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

[ugordan]

Space Act Agreements now posted

http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/

Page 15 of the Selection Statement is worth reading.

Could you post a link to it because I can't seem to find it?

[savuporo]

From the Space Act Agreements, here's a quick summary of the milestones each company has set for each sub-project for a year from now:

at a first blush, looks like SNC will be the one to do the most visible metal bending and flight tests, esp. if they actually do the optional flight tests with whatever the "ETA" is.

[pathfinder_01]

So I guess as noted on the other thread about S/C systems perhaps not as critical, Paragon got a temporary 'snub'.

(hence my thought that the available funds simply aren't enough to go around for proper funding)

Pargon completed it's project and needs no more money. In other words if you need a lifesupport system you contact them and use their system now.

[Robotbeat]

Space Act Agreements now posted

http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/

Pages 14 and 15 of the Selection Statement are worth reading. Boeing and SpaceX proposals were much better than anybody else's. NASA wanted at least one lifting body. So Dream Chaser got the nod over Orbital's proposal for different reasons. NASA has some serious concerns over SNC's abort system. But they think that it can be addressed during the development phase.

Yes, very interesting. It should be noted that:
"For these reasons, all portfolio options that I considered included both SpaceX and Boeing baseline proposals." is on page 15. That was predicted by many on this forum.

[MikeAtkinson]

Last paragraph of SpaceX

"*SpaceX is unable to offer a formal System Design Review (SDR) since final crew requirements are not anticipated to be available at this point. Some SpaceX CTS system may be at or beyond SDR level of maturity, but the CBR level of maturity will be the lowest common denominator among our various systems"

I interpret this to mean that SpaceX are being held up by NASA not being able to provide the final crew requirements.

Also the SpaceX proposal talks about the LAS tank (singular) in several places, so it is almost certainly a monopropellant (we will have to see whether it is NOFBX).

[kirghizstan]

For once I AM GLAD that ATK got snubbed.

(of course all things come full circle, so they're likely to get more lucrative contracts in the future, but of course that's OT...)

atk didn't get snubbed, they got ares1x.  they can consider that there funding

[Robotbeat]

Space Act Agreements now posted

http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/

Page 15 of the Selection Statement is worth reading.

Could you post a link to it because I can't seem to find it?

http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/ , at the end:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/SelectionStatement-Final_Signed.pdf

[ugordan]

http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/ , at the end:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/SelectionStatement-Final_Signed.pdf

Thanks for the link, for some obscure reason all I see there are the 4 award Agreement PDFs.

[Joris]

SpaceX seem to be pretty fired up:

With NASA’s support, SpaceX will be ready to fly first manned mission three years after receiving these funds.

http://twitter.com/#!/SpaceXer

This statement is rather confusing. It makes it sound like $75 million and 3 years is all they will need to get to a manned system. I assume that is not what was intended to be communicated since they have previously stated cost estimates to a manned system of $600-$800 million.

CCDEV2 lasts just 14 months, after which new funding will/might be allocated for CCDEV3.

The document says Spacex provides additional funding internally. (on page 31)

Fully funded for the $75 million requested under CCDEV 2 in conjunction with an internal cash investment of *censored*, SpaceX will be ready to demonstrate crew...

Elon had stated that he could do Dragon Crew without NASA funding. Which may mean that he SpaceX might pay for the remaining costs to develop Dragon Crew.

[Longhorn John]

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

[neilh]

http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/ , at the end:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/SelectionStatement-Final_Signed.pdf

Thanks for the link, for some obscure reason all I see there are the 4 award Agreement PDFs.

I could've sworn I saw the link there previously, but it seems to have disappeared? Fortunately the direct link still works.

[neilh]

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

They don't get paid for milestones they don't complete.

[yg1968]

Space Act Agreements now posted

http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/

Page 15 of the Selection Statement is worth reading.

Could you post a link to it because I can't seem to find it?

http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/ , at the end:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/SelectionStatement-Final_Signed.pdf

See attached document.

[Chris Bergin]

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

No, that would be NASA's mistake if they "mess up", as they are getting paid after completing set milestones.

[RocketEconomist327]

This is about the best news I could hope for personally.  SpaceX and Boeing for the win! 

Just as predicted Boeing will continue to get funds for CST-100.  They will also work closely with ULA.  While ULA did not get funds the writing is on the wall.  Atlas V will be "man rated"*.

SpaceX IPO may not be required now.  75 Million is a TON of money for what is required next.  They laid out their plan and milestones are set. 

Jesus what a day.  Wow.  Very happy.

VR
TEA
RE327

[yg1968]

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. 

[vt_hokie]

I'm hoping that Dream Chaser makes it and gives us a reusable runway landing shuttle.  I'm not confident in the future with all of these programs being in such a preliminary stage, with shuttle retirement imminent.  CCDev should've been where it is now about 5 years ago!

[neilh]

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]

[simonbp]

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

[Halidon]

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

ATK was pitching at launch vehicle at a competition which seems very much aimed at spacecraft.