower.

If I were NASA, I'd want to continue to grow this new space economy.

I would spread my awards across all four reported vendors.

Spreading an award across more vendors does not grow the space economy.  It does the opposite.  It means no one provider has very much volume.

If you're just interested in helping the new space economy, the way to do that is by choosing just one vendor.  The extra economies of scale for that vendor will allow that vendor to provide services to others at cheaper prices, enabling the rest of the space economy to grow more.

And let me guess would this one vendor happen to be Space X by any chance!

This desire to perpetuate a limited number of providers of access to space helps no one least of all growing the commercial market.

[yg1968]

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2015/11/05/nasa-delays-iss-cargo-contract-awards-again/75215178/

Florida Today is reporting SNC is still in, Boeing is out.  -- This is the James Dean story that has now 'hit the wire.'

This part is interesting:

Sierra Nevada, whose Dream Chaser mini-shuttle lost out in that crew competition, said NASA has asked the company to re-open discussions about its cargo bid as one of the “offerors in the competitive range.”

[pathfinder_01]

Spreading an award across more vendors does not grow the space economy.  It does the opposite.  It means no one provider has very much volume.

If you're just interested in helping the new space economy, the way to do that is by choosing just one vendor.  The extra economies of scale for that vendor will allow that vendor to provide services to others at cheaper prices, enabling the rest of the space economy to grow more.

The problem with an single vendor is that while that single vendor may achieve economies of scale, it does not have any reason to pass the savings along to the single customer NASA. The best way would be to choose 2-3 vendor so that competition is maintained. And the best way toward development is to have contracts for services such that new entrants can come into the market. i.e. Just because the Dragon or Cygnus is the best way to supply an station in 2015 does not mean it will be in 2024.


With the loss of ATV, I think that NASA is going to have enough missions for up to three. I am just surprised that Boeing was the one eliminated if true. They would be in the best position to offer an cheap, reliable capsule unless they really over bid.

[yg1968]

Sierra Nevada Corp. spokeswoman Krystal Scordo said Nov. 5 that the company has been notified by NASA that it is still being considered for a contract. NASA, she said, “has decided to re-open discussions with offerors in the competitive range for NASA’s CRS-2 contract,” and that Sierra Nevada was “selected to re-open discussions regarding its CRS-2 proposal.”

Orbital ATK spokeswoman Sean Wilson said Nov. 5 that the company was still in the CRS-2 competition, but declined to discuss any details about the delay in awards.

http://spacenews.com/nasa-delays-award-of-commercial-cargo-contracts-again-drops-boeing/

[Danderman]

The Washington Post story today sort of implies that the Lockheed bid is not dead yet.

[arachnitect]

This part is interesting:

Sierra Nevada, whose Dream Chaser mini-shuttle lost out in that crew competition, said NASA has asked the company to re-open discussions about its cargo bid as one of the “offerors in the competitive range.”

If I were a competitor, I would have a lot of questions about this.

What, exactly, is NASA inviting SNC to do? Will the others have the same opportunity?

[ChrisWilson68]

NASA thought it had redundancy with two cargo vendors.  Both had failures.  Two aren't enough.

No, two is enough.

1) In an pinch you could still fly another cargo mission on a supplier that has had a failure without waiting for the accident investigation.  Each has had a number of missions succeed, so odds are pretty good the next will succeed as well.  The consumables are what is time-critical, and they are low cost if there's another failure.

2) Just because you get unlucky once doesn't mean you should change the way you bet.  If you stand on a 20 at blackjack and get beaten, that doesn't mean you were wrong to stand, or that you shouldn't stand next time you have a 20.

3) The problems that caused these failures are being fixed, so odds of failures in the future will be lower.

If I were NASA, I'd want to continue to grow this new space economy.

I would spread my awards across all four reported vendors.

Spreading an award across more vendors does not grow the space economy.  It does the opposite.  It means no one provider has very much volume.

If you're just interested in helping the new space economy, the way to do that is by choosing just one vendor.  The extra economies of scale for that vendor will allow that vendor to provide services to others at cheaper prices, enabling the rest of the space economy to grow more.

And let me guess would this one vendor happen to be Space X by any chance!

This desire to perpetuate a limited number of providers of access to space helps no one least of all growing the commercial market.

Read my post again.  I was not saying there should be only one supplier.  I said "If you're just interested in helping the new space economy" there should be just one vendor.  There are other factors involved.  Some argue for one vendor, some argue for more than one.

Just on the narrow subject of helping the space economy, the smaller the number of suppliers NASA picks, the better.

[ChrisWilson68]

Spreading an award across more vendors does not grow the space economy.  It does the opposite.  It means no one provider has very much volume.

If you're just interested in helping the new space economy, the way to do that is by choosing just one vendor.  The extra economies of scale for that vendor will allow that vendor to provide services to others at cheaper prices, enabling the rest of the space economy to grow more.

The problem with an single vendor is that while that single vendor may achieve economies of scale, it does not have any reason to pass the savings along to the single customer NASA.

I agree there are other reasons to go with more than one vendor.  My post was just refuting the argument that more suppliers is better for helping the New Space economy.  On the narrow question of helping the space economy, going with a smaller number is better.

[watermod]

Spreading an award across more vendors does not grow the space economy.  It does the opposite.  It means no one provider has very much volume.

If you're just interested in helping the new space economy, the way to do that is by choosing just one vendor.  The extra economies of scale for that vendor will allow that vendor to provide services to others at cheaper prices, enabling the rest of the space economy to grow more.

The problem with an single vendor is that while that single vendor may achieve economies of scale, it does not have any reason to pass the savings along to the single customer NASA. The best way would be to choose 2-3 vendor so that competition is maintained. And the best way toward development is to have contracts for services such that new entrants can come into the market. i.e. Just because the Dragon or Cygnus is the best way to supply an station in 2015 does not mean it will be in 2024.


With the loss of ATV, I think that NASA is going to have enough missions for up to three. I am just surprised that Boeing was the one eliminated if true. They would be in the best position to offer an cheap, reliable capsule unless they really over bid.

   Perhaps one needs to quit looking at the supply craft and look at the launcher?  F-9, Antares, and something on an Atlas.

[ChrisWilson68]

This part is interesting:

Sierra Nevada, whose Dream Chaser mini-shuttle lost out in that crew competition, said NASA has asked the company to re-open discussions about its cargo bid as one of the “offerors in the competitive range.”

If I were a competitor, I would have a lot of questions about this.

What, exactly, is NASA inviting SNC to do? Will the others have the same opportunity?

I think this brings up questions about the fairness of the bidding process.  It's fair to have a public solicitation for bids with the deadline and criteria specifically listed, and judge the bids based only on the information submitted officially by the deadline.

Going back to some of the companies to talk to them after evaluating bids from all the companies and using that additional information is in a sense re-opening the bidding process.  There are multiple ways that unfairness of various sorts can sneak into the process when you do that.

Based on what NASA tells SNC and what it asks SNC in the "re-opened" discussions, SNC can probably infer some information about some details of bids from other companies.  That allows SNC to craft its answers taking that information into account.  If this additional information is taken into account in making the decision, it's essentially allowing a modification to the bid.  Allowing certain companies to modify their bids in any way after some have been rejected, and after the supposed deadline, is unfair.  Even if NASA gives the same opportunity to all companies, this tilts the process in favor of companies that can modify their bids to be more compelling at the expense of other companies that cannot make their bids more compelling.

Bidding rules are there for a reason.  It's very disappointing to see NASA apparently disregarding them.  It also gives ample ground for legal challenges to the whole process.