CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[oiorionsbelt]

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.

 - Ed Kyle

Exactly Ed, and I think a decent portion of the 2.6B today will be used for things other than getting a human rated vehicle to the ISS

[jongoff]

I don't get it... what's the 60:40 split then?  How is this fair to SpaceX if the requirements are the same?  I'm trying to watch but my connection is bad...

I haven't read the last two pages to see if someone has answered this already, but this is just the way this type of government contracting works. Each team is given a set of requirements, they put together a technical and cost proposal, and if they win, they only get what they asked for. If SpaceX only need $2.6B to get to those results, and Boeing needed $4.2B, that's what they're given. NASA can't just give more money to one or the other because they like one more than the other, or to be "fair".

This wouldn't be the first time Elon's bid less and gotten less on a contract (see DARPA FALCON SLV back in 2003/3004 or the first round of CRS awards).

~Jon

[clongton]

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.

Boeing and SpaceX were selected because their proposals most closely aligned with NASA's goals for the program - period. I would much rather have seen SNC than Boeing but that's the way it goes in the commercial world. There are winning proposals and there are loosing proposals. SNC lost because Boeing's and SpaceX's proposals were better based on the selection criteria. What those criteria are remains to be seen, but to insinuate that the technical merits of the proposals were completely overridden by political concerns is, well, naive.

[Celebrimbor]

...

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

...

Yeah that oversight came across as a bit rude to me.  Justified?

[Norm38]

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

Boeing will have the traditional abort tower and parachute splash down, while SpaceX is going for the propulsive landing (though not at first).  So NASA is getting two different technology sets.  Tried and true, and new thinking.

[abaddon]

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.

SpaceX won close to $400 million for COTS (there was a secondary award).  CRS was a contract they made a profit on, so what?  Boeing makes profits on all kinds of things that aren't counted as CST-100 development.

No, it was $400 million, and I think you're trying too hard here.

[Rocket Science]

Well like I said a month or more back not to Boeing out just yet. Lowest tech risk to get the job done, kind of like my fridge and about as inspiring... Curious about how much Russia’s machinations played into this...I can’t believe I rushed home for this...

[Robert Thompson]

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?

I had to be reminded of X-37B, an inoculant to suspicion that Boeing could not readily pull off a capsule. Of course X-37B is not human rated.

[kevinof]

Not unless they have potential customers. Too much work left and too much cost without the prospect of a paying customer. I am gutted for them as they were one of my favorites but I always figured Boeing would get in ahead of them.

Sell it to the Europeans? Nice platform, lot's of development work already done. Mind you, where would it go to?

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

[ChrisWilson68]

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

I suspect Dreamchaser will die a slow, drawn-out death.  SNC will talk about how they'll continue the program but at a much slower pace.  Over time, little progress will be made, and in a few years it will be formally cancelled.

[Kryten]

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

I suspect Dreamchaser will die a slow, drawn-out death.  SNC will talk about how they'll continue the program but at a much slower pace.  Over time, little progress will be made, and in a few years it will be formally cancelled.

Liberty 2.0?

[strangequark]

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

If you wanna pull in that money though, you should account for the money paid to LMCO to develop Atlas V. What's good for the goose...

[deadman719]

Having dealt with Mr. B for the past few years, I'd say it's safe to say they will not meet schedule or cost milestones.  This decision ruined a beautiful thing.

(at least this is my opinion)

[AncientU]

Did we actually get any information on what launch vehicles the two capsules are going to use?

[oiorionsbelt]

Did we actually get any information on what launch vehicles the two capsules are going to use?

Not in the announcement but is known already.

[Hauerg]

Having dealt with Mr. B for the past few years, I'd say it's safe to say they will not meet schedule or cost milestones.  ...

I couldn't care less. As long as they are not taking away money from SpaceX to give it to B.
But they wouldn't dare. Would they.

[Space Ghost 1962]

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.

I read this somewhat differently.

This event was choreographed for Congress. The idea was to say what the Congress wanted to hear, with the choices appropriate to make, for incorporation into a CR.

That's why things were said here. Among others, Bolden did what he was asked to do.

Now whether it matters is another matter. But I believe the idea  was to take as many issues away from the CR as possible.

[Brovane]

Having dealt with Mr. B for the past few years, I'd say it's safe to say they will not meet schedule or cost milestones.  This decision ruined a beautiful thing.

(at least this is my opinion)

I think it will be interesting if SpaceX meets all cost schedules and has the Dragon crew capsule ready to fly before 2017 and Boeing has to ask for extra time beyond 2017. 

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Having dealt with Mr. B for the past few years, I'd say it's safe to say they will not meet schedule or cost milestones.  This decision ruined a beautiful thing.

(at least this is my opinion)

I think it will be interesting if SpaceX meets all cost schedules and has the Dragon crew capsule ready to fly before 2017 and Boeing has to ask for extra time beyond 2017.

Would be even more interesting if the opposite happens.....(unlikely, but who knows?) 

[DanielW]

Having dealt with Mr. B for the past few years, I'd say it's safe to say they will not meet schedule or cost milestones.  This decision ruined a beautiful thing.

(at least this is my opinion)

I think it will be interesting if SpaceX meets all cost schedules and has the Dragon crew capsule ready to fly before 2017 and Boeing has to ask for extra time beyond 2017.

And even more interesting if they both come in on time and under budget. Let's not forget that we are paying people to take us to space! Rah rah to the people taking us to space!