Hi,now that SpaceX has confirmed Falcon Heavy as its launcher for Gateway cargo services.... I wonder if, for Dragon cargoes, it is needed (FH) to be fully expendable, partially reusable or fully reusable?I have no clue. Thanks for your answers (elaborated)
Quote from: pochimax on 08/21/2019 10:00 pmHi,now that SpaceX has confirmed Falcon Heavy as its launcher for Gateway cargo services.... I wonder if, for Dragon cargoes, it is needed (FH) to be fully expendable, partially reusable or fully reusable?I have no clue. Thanks for your answers (elaborated)Probably reusable. Expendable can do like 17-20 tons TLI.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/27/2020 10:29 pmQuote from: pochimax on 08/21/2019 10:00 pmHi,now that SpaceX has confirmed Falcon Heavy as its launcher for Gateway cargo services.... I wonder if, for Dragon cargoes, it is needed (FH) to be fully expendable, partially reusable or fully reusable?I have no clue. Thanks for your answers (elaborated)Probably reusable. Expendable can do like 17-20 tons TLI.I am still hung up on the caption on the NASA release that the Dragon XL separates in high earth orbit. If that is taken literally it would mean Dragon XL completes TLI.I know with F9 a hypergolic 3rd stage isn't a good trade due to the low mass of F9 US, but maybe for FH there would be sufficiently low staging velocity to catch all 3 cores?Also if one wanted to leverage development of this cargo craft for HLS it would make sense to develop a vehicle with greater propulsive capabilities.
Action Obligation: Current $76,824.00 Total $76,824.00Base And Exercised Options Value: Current $0.00 Total $7,000,000,000.00Base and All Options Value (Total Contract Value): Current $0.00 Total $7,000,000,000.00Fee Paid for Use of IDV: $0.00
The SEB was unable to determine whether Boeing's proposed price was reasonable given its inaccurate conditional assumption and exceptions to the contract terms.
Additionally, SpaceX could have been clearer in stating its launch vehicle’s performance capability, especially since this configuration has not yet flown and thus, performance margins for lifting its Dragon XL are uncertain.
SpaceX’s technical proposal contained five weaknesses I consider to be minor in nature and correctable. First, its design approach would locate the service section of the Dragon XL between the pressurized volume and the Gateway, meaning crew would have to translate through the service section, which is mechanically active. (Weakness #5). There is a small possibility that human health and performance standards, such as acoustics environment, would require mitigations if they are at an unacceptable level. Further, SpaceX, like NGIS and SNC, inadequately defined what will likely be a new hardware interface between its launch vehicle and cargo vehicle. (Weakness #1). Additionally, SpaceX could have been clearer in stating its launch vehicle’s performance capability, especially since this configuration has not yet flown and thus, performance margins for lifting its Dragon XL are uncertain. (Weakness #2). There were also two minor technical weaknesses regarding a drag-through duct for ventilation between Gateway and Dragon XL (Weakness #3) and internet communications protocol (Weakness #4). However, because these weaknesses are minor and correctable, I do not consider them to be an obstacle to SpaceX’s successful contract performance.
[SpaceX’s] unpressurized cargo capability is also the best among all offerors and is approximately double of what is required.
I note the RFP allows me to award GLS contracts to more than one offeror; however, given the evaluation results and my assessment of those results, I have determined awarding more than one GLS contract at this time is not in the Government’s best interest. Furthermore, the on-ramp clause in the RFP will allow these offerors to submit GLS proposals in the future.
The Cygnus seem to have some weakness in micrometorite protect here.
This is a significant concern that could ultimately lead to significant degradation (or even total failure) of the Exploration Cygnus, the launch vehicle, or both.
Company 1 has significant weakness because they don't allow enough NASA insight and have problem with independent verification of their software.Company 2 has strength because they offer to let 3rd party verify their software as part of the baseline price.If you ask me to guess which is which, I would say company 1 is SpaceX and company 2 is Boeing, but the reality is exactly the opposite, totally not what I was expecting.
As a preliminary matter, I note that Boeing received the lowest adjectival rating and score under the Mission Suitability factor amongst the four offers while also submitting the highest price. Particularly within the Technical Approach subfactor (the most important within the Mission Suitability factor), Boeing’s proposal was the lowest rated of the four offers, with the inadequacy of its cargo stowage design identified as a significant weakness. I further note that Boeing took several exceptions to the RFP and predicated its fixed price on several key assumptions/exceptions. This made it impossible for the SEB to determine whether Boeing’s offered price was reasonable. From a Past Performance standpoint, Boeing did very well, having earned a High Level of Confidence rating (along with NGIS and SpaceX). However, Boeing’s High rating cannot overcome its Mission Suitability ratings and the significant issues present in its Price proposal. That is, since Boeing’s proposal was the highest priced and the lowest rated under the Mission Suitability factor, while additionally providing a conditional fixed price, I have decided to eliminate Boeing from further award consideration. This offeror’s evaluation results and my assessment thereof, combined with the relative order of importance of the RFP’s evaluation factors, have led me to conclude that Boeing is not competitive for award.
