CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Celebrimbor]

So if both companies said they can satisfy the requirements, but SpaceX said they can do at a far cheaper cost, why didn't they win the whole award ?.

umm because then it wouldn't be cheaper?

[nadreck]

So if both companies said they can satisfy the requirements, but SpaceX said they can do at a far cheaper cost, why didn't they win the whole award ?.

They both won the whole award. This isn't a prize for coming in first, it is a contract to deliver a whole bunch of specific things. SpaceX may even make more margin on their $2.6B than Boeing with their $4.2B. 

However I am interested in the extra studies funding, and now what Boeing and SpaceX reveal about the details of what they have bid to do. Which, while they both are offering to meet the same NASA requirements they are committing to other things that have to do with what their proposals differ on in terms of precursor developments and milestones.

[abaddon]

SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO.  That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?

Er, no.  $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).

Let's please not try and handwave this away.  Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.

[Space Pete]

Well, I think this whole decision stinks. Hopefully one day a commission will expose all the backroom dealing that went on, and those responsible will be held to account.

I look forward to reading the selection documentation once it's been re-written to fit today's selection.

[Celebrimbor]

I look at this as 'we', spaceflight enthusiasts, get 2.6 billion to get 'us' closer to Mars while Boeing, stock holders, get 4.2 billion to get back to LEO. YMMV of course.

That's looking on the bright side.  Spacex are still big winners here...

[happyflower]

This was a bit confusing for me. 

Now if NASA wants to keep Boeing for whatever reason (insert your idea here - they dont want trouble with Congress where Boeing has strong congressional backing, Boeing in some circles is a better choice because they have done so much with NASA already, they met the milestones better, etc...), then why not Boeing and SNC? That gives you the capsule and also something different with a winged aircraft (more landing options, lower g's for injured astronauts, etc...)?

Both Boeing and SpaceX are sort of the same capsule design, why not have some different functionality built in for the NASA contracts.

Putting SpaceX in there with Boeing is going to confuse many people like myself who are in this just for the joy of spaceflight but are not in the industry so dont have the know how. To me as a business man why wouldn't I pay less for more with SpaceX rather than Boeing? They are further along, cheaper, and have some actual hardware versus Boeing who is still only on paper hardware.

Is it all fear of congress?

[Robert Thompson]

I look at this as 'we', spaceflight enthusiasts, get 2.6 billion to get 'us' closer to Mars while Boeing, stock holders, get 4.2 billion to get back to LEO. YMMV of course.

Boeing can do what is good for the species if there is a market, by the species. As an example of silver lining, people can more easily associate quality aerospace manufacture and assured travel with the Boeing logo on a orbital vehicle than they will with a radical visionary known for aiming at Mars. Volume public awareness that there exists space, to begin with, and that space stations exist, and that humans go to space and come back, is one good I see coming out of Boeing being involved.

[CraigLieb]

While SpaceX develops their engines and rockets from basic metal,
Boeing is at the whim of the Russians to buy engines. 

What if Russia raises the price they charge on those engines significantly?
Does Boeing have to eat the increased costs?

[abaddon]

That's looking on the bright side.  Spacex are still big winners here...

Quoted for truth.  SpaceX won their bid.  Can everyone take a moment and reflect on that?

By the way: congratulations to to the teams at Boeing and SpaceX that have had their hard work validated in these contract awards.  And condolences to the team at SNC, who (shame on you NASA) didn't even warrant a mention that I could tell.

[GalacticIntruder]

So here is what we learned during the Orion/SLS conference:

BA and SpaceX each get to move on to test flights. BA cost way more, and NASA is obsessed with safety.

[Hauerg]

This was a bit confusing for me. 

Now if NASA wants to keep Boeing for whatever reason (insert your idea here - they dont want trouble with Congress where Boeing has strong congressional backing, Boeing in some circles is a better choice because they have done so much with NASA already, they met the milestones better, etc...), then why not Boeing and SNC? That gives you the capsule and also something different with a winged aircraft (more landing options, lower g's for injured astronauts, etc...)?

Both Boeing and SpaceX are sort of the same capsule design, why not have some different functionality built in for the NASA contracts.

Putting SpaceX in there with Boeing is going to confuse many people like myself who are in this just for the joy of spaceflight but are not in the industry so dont have the know how. To me as a business man why wouldn't I pay less for more with SpaceX rather than Boeing? They are further along, cheaper, and have some actual hardware versus Boeing who is still only on paper hardware.

Is it all fear of congress?

Boeing + SNC both on the Ruski Atlas 5 ? That would have been too much.

[aquanaut99]

I agree they were higher risk and I think that was the determining factor.  And I can't shake the feeling that coming out with Boeing getting the biggest share of the pie doesn't also give NASA a better feeling when they go with their hat out to Congress for the money to fund this program.

This. Probably the main reason for selecting Boeing. They have the most pull in Congress. With SpaceX second in that department. Don't be fooled, this is purely a political decision; technical merit didn't really matter.

[edkyle99]

SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO.  That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?

Er, no.  $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).

Let's please not try and handwave this away.  Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.

SpaceX won $278 million for COTS and $1.6 billion for CRS.  They used that money in part to develop the basic Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1, the factory and test facilities.  That groundwork is directly applied now to Commercial Crew.  It is a well funded head start not given Boeing's CST-100, which is why Boeing needs more money now.

 - Ed Kyle

[Todd Martin]

The Press Release Conference had some issues:

1) Bolden can't be bothered to spend more than 5 minutes answering questions?  Has a plane to catch?  This is one of the most important announcements of his career and he decides it isn't that important.
2) Bolden can't stay on topic.  He spends at least half of his time talking about Orion instead of the topic at hand.
3) No one is on the Conference is directly involved with the selection process.  So, you have no idea why SpaceX & Boeing was selected over SNC.

I did not hear (maybe I missed it with the webfeed cutting out) saying one positive thing about SNC & Dreamchaser.

This was an unprofessional press release through and through.

[Celebrimbor]

SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO.  That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?

Er, no.  $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).

Let's please not try and handwave this away.  Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.

That will be determined once the 6 flights have run out... what then?  Operational contracts? That's when we set the real prices.  Not to mention, a lot can happen in 6 flights...

Spacex need to prove they are cheap, not cheap and nasty.  This is their chance to do just that. I wish both companies good fortune

[Kryten]

I agree they were higher risk and I think that was the determining factor.  And I can't shake the feeling that coming out with Boeing getting the biggest share of the pie doesn't also give NASA a better feeling when they go with their hat out to Congress for the money to fund this program.

This. Probably the main reason for selecting Boeing. They have the most pull in Congress. With SpaceX second in that department. Don't be fooled, this is purely a political decision; technical merit didn't really matter.

SNC had LM as a major contractor. Anything thinking they didn't have a similar level of lobbying is kidding themselves.

[ugordan]

Well, I think this whole decision stinks.

I don't know if the decision was made with or without political involvement, but it does leave a weird taste in my mouth. I think I need to watch an Atlas launch to wash it out...

[Helodriver]

That "special studies" award amount, I wonder if Boeing can put that money toward qualifying a new US engine for Atlas V. Nice way of getting NASA to bail ULA out of a jam if that's what happens.

[JasonAW3]

I wonder if SNC is going to continue with the Dreamchaser or just close up house on it?

[DanielW]

I am happy for the boeing engineers that put so much into this. I am less impressed with their management's risk aversion. But I don't own stock so hey. Anyway, this decision probably does give the lowest risk of assuring access to space. If Atlas is unable to fly then CST100 should be able to be lifted by falcon 9. This was not quite the case with Dream chaser I believe.

I am sad to see SNC miss out, but two capsules still counts as dissimilar since outer mold line similarity is not going to ground both craft.