Author Topic: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1  (Read 640831 times)

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #120 on: 10/10/2014 09:47 pm »
GAME ON indeed - they basically played the 'national interest' card.  Tough one to counter.

There are two types of cards: "urgent and compelling circumstances"; or in the "best interests of the United States".  The latter is a weaker card, the one which NASA played,  the one most difficult to defend, and the one most often overturned--it is by no means synonymous with national security or national defense.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #121 on: 10/10/2014 10:21 pm »
GAME ON indeed - they basically played the 'national interest' card.  Tough one to counter.

There are two types of cards: "urgent and compelling circumstances"; or in the "best interests of the United States".  The latter is a weaker card, the one which NASA played,  the one most difficult to defend, and the one most often overturned--it is by no means synonymous with national security or national defense.

Three years ahead the CC spacecraft are unlikely to have a planed launch date but they may have a planned launch quarter year and possibly even a launch month.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #122 on: 10/10/2014 10:43 pm »
Three years ahead the CC spacecraft are unlikely to have a planed launch date but they may have a planned launch quarter year and possibly even a launch month.

So they may.  But in cases where need and urgency have been used to override a GAO protest stay, the time frame in question has typically been months, not years.  If NASA is stating that a 100 day delay in a multi-year program is make-or-break, there are more serious problems.

More likely IMHO is that NASA feels that a 100 day delay will result in far longer knock-on delays due to, e.g., personnel being layed off or repurposed and that it will take much longer than 100 days to restart.  The source of such warnings (or threats) is unknown, but I'd hazard a guess that it comes from the incumbents, and one in particular.  YMMV.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 11:13 pm by joek »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #123 on: 10/10/2014 11:14 pm »
Anyone remember when the CC announcement was supposed to be first made? Where was the sense of urgency then?
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #124 on: 10/10/2014 11:19 pm »
Three years ahead the CC spacecraft are unlikely to have a planed launch date but they may have a planned launch quarter year and possibly even a launch month.

I would think NASA knows when the window would open for the first Commercial Crew flight based on the current crew rotation schedule, and would want both of their providers to be shooting for that earliest possible need date.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #125 on: 10/10/2014 11:21 pm »
It's a smart move. Why stop both SpaceX and Boeing from progressing when only one of them could potentially be relieved of its' current contract. There would be some economic fallout if one of the contracts were ultimately reversed but in the grand scheme of the entirety of the program, it's a risk well worth taking.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #126 on: 10/10/2014 11:36 pm »
I would think NASA knows when the window would open for the first Commercial Crew flight based on the current crew rotation schedule, and would want both of their providers to be shooting for that earliest possible need date.

That is a far cry from asserting a "compelling need" or "national interest" (or whatever) as the basis for a GAO protest override.  Something more must be in play as the basis for NASA issuing such an override.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #127 on: 10/10/2014 11:41 pm »
It's a smart move. Why stop both SpaceX and Boeing from progressing when only one of them could potentially be relieved of its' current contract. There would be some economic fallout if one of the contracts were ultimately reversed but in the grand scheme of the entirety of the program, it's a risk well worth taking.

Because the rules prohibit NASA from playing that game.  If NASA does attempt to play that game (which would be stupid), they will be handed their head on a platter.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2014 11:51 pm by joek »

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #128 on: 10/11/2014 12:07 am »
It's a smart move. Why stop both SpaceX and Boeing from progressing when only one of them could potentially be relieved of its' current contract. There would be some economic fallout if one of the contracts were ultimately reversed but in the grand scheme of the entirety of the program, it's a risk well worth taking.

Because the rules prohibit NASA from playing that game.  If NASA does attempt to play that game (which would be stupid), they will be handed their head on a platter.
Pardon, I honestly don't understand. What rules? What game? I'm just saying that regardless how the protest turns out, with allowing continued work, at least one system will remain on schedule. I'm not saying NASA's reasoning for full steam ahead is completely sound but it keeps the train a hummin and at least half that train is guaranteed to make into station. (pun intended)
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #129 on: 10/11/2014 12:36 am »
It's a smart move. Why stop both SpaceX and Boeing from progressing when only one of them could potentially be relieved of its' current contract. There would be some economic fallout if one of the contracts were ultimately reversed but in the grand scheme of the entirety of the program, it's a risk well worth taking.
Because the rules prohibit NASA from playing that game.  If NASA does attempt to play that game (which would be stupid), they will be handed their head on a platter.
Pardon, I honestly don't understand. What rules? What game? I'm just saying that regardless how the protest turns out, with allowing continued work, at least one system will remain on schedule. I'm not saying NASA's reasoning for full steam ahead is completely sound but it keeps the train a hummin and at least half that train is guaranteed to make into station. (pun intended)

NASA cannot assume that one system--or any system--would remain on schedule based on the GAO's final decision.  NASA cannot base an override decision on whether one system--or any system--will remain on track based the GAO's final decision.

If NASA were to say or imply that their decision was based on an assumption or assertion that at least one system would remain on track regardless of the GAO's ultimate decision, then NASA would be admitting that their override decision was based on reasons other than those allowed.

If NASA's override decision is based on any basis other than allowed, then that override decision is effectively null and void (assuming anyone objects).  No court or the GAO would uphold it, and those responsible for attempting such a charade would likely see the chopping block.  Again, I don't think NASA would be so stupid as to make such a mistake. 

Hope that helps.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #130 on: 10/11/2014 11:33 am »
I expect the return to work risk by NASA is minimal. If the GAO overturns the contract, then in worst case NASA will be out only 1 milestone payment.

Not correct.  I know there is money at authority to proceed and at least one partner has 3 milestones by the end of the year.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #131 on: 10/11/2014 12:47 pm »
Since Boeing has a lock on the project and they have the money, they can go on ahead on their own dime... Oh wait...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #132 on: 10/11/2014 01:13 pm »
I expect the return to work risk by NASA is minimal. If the GAO overturns the contract, then in worst case NASA will be out only 1 milestone payment.

Not correct.  I know there is money at authority to proceed and at least one partner has 3 milestones by the end of the year.

Are the milestones and payments available -- open to the public?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #133 on: 10/11/2014 02:23 pm »
I expect the return to work risk by NASA is minimal. If the GAO overturns the contract, then in worst case NASA will be out only 1 milestone payment.

Not correct.  I know there is money at authority to proceed and at least one partner has 3 milestones by the end of the year.

True, could be more than 1 milestone, and I also assume that the GAO decision will not take the full 100 days.

Why do some posters think SpaceX is at risk? The protest is clearly based on the financial argument of saving taxpayers money and that will only happen if SNC replaces Boeing.
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline Nindalf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Canada
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #134 on: 10/11/2014 03:25 pm »
Why do some posters think SpaceX is at risk? The protest is clearly based on the financial argument of saving taxpayers money and that will only happen if SNC replaces Boeing.
Rather, it is based on the solicitation specifying that the price factor would be the most important consideration.  If that had not been the case, they couldn't have argued on general principles that the award should be overturned because it would save taxpayer money.

The bid was put in based on the solicitation.  If the solicitation had put a premium on design conservatism or additional services, SNC might have made a different proposal.  Inconsistency between the criteria given in the solicitation and the criteria used to make the decision would be grounds to overturn the award.

For instance, the determining factor may have been that Boeing bid a non-reuse approach, while SNC bid reuse, and the NASA decision-makers, despite judging SNC's approach highly likely to succeed, decided to throw cost considerations out the window and spend another billion dollars for a hair more confidence that the non-reuse approach would deliver.

This would be inconsistent with the solicitation criteria, which describe an emphasis on price, and if they had known the actual criteria which would be applied, SNC might also have bid a non-reuse plan.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #135 on: 10/11/2014 07:16 pm »
Are the milestones and payments available -- open to the public?
No.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #136 on: 10/11/2014 07:29 pm »
Rather, it is based on the solicitation specifying that the price factor would be the most important consideration.

Not quite, and that meme needs to be squashed:
Quote from: CCtCap RFP NNK14467515R
M.1   SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS—GENERAL
...
(e)   Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price.  The Price factor is more important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance.
NB: Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price.

edit: To be clear, Price is the most important factor (or tie-breaker) only if you assume that the evaluation of Mission Suitability and Past Performance are also equal.  I would not make such an assumption.
« Last Edit: 10/11/2014 07:48 pm by joek »

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #137 on: 10/11/2014 07:59 pm »
Rather, it is based on the solicitation specifying that the price factor would be the most important consideration.

Not quite, and that meme needs to be squashed:
Quote from: CCtCap RFP NNK14467515R
M.1   SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS—GENERAL
...
(e)   Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price.  The Price factor is more important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance.
NB: Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price.

edit: To be clear, Price is the most important factor (or tie-breaker) only if you assume that the evaluation of Mission Suitability and Past Performance are also equal.  I would not make such an assumption.

???

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #138 on: 10/11/2014 08:17 pm »
???
Price is not the sole, primary, or overriding evaluation factor--as some seem to claim--but one of several evaluation factors.  Given that SNC (presumably) had a lower evaluated price than, e.g., Boeing, then it is likely SNC lost based on other evaluation factors: Mission suitability and Past Performance.  Hope that makes sense.
« Last Edit: 10/11/2014 08:35 pm by joek »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #139 on: 10/11/2014 09:11 pm »
???
Price is not the sole, primary, or overriding evaluation factor--as some seem to claim--but one of several evaluation factors.  Given that SNC (presumably) had a lower evaluated price than, e.g., Boeing, then it is likely SNC lost based on other evaluation factors: Mission suitability and Past Performance.  Hope that makes sense.

That is true but imo you went too far in the opposite direction.
NASA itself stated that price would be given double value over all the other factors.
Mind you that does not say that price is primary - there is no primary - only that price is 2x more important than any other "single" factor.
« Last Edit: 10/12/2014 10:22 am by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1