CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Lars-J]

How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1?

[francesco nicoli]

So:
 the drawback of Boeing + SpaceX is having 2 capsules.
 the drawback of Boeing and Sierra Nevada is having 2 Atlas V vectors, although some say that DC can fly also on a Falcon.
 the drawback of SN and Space X is that well, none of them is able or willing to finance re-election campaigns of various congress members in a month or so and then the presidential elections in a little less than two years. Which is an important factor even if not connected with aerospace.

Which is the less costly combination?

[newpylong]

How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1?

I hope none. No one should realistically think they wouldn't be a good pick.

But no one should think that Boeing can't deliver either.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

So:
 the drawback of Boeing + SpaceX is having 2 capsules.
 the drawback of Boeing and Sierra Nevada is having 2 Atlas V vectors, although some say that DC can fly also on a Falcon.
 the drawback of SN and Space X is that well, none of them is able or willing to finance re-election campaigns of various congress members in a month or so and then the presidential elections in a little less than two years. Which is an important factor even if not connected with aerospace.

Which is the less costly combination?

In a source selection the only option upper management has if they don't like the selection is to redo the whole RFP>Proposal>Selection process that takes an additional 6 months to a year.

[dglow]

How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

What defines 'winning' this competition if there are two awardees?

At this stage, I don't think either side 'wins' or 'loses' in terms of dollars awarded. Just ensure they both have equal flight opportunities.

[obi-wan]

How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1?

I hope none. No one should realistically think they wouldn't be a good pick.

But no one should think that Boeing can't deliver either.

I predict that before CST-100's first manned flight, Boeing will be at least 100% over budget - and NASA will pay the difference plus full incentives.

[nadreck]

I think WSJ based their assessment on dollars and the Florida Today article correctly points out that Boeing would be charging more than twice what SpaceX would to accomplish roughly the same goal. Note that means that yes, Boeing may get a bigger contract but if, in the end both deliver the same requirements (2 flights a year) then they have equal contracts.  We will see how it comes out real soon. The only problem I have in all of this is the irresponsible reporting of the WSJ speculation as fact (at least in headlines) from other mainstream news outlets.

[Space Ghost 1962]

"According to the source, the awards do not impose a "leader-follower" arrangement in which one company is awarded significantly more funding and expected to fly first, with another receiving less funding and developing its systems more slowly."

Does this mean that they are funded at the same expectation of a 2017 flight date e.g. same precedence, w/o an "expedite" increase?

The NBC news article already said that both companies would fly to the ISS in 2017.

My emphasis above. What I'm getting at is the nature of that time line to ostensibly make that deadline.

If we were to have a race that took same items even though costlier in BigCo than SmallCo and BigCo has more headcount as expected over SmallCo, then it would be about program/schedule risk, e.g. who can execute faster with fewer surprises.

Is this true or not?

Boeing complained all along about too much on the cheap with CC in the past.

[abaddon]

I predict that before CST-100's first manned flight, Boeing will be at least 100% over budget - and NASA will pay the difference plus full incentives.

That seems a bit unfair.  I could see Boeing spending more money on CCtCAP since they will have a guarantee of at least two flights and an effective guarantee of a subsequent contract as long as they don't screw the pooch.

[Lar]

How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1?

I hope none. No one should realistically think they wouldn't be a good pick.

But no one should think that Boeing can't deliver either.

Given enough money anything can be done if it's physically possible. And there's no new tech in their design so clearly it's physically possible. But money... there's the rub. They are likely to be the most expensive based on what I've seen so far.

I predict that before CST-100's first manned flight, Boeing will be at least 100% over budget - and NASA will pay the difference plus full incentives.

I don't think that's fair. I doubt they will be double their bid. But I would expect overruns. That's their MO, after all. And I would expect that NASA will go to Congress and get the money and pay because what choice will they have?

But I am still rooting for the correct outcome: SpaceX + SNC .. any other outcome is inferior, by my personal rubric.

[Hauerg]

How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

We are used to SpaceX getting less.
But I am ok with that if the actual launches are tendered for capabilities an price and nothing else.

[yg1968]

How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

There is no number 1 according to NBC news. They are both full awards. Boeing gets more money but that is because they likely asked for more money than SpaceX.

[yg1968]

How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1?

I hope none. No one should realistically think they wouldn't be a good pick.

But no one should think that Boeing can't deliver either.

I predict that before CST-100's first manned flight, Boeing will be at least 100% over budget - and NASA will pay the difference plus full incentives.

It's a firm fixed price contract. If Boeing is over budget, it's their problem. 

[abaddon]

It's a fixed firm price contract. If Boeing is over budget, it's their problem.

While that was true of CCiCAP, I thought CCtCAP was going to be a FAR contract?  Aren't the rules a little different in that case?

[vt_hokie]

I'm truly heartbroken for the Sierra Nevada team and the HL-20 design that has come so far, only to be denied a chance to fly time and time again.  I hope that somehow they can keep the dream alive.  I'll be curious to know they remain committed to completing the OTV and conducting the 2016 orbital test flight.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/morning_call/2014/09/wsj-boeing-leads-sierra-nevada-in-race-to-build.html

[Razvan]

How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?

How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1?

I hope none. No one should realistically think they wouldn't be a good pick.

But no one should think that Boeing can't deliver either.

I, for one, have voted at the time for Boeing/SpaceX option, considering Boeing as back up alternative.
SpaceX is the most advanced of all, as:
- they have a manned certified Falcon 9, currently in service, and v. important, with no russian fingerprints on it;
- they have a certified Dragon vehicle currently making cargo shipments to and (very important) from ISS;
- they have the Draco engines already tested, which makes the vehicle the most technologically advanced vehicle to date.
So I believe, pushing SpaceX out of this competition would not only be unfair but counter productive for NASA.
Given 2017 the horizon target on one side and SpaceX's statement they'll have the Dragon V2 ready for service  in 2016 it'll make sense for Nasa to pick Boeing - to make sure they have a vehicle available by 2017 and SpaceX having plenty of time to prove their product's new features.

[Lars-J]

I'm truly heartbroken for the Sierra Nevada team and the HL-20 design that has come so far, only to be denied a chance to fly time and time again.  I hope that somehow they can keep the dream alive.  I'll be curious to know they remain committed to completing the OTV and conducting the 2016 orbital test flight.

Have the awards been announced and I missed them? don't despair yet - we'll know in 90 mins.

[yg1968]

It's a fixed firm price contract. If Boeing is over budget, it's their problem.

While that was true of CCiCAP, I thought CCtCAP was going to be a FAR contract?  Aren't the rules a little different in that case?

It's FAR part 15 but it's still a firm fixed price contract.

[dglow]

It's a fixed firm price contract. If Boeing is over budget, it's their problem.

While that was true of CCiCAP, I thought CCtCAP was going to be a FAR contract?  Aren't the rules a little different in that case?

It's FAR part 15 but it's still a firm fixed contract.

At what point in the process does development cease and 'competition' kick in? If the final cost of one option is significantly less expensive than another, as everyone suspects, at what point does this provide NASA leverage in negotiations?

[jongoff]

It's a fixed firm price contract. If Boeing is over budget, it's their problem.

While that was true of CCiCAP, I thought CCtCAP was going to be a FAR contract?  Aren't the rules a little different in that case?

It's FAR part 15 but it's still a firm fixed contract.

Yeah, I've done a FAR contract that was firm, fixed-price, milestone-based before. To some people unfamiliar with government contracting FAR and cost-plus sound synonymous.

~Jon