LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards and Decision Discussion - April 18

[TexasRED]

http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/SelectionStatement-Final_Signed.pdf

Apparently USA's proposal was considered not to fall under the scope/intent of CCDev2, and USA withdrew their proposal on March 28, 2011.

For all the proposals which were considered to fall under the guidelines, here's the scores they received. Red is very low level of confidence, then yellow->white->green->blue (very high). The first value is the technical approach, the second value is "business information". If they got a different value in the initial evaluation compared to the final evaluation, I've put the initial evaluation in brackets:

ATK: green/green [yellow/yellow]
Blue Origin: white/green [yellow/white]
Boeing: blue/green [white/yellow]
Excalibur Almaz: white/yellow [yellow/yellow]
Orbital Sciences: green/white [white/white]
OST (Orbital Space Transport): red/red
PlanetSpace: red/red
Sierra Nevada: white/green [white/white]
SpaceX: green/blue [white/green]
t/Space: red/red
ULA: white/white [white/white]

Blue - Very High Level of Confidence: The proposal section is very highly effective and there is a very high likelihood of successful execution.

Green - High Level of Confidence: The proposal section is highly effective and there is at least a high likelihood of successful execution.

White - Moderate Level of Confidence: The proposal section is moderately effective and there is at least a moderate likelihood of successful execution.

Yellow - Low Level of Confidence:  The proposal section has low effectiveness or there is a low likelihood of successful execution.

Red - Very Low Level of Confidence:  The proposal section has very low effectiveness or there is a very low likelihood of successful execution.

*SNIP* Neil beat me to post the ratings, so I'll just leave the official terms for the colors. I wish they just used numbers...

[Robotbeat]

It looks like ATK got the largest snub, and the OSC/SNC decision was close...

I don't think it was a snub. CCDev2 was focused on spacecraft, and ATK was proposing a launch vehicle (which didn't even have Memorandums of Understanding signed with potential customers--which was a little surprising to me, based on their claims and the fact that an MoU isn't that hard to get--and wasn't selected by any of the other spacecraft proposals). But it does look like the reviewer thought their proposal was pretty good in other ways, even if it wasn't a good fit for CCDev2.

[MikeAtkinson]

"However, a significant weakness was lack of a linkage to any spacecraft. ATK did not have any commitments"

Looks like they were snubbed by the other participants.

[pathfinder_01]

So what happens if they mess up? Do they get to refund NASA?

Not quite. NASA only pays if the reach their milestones to it's satisfaction.

[yg1968]

It looks like ATK got the largest snub, and the OSC/SNC decision was close...

I don't think it was a snub. CCDev2 was focused on spacecraft, and ATK was proposing a launch vehicle (which didn't even have Memorandums of Understanding signed with customers--which was very surprising to me--and wasn't selected by any of the other spacecraft proposals). But it does look like the reviewer thought their proposal was pretty good in other ways, even if it wasn't a good fit for CCDev2.

Boeing has said that their spacecraft could also be adapted to the Liberty.

[Robotbeat]

It looks like ATK got the largest snub, and the OSC/SNC decision was close...

I don't think it was a snub. CCDev2 was focused on spacecraft, and ATK was proposing a launch vehicle (which didn't even have Memorandums of Understanding signed with customers--which was very surprising to me--and wasn't selected by any of the other spacecraft proposals). But it does look like the reviewer thought their proposal was pretty good in other ways, even if it wasn't a good fit for CCDev2.

Boeing has said that their spacecraft could be adapted to the Liberty.

I was reading from the Selection Statement, so the idea that CST-100 could work with Liberty must have come up kind of late.

[pathfinder_01]

I am also very happy with the selections.

Concerning ULA, the selection statement is interesting. It essentially says that man-rating the ULA vehicles is not the long pole for commercial crew, so they didn't think that it was the best use of the limited CCDev-2 funds to award ULA funding for its EDS. 

There was a view a few weeks ago that had some info on ULA. They plan to be ready to launch crew in 2014, but the only big thing they planed this year was to find a vendor to produce the emergency detection system.  Also wither new pads will be built or old pads modified is still up in the air.

[Namechange User]

It looks like ATK got the largest snub, and the OSC/SNC decision was close...

I don't think it was a snub. CCDev2 was focused on spacecraft, and ATK was proposing a launch vehicle (which didn't even have Memorandums of Understanding signed with customers--which was very surprising to me--and wasn't selected by any of the other spacecraft proposals). But it does look like the reviewer thought their proposal was pretty good in other ways, even if it wasn't a good fit for CCDev2.

Boeing has said that their spacecraft could be adapted to the Liberty.

I was reading from the Selection Statement, so the idea that CST-100 could work with Liberty must have come up kind of late.

Boeing has been very consistent in saying they will be launch vehicle "agnostic".  How they handle that is certification of systems based on what they believe the worse case environment is for any particular launch vehicle. 

That is why I am puzzled by others who are trying to push a marriage between Boeing, and specifically the Atlas, as an absolute.  Obviosuly that is one possibility out of several they would like to consider. 

[simonbp]

I was reading from the Selection Statement, so the idea that CST-100 could work with Liberty must have come up kind of late.

And may have been why their "score" effectively doubled, both technical and business sides. Still, ATK scored higher than either OSC or SNC (or ULA for that matter), so Liberty apparently did have a lot of appeal to the selectors. The desire for a lifting body must have just overrode that...

[simonbp]

That is why I am puzzled by others who are trying to push a marriage between Boeing, and specifically the Atlas, as an absolute.  Obviosuly that is one possibility out of several they would like to consider. 

Especially as, being Boeing, they always show it on a single-core Delta IV...

[hektor]

So Liberty dead. Next crewed launchers will be Atlas V and Falcon 9 and I guess we can expect first missions, taking into account the usual delays and funding cuts by 2017-18...

Next step should be to cancel Orion since I guess any of the two capsules makes a perfect exploration vehicle, if one is really needed.

[Namechange User]

So Liberty dead. Next crewed launchers will be Atlas V and Falcon 9 and I guess we can expect first missions, taking into account the usual delays and funding cuts by 2017-18...

I think that is jumping the gun.  ATK has said publically they intend to pursue Liberty.  We'll see what they do now. 

[yg1968]

It looks like ATK got the largest snub, and the OSC/SNC decision was close...

I don't think it was a snub. CCDev2 was focused on spacecraft, and ATK was proposing a launch vehicle (which didn't even have Memorandums of Understanding signed with customers--which was very surprising to me--and wasn't selected by any of the other spacecraft proposals). But it does look like the reviewer thought their proposal was pretty good in other ways, even if it wasn't a good fit for CCDev2.

Boeing has said that their spacecraft could be adapted to the Liberty.

I was reading from the Selection Statement, so the idea that CST-100 could work with Liberty must have come up kind of late.

Boeing has been very consistent in saying they will be launch vehicle "agnostic".  How they handle that is certification of systems based on what they believe the worse case environment is for any particular launch vehicle. 

That is why I am puzzled by others who are trying to push a marriage between Boeing, and specifically the Atlas, as an absolute.  Obviosuly that is one possibility out of several they would like to consider. 

Despite this claim, Boeing has said that it would have to choose one of these vehicules as a point of reference in the next few months. It is almost certain that the Atlas V 402 will be the point of reference.

[hektor]

Obviously no spacecraft provider wants Liberty.

If you are not Space-X your obvious choice is Atlas V. Available, flight proven.

[Namechange User]

It looks like ATK got the largest snub, and the OSC/SNC decision was close...

I don't think it was a snub. CCDev2 was focused on spacecraft, and ATK was proposing a launch vehicle (which didn't even have Memorandums of Understanding signed with customers--which was very surprising to me--and wasn't selected by any of the other spacecraft proposals). But it does look like the reviewer thought their proposal was pretty good in other ways, even if it wasn't a good fit for CCDev2.

Boeing has said that their spacecraft could be adapted to the Liberty.

I was reading from the Selection Statement, so the idea that CST-100 could work with Liberty must have come up kind of late.

Boeing has been very consistent in saying they will be launch vehicle "agnostic".  How they handle that is certification of systems based on what they believe the worse case environment is for any particular launch vehicle. 

That is why I am puzzled by others who are trying to push a marriage between Boeing, and specifically the Atlas, as an absolute.  Obviosuly that is one possibility out of several they would like to consider. 

Despite this claim, Boeing has said that it would have to choose one of these vehicules as a point of reference in the next few months. It is almost certain that the Atlas V 402 will be the point of reference.

Never said otherwise.  Doesn't mean the design does not take what I said into account.  It also does not mean that Boeing will specifically "help" ULA with regard to Atlas. 

[Robotbeat]

So Liberty dead. Next crewed launchers will be Atlas V and Falcon 9 and I guess we can expect first missions, taking into account the usual delays and funding cuts by 2017-18...

Yes, considering the lack of customers according to the Selection Statement (and the already quite saturated market), I would be incredibly surprised if ATK's Liberty continues at all. If ATK does want to continue in the direction of launch vehicles, I'd more expect something along the lines of an Athena variant (probably with Lockheed).

[ugordan]

so Liberty apparently did have a lot of appeal to the selectors.

Not really, in one part of the statement McAlister said there's more than enough LV know-how in U.S. industry over the last 2 decades, but no HSF spacecraft know-how so he put emphasis on spacecraft, not launch vehicles. Hence why no ULA award as well. LVs aren't on the critical path, and yet on the other hand no s/c has gone through PDR yet.

Realistically, we're looking at 2 (3 at most) comml. crew providers. Having 2 launch vehicles seems like providing enough redundancy already.

[Namechange User]

Obviously no spacecraft provided wants it.

Proof?  Data?  Tangible evidence that nobody would fly anything on Liberty?  Or just more anti-ATK arm-waving?

[hektor]

Eventually Dragon / Falcon 9 vs. CST-100 / Atlas 402 seems a likely outcome.

[simonbp]

Obviously no spacecraft provided wants it.

Again I don't think that's the real story. I think it's more that NASA wanted a lifting body, and prioritized that over zombie-Euro-Ares.