This selection process is an example of the norm, not the exception.For instance, the SLS and Orion programs were mandated by Congress, and the wording of the legislation pretty much mandated that NASA use the same contractors as were already under contract on the Constellation program. THAT was the exception to normal government contracting.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/09/2020 11:11 pmThis selection process is an example of the norm, not the exception.For instance, the SLS and Orion programs were mandated by Congress, and the wording of the legislation pretty much mandated that NASA use the same contractors as were already under contract on the Constellation program. THAT was the exception to normal government contracting.Practically mandated? Please. If they wanted to mandate them they wouldn't have added the two weasel words: "where practical."
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/09/2020 08:33 pmFour companies submitted bids. See page 14 of 24, where it says:I meant options 3 and 1, but rereading my post I can understand the confusion. Thanks for answering anyways And regarding the last paragraph; the language seems very clear, but this would probably be the fist time in the entire Artemis Program that a decision has been made in the government's best interest (e.q. value for money spent), so my gut tells me there's a "but" hidden somewhere in between the lines.But I could very well be too suspicious.
Four companies submitted bids. See page 14 of 24, where it says:
Basically it says none of them are even close to SpaceX for this proposal - but if they want to come back and try again with some better proposals than they are welcome to try.
(2) MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS.—In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs and support critical capabilities, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph (1), including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.
Quote from: jadebenn on 04/10/2020 12:58 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 04/09/2020 11:11 pmThis selection process is an example of the norm, not the exception.For instance, the SLS and Orion programs were mandated by Congress, and the wording of the legislation pretty much mandated that NASA use the same contractors as were already under contract on the Constellation program. THAT was the exception to normal government contracting.Practically mandated? Please. If they wanted to mandate them they wouldn't have added the two weasel words: "where practical."They did, using their words, not yours (you don't write laws, they do). From the Senate Bill S.3729 that created the SLS and Orion:Quote(2) MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS.—In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs and support critical capabilities, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph (1), including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.And that is how you tie an agencies ability to determine the best way forward, Congress mandates the way forward knowing that Congress has the ability to haul NASA in front of a hearing and ask them why they are not following the law. No NASA Administrator wants an adversarial relationship with Congress.
Quote from: GWH on 04/09/2020 09:52 pmBasically it says none of them are even close to SpaceX for this proposal - but if they want to come back and try again with some better proposals than they are welcome to try.Except for Boeing, who was basically told to GTFO and not shown their faces around here again :https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1248366308519022593
I wonder if we will hear Shelby complaining about this sometime in the near future...
They did, using their words, not yours (you don't write laws, they do). From the Senate Bill S.3729 that created the SLS and Orion:Quote(2) MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS.—In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs and support critical capabilities, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph (1), including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.
What’s bothersome to me is NASAs rating of Boeing’s Past Performance at same High Confidence Level as SpX/NG. After what’s become obvious of their complete systemic breakdown on commercial crew, SEB’s rating on B’s PP would seem to be one “business as usual” NASA failure here.
SEB presented their finding to Bowersox on December 4, 2019, 2 weeks before Starliner's bug ridden OFT.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/10/2020 04:22 amThey did, using their words, not yours (you don't write laws, they do). From the Senate Bill S.3729 that created the SLS and Orion:Quote(2) MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS.—In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs and support critical capabilities, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph (1), including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.So in other words it says exactly what I said it did. Thanks for confirming that.
Stating that "this configuration has not yet flown" suggests Falcon Heavy will be expending the center core?
From the Senate Bill S.3729 that created the SLS and Orion:Quote(2) MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS.—In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs and support critical capabilities, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph (1), including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.And that is how you tie an agencies ability to determine the best way forward, Congress mandates the way forward knowing that Congress has the ability to haul NASA in front of a hearing and ask them why they are not following the law. No NASA Administrator wants an adversarial relationship with Congress.
Yes, Boeing really screwed up here. Four competitors and they were the only found to be not competitive. So, Boeing was eliminated from the competition.
I would really love to know why - if one provider was such a clear winner - it took almost 6 months to pick the winner.Proposals were due October 1st 2019.
New document reveals significant fall from grace for Boeing’s space program"I have decided to eliminate Boeing from further award consideration."by Eric Berger - Apr 10, 2020 4:11pm BST[...]When comparing the selection rationale for the 2014 commercial crew contracts with the rationale for the recent Gateway logistics contract, the perception of Boeing's offering could not be more stark. In 2014, Boeing was very much perceived as the gold-standard—expensive, yes, but also technically masterful. In 2020, the company was still perceived as expensive but not ultimately worthy of consideration.
The current wording mandates, if at all possible, the use of existing contractors. There is no room for nasa to weasel out, only room for congress to weasel out of responsibility for their actions.
