It would be interesting if SpaceX could use a crewed Dragon variant for the Feb 2015 CRS delivery of the new docking mech.
To move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important. For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores. Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.So what do you think of that?
Quote from: Wayne Hale on 07/26/2013 01:24 pmTo move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important. For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores. Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.So what do you think of that?This could be a recognition that all three vendors have offered similar safety and performance capabilities and that in the end, cost is the factor that will determine viability of the winning integrated system.
Analysis shows that should a debris strike occur on the ISS, all modules would lose pressure within three minutes. That means any lifeboat must be able to be undocked in less than that time. With NDS, that would be a simple case of closing the hatch, and hitting the undock button.
Quote from: Wayne Hale on 07/26/2013 01:24 pmTo move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important. For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores. Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.So what do you think of that?My first instinct would be to not score safety at all, but rather to make it a requirement to demonstrate that you will meet a required level of safety before you'd get the privilege of being scored in the other areas.
15.101-1 Tradeoff process. (a) A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. (b) When using a tradeoff process, the following apply: (1) All evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be clearly stated in the solicitation; and (2) The solicitation shall state whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than, approximately equal to, or significantly less important than cost or price. (c) This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with 15.406.
This could be a recognition that all three vendors have offered similar safety and performance capabilities and that in the end, cost is the factor that will determine viability of the winning integrated system.
Relatively low prices will also be evaluated to determine whether there is a risk of default in the event of award to that Offeror. If the Government determines that there is a high risk of default, such a determination may serve as the basis for non-selection.
McAlister: the one primary risk for comm'l crew is prematurely eliminating competition. Threatens safe, reliable, cost-effective systems.
McAlister: even though next comm'l crew phase, CCtCap, will be FAR-based contact, doesn't preclude remaining in partnership with companies.
McAlister adds he hasn't seen any "significant schedule slippage" among the three CCiCap awardees, although there have been minor changes.
"It's kind of amazing, right?" - McAlister on the fact NASA does not have an approved operating plan for FY2013, which ends in 2 months.
McAlister: if FY14 appropriations falls short of request for comm'l crew, NASA would have to decide to downselect early or slip schedule.
Some NAC HEO cmte members suggesting that having comm'l crew vehicles ready in 2017 should be top-priority goal for program.
McAlister: not getting requested budget will slow us down. Will trade benefits of having 1-3 partners vs. '17 schedule goal.
McAlister: don't think will be able to keep three partners in next commercial crew round, but hope to have two to maintain competition.
NAC HEO's Bob Sieck: commercial crew "almost done too well" considering haven't gotten near requested budget.
Quote from: Wayne Hale on 07/26/2013 01:24 pmTo move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important. For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores. Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.So what do you think of that?That is exactly what I would expect if I wanted one particular company to win the next round.
I'm more of a SpaceX fan than a Boeing fan, but I really don't want to see an early down-select. I hope this means it will cause Boeing to lobby against early down-select.