Theoretical are meaningless here. The national team simply will NOT share their money with spaceX. There is literally no world where this will happen. They will come up with some architecture which maximizes the amount of money they get paid, and also probably gets the job done.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 12/08/2022 08:18 pmTheoretical are meaningless here. The national team simply will NOT share their money with spaceX. There is literally no world where this will happen. They will come up with some architecture which maximizes the amount of money they get paid, and also probably gets the job done.I tend to agree. But Dynetics would be more than happy to share. And they could clean BO/NT's clock with a descent-ascent system with a liberal prop budget.
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/08/2022 08:59 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 12/08/2022 08:18 pmTheoretical are meaningless here. The national team simply will NOT share their money with spaceX. There is literally no world where this will happen. They will come up with some architecture which maximizes the amount of money they get paid, and also probably gets the job done.I tend to agree. But Dynetics would be more than happy to share. And they could clean BO/NT's clock with a descent-ascent system with a liberal prop budget.NASA is looking redundant lander systems so would expect alternative LV to SS for supply of Dynetic's landers fuel. Vulcan was LV of choice as it can deliver fuel directly to lunar orbit.
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/08/2022 02:17 pmNASA always said that they had a preference for 2. They said so verbally on a number of occasions. One was a possibility but it wasn't their preference. The BAA reflects that too (see below). The base period could have up to 4 providers but Options A and B had a maximum of 2. It's possible that Appendix P will have no awards if the bids are too high or if Congress doesn't provide enough funding for HLS. Incidentally, Option B and Appendix P have a lot of optional CLINs which makes it possible for NASA to drop a provider if they are unhappy with their performance. HLS wasn't even a commercial fixed-cost program at first. It seemed obvious that NASA was going to select one HLS provider, presumably an integrated lander system to launch on SLS, until they surprisingly announced that this was going to be a commercial contract. Only then did it become plausible to select two providers.There's a ton of revisionist history on this topic.
NASA always said that they had a preference for 2. They said so verbally on a number of occasions. One was a possibility but it wasn't their preference. The BAA reflects that too (see below). The base period could have up to 4 providers but Options A and B had a maximum of 2. It's possible that Appendix P will have no awards if the bids are too high or if Congress doesn't provide enough funding for HLS. Incidentally, Option B and Appendix P have a lot of optional CLINs which makes it possible for NASA to drop a provider if they are unhappy with their performance.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 12/08/2022 10:45 pmQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/08/2022 08:59 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 12/08/2022 08:18 pmTheoretical are meaningless here. The national team simply will NOT share their money with spaceX. There is literally no world where this will happen. They will come up with some architecture which maximizes the amount of money they get paid, and also probably gets the job done.I tend to agree. But Dynetics would be more than happy to share. And they could clean BO/NT's clock with a descent-ascent system with a liberal prop budget.NASA is looking redundant lander systems so would expect alternative LV to SS for supply of Dynetic's landers fuel. Vulcan was LV of choice as it can deliver fuel directly to lunar orbit.Yup, and I had a solution to that problem up-thread: SpaceX bids prop on a $/t basis, not on a per-launch basis. If Starship's down for whatever reason, they have to use FH and eat the cost difference. Setting the price includes the risk that they might have to do that.
The primary reasoning for 2 contracts for a provider of a service was that due to goals of the project it was not that realistic to believe that both would deliver or even 1 would. HLS is no different. SLS/Orion after it's first launch is a lower risk than any effort that would replace or compete with it. That does not mean that there would not be one anyway.For App P there is highly likely only funds for 1 selected and it is also possible that the funds may be less than expected requiring a renegotiation and lengthening of the scheduled delivery date on the selected provider. Thus the bidder's price still holds a very significant position in the decision as long as the lowest cost bidder can do the job!Schedule wise I do not expect an award for App P to occur before April. A source selection process on these size contracts are slow. And thus the official award date may even end being summer of 2023. That being last quarter of the 2023 fiscal year. 1 Oct 2023 would need a new budget passed by congress.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/09/2022 04:32 pmThe primary reasoning for 2 contracts for a provider of a service was that due to goals of the project it was not that realistic to believe that both would deliver or even 1 would. HLS is no different. SLS/Orion after it's first launch is a lower risk than any effort that would replace or compete with it. That does not mean that there would not be one anyway.For App P there is highly likely only funds for 1 selected and it is also possible that the funds may be less than expected requiring a renegotiation and lengthening of the scheduled delivery date on the selected provider. Thus the bidder's price still holds a very significant position in the decision as long as the lowest cost bidder can do the job!Schedule wise I do not expect an award for App P to occur before April. A source selection process on these size contracts are slow. And thus the official award date may even end being summer of 2023. That being last quarter of the 2023 fiscal year. 1 Oct 2023 would need a new budget passed by congress.The latest version of the BAA says that the anticipated date for the award is June 6, 2023. The BAA has a bunch of optional milestones in case that NASA doesn't receive the requested funding. So no renegotiation should be necessary. As of now, both the House and Senate proposed FY23 Appropriations bills fully fund HLS.
As is FH can't delivery propellant to lunar orbit . Upperstage can't survive 4 day without extensive modification. Might be able to build tanker based on Dragon XL bus but why would they if SS is their future. Most US only have life of few hours, Centuar and SS are about only stages capable of multiday missions. Photon is more of kick stage/OTV than US.
[...] being the sole provider of methalox in cislunar is a pretty big deal, likely with [...] extremely good profit margins
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/09/2022 08:52 pm[...] being the sole provider of methalox in cislunar is a pretty big deal, likely with [...] extremely good profit marginsBeing the customer of a monopoly provider involves some pretty extreme tolerance to price distortions. The "market price" of a commodity tends to be just above the cost level of the second most efficient provider....
Quote from: sdsds on 12/09/2022 08:59 pmQuote from: TheRadicalModerate on 12/09/2022 08:52 pm[...] being the sole provider of methalox in cislunar is a pretty big deal, likely with [...] extremely good profit marginsBeing the customer of a monopoly provider involves some pretty extreme tolerance to price distortions. The "market price" of a commodity tends to be just above the cost level of the second most efficient provider....If the monopoly provider can gouge pretty hard and still be 5-10x cheaper than any other alternative, that's still a pretty good deal.
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/09/2022 05:04 pmQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/09/2022 04:32 pmThe primary reasoning for 2 contracts for a provider of a service was that due to goals of the project it was not that realistic to believe that both would deliver or even 1 would. HLS is no different. SLS/Orion after it's first launch is a lower risk than any effort that would replace or compete with it. That does not mean that there would not be one anyway.For App P there is highly likely only funds for 1 selected and it is also possible that the funds may be less than expected requiring a renegotiation and lengthening of the scheduled delivery date on the selected provider. Thus the bidder's price still holds a very significant position in the decision as long as the lowest cost bidder can do the job!Schedule wise I do not expect an award for App P to occur before April. A source selection process on these size contracts are slow. And thus the official award date may even end being summer of 2023. That being last quarter of the 2023 fiscal year. 1 Oct 2023 would need a new budget passed by congress.The latest version of the BAA says that the anticipated date for the award is June 6, 2023. The BAA has a bunch of optional milestones in case that NASA doesn't receive the requested funding. So no renegotiation should be necessary. As of now, both the House and Senate proposed FY23 Appropriations bills fully fund HLS.How likely is this congress to pass a budget before it ends? Cause I have zero faith in one passing next year with divided chambers.
If there are two providers, it's not a monopoly. It's a market with a dominant provider. It's not gouging to charge just barely less than the second provider, it's market economics. A monopoly picks a price that maximizes net revenue. If the market is elastic, lower prices result in higher sales but lower profit per sale, and there is a point on this curve that maximizes total profit. The existence of a second provider puts a cap on the price the first provider can charge.
Quote from: clongton on 12/07/2022 12:22 pmPolitics over design, politics over excellence, politics over accomplishment. And of course it will be expensive. I hold out a little hope that National Team has developed something innovative this round, maybe leveraging New Glenn work, that has some promise of being operationally competitive with Lunar Starship. But the National Team’s pork map strongly indicates otherwise.
Politics over design, politics over excellence, politics over accomplishment. And of course it will be expensive.
Rumors and information tidbits pointed to Blue using a refueable and reusable tanker to ferry propellant to a transfer stage and single stage lander in NHRO. A simplified version of National Teams architecture. New Glenn upper stage = tanker. Transfer stage is lander without legs and a crew cab. The simplest solution is to use all common Blue Origin hardware. With this many chefs in the kitchen I have a REAL hard time seeing a simple and innovative solution come about. Far more likely that the proposal be constructed of 3 unique vehicles, just like the last proposal, with each of the big contractors looking to carve out the largest peice of the pie for themselves. Lockheed "Orion derived" ascent stage, Blue moon derived descent stage, Boeing using what hardware they can to build a transfer stage.I can't see any other breakdown where the 3 major contractors would be content with having a smaller role for the sake of offering a less complex solution.
Quote from: GWH on 12/10/2022 05:23 amRumors and information tidbits pointed to Blue using a refueable and reusable tanker to ferry propellant to a transfer stage and single stage lander in NHRO. A simplified version of National Teams architecture. New Glenn upper stage = tanker. Transfer stage is lander without legs and a crew cab. The simplest solution is to use all common Blue Origin hardware. With this many chefs in the kitchen I have a REAL hard time seeing a simple and innovative solution come about. Far more likely that the proposal be constructed of 3 unique vehicles, just like the last proposal, with each of the big contractors looking to carve out the largest peice of the pie for themselves. Lockheed "Orion derived" ascent stage, Blue moon derived descent stage, Boeing using what hardware they can to build a transfer stage.I can't see any other breakdown where the 3 major contractors would be content with having a smaller role for the sake of offering a less complex solution.The use of New Glenn for prop transport and the AE/DE/TE triumvirate can both be true. But it requires betting the farm on New Glenn. Maybe that's a good reason for Blue to be the prime; if things go pear-shaped, they're on the hook to pay their subs.
Quote from: VSECOTSPE on 12/08/2022 03:04 pmQuote from: clongton on 12/07/2022 12:22 pmPolitics over design, politics over excellence, politics over accomplishment. And of course it will be expensive. I hold out a little hope that National Team has developed something innovative this round, maybe leveraging New Glenn work, that has some promise of being operationally competitive with Lunar Starship. But the National Team’s pork map strongly indicates otherwise.Rumors and information tidbits pointed to Blue using a refueable and reusable tanker to ferry propellant to a transfer stage and single stage lander in NHRO. A simplified version of National Teams architecture. New Glenn upper stage = tanker. Transfer stage is lander without legs and a crew cab. The simplest solution is to use all common Blue Origin hardware. With this many chefs in the kitchen I have a REAL hard time seeing a simple and innovative solution come about. Far more likely that the proposal be constructed of 3 unique vehicles, just like the last proposal, with each of the big contractors looking to carve out the largest peice of the pie for themselves. Lockheed "Orion derived" ascent stage, Blue moon derived descent stage, Boeing using what hardware they can to build a transfer stage.I can't see any other breakdown where the 3 major contractors would be content with having a smaller role for the sake of offering a less complex solution.