If it was true commercial I'd have all the companies make a full prototype product on their own dime and demonstrate it to me independently.
And the logic all along has been that if NASA had the choice (i.e. enough money), that it would go with SpaceX for a capsule, and then Sierra Nevada because it was a better alternative to a capsule (i.e. lower g-forces, better cross-range capabilities, etc.). But I think money was a limiting factor, and so we got Boeing as the second choice.
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.
Quote from: mlindner on 09/16/2014 10:10 pmIf it was true commercial I'd have all the companies make a full prototype product on their own dime and demonstrate it to me independently.Congratulations, you just ended up with zero companies bidding for your services.
They bid what they wanted to bid guessing how much more than they expected it would actually cost the client would pay. As did Boeing. Given that SpaceX has grown tremendously, that the task is more complex due to both the higher standards that NASA gives manned operations reliability and meeting the different requirements of this RFP over the various stages getting to the COTS final product, yes it will cost more. But implicit in this process is the fact that they have to include profit margin in the bid, not provide estimates, impeccable cost accounting and then are paid a percentage above and beyond that. They take risk, but hand in hand with risk goes reward and I would be willing to make a small wager that SpaceX ends up with more margin at the end of the day than Boeing, however Boeing will have greased more palms, fed more families, and elected more municipal, state and federal officials with their money.
In the end, there will be three vehicles (including Orion) that can deliver crew to the ISS. I think the question that dglow is asking is how the individual prices of these competitors will factor into which one NASA uses, post 2017. Would we expect them to use each equally to spread things out? Or would NASA be required to use the lowest cost provider that meets their needs?
Boeing will have the traditional abort tower .
Quote from: nadreck on 09/16/2014 10:18 pmThey bid what they wanted to bid guessing how much more than they expected it would actually cost the client would pay. As did Boeing. Given that SpaceX has grown tremendously, that the task is more complex due to both the higher standards that NASA gives manned operations reliability and meeting the different requirements of this RFP over the various stages getting to the COTS final product, yes it will cost more. But implicit in this process is the fact that they have to include profit margin in the bid, not provide estimates, impeccable cost accounting and then are paid a percentage above and beyond that. They take risk, but hand in hand with risk goes reward and I would be willing to make a small wager that SpaceX ends up with more margin at the end of the day than Boeing, however Boeing will have greased more palms, fed more families, and elected more municipal, state and federal officials with their money.Why would they be paid a % above and beyond that? I thought part of the Fixed price contracts is that the companies bid on the contract and if the costs come in lower while they meet all the customers requirements then the private company pockets the extra money? This is the incentive to do the job well.
Actually, did a bit of research. Don't think that's actually likley afterall. The Japanese and Euopeans are VERY interested in the Dream Chaser. JAXA is a ctually one of their partners. So without NASA to compete with, I think that this bird may fly sooner rather than later or never.
Boeing is going to get extremely bad press over costing nearly double the cost of SpaceX. I can't really describe how pis*ed I am about how much more money they're getting. Boeing has a digital spacecraft with no hardware built. Rather than a flying spacecraft on one side and a flying prototype on the other.I'm hoping that justice is served somehow at some point in the future. This is nearly criminal.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 09/16/2014 10:09 pm And the logic all along has been that if NASA had the choice (i.e. enough money), that it would go with SpaceX for a capsule, and then Sierra Nevada because it was a better alternative to a capsule (i.e. lower g-forces, better cross-range capabilities, etc.). But I think money was a limiting factor, and so we got Boeing as the second choice.Or someone at NASA realized they don't really need lower g-forces nor larger cross-range capabilities?
I, personally, am disgusted by what I heard during the announcement and the teleconference. Not because SpaceX got less (I'm biased for SpaceX, I'm aware of that), they did fine. But how SNC got massively screwed over by corruption.
Winning on merits is ONLY valid at equivalent price levels. If you cost 1.5x as much and are 1.5x "better" does it actually show anything?Actually, if you cost 1.5x and meet the same requirements doesn't that mean you are fundamentally worse? At my company we buy expensive products from our suppliers, but if a different supplier supplies an equivalent product at 60% the cost?... we'd drop our original supplier at the drop of the hat. That is Boeing here, right now.Maybe Dream Chaser costed even more?
Which is almost the point I was trying to make. Pure commercial can't work here. I'm pretty sure we could go more commercial than we are though. It's barely "commercial" as it is.
Quote from: mlindner on 09/16/2014 10:22 pmWhich is almost the point I was trying to make. Pure commercial can't work here. I'm pretty sure we could go more commercial than we are though. It's barely "commercial" as it is.It's a huge step from NASA building it with cost-plus contracting. I think you're underselling what a big difference it is, personally.I don't want to drag the other rocket and capsule into this, but the difference between the approaches is clear.
The only good thing I can draw from the selection of CST 100 is that it will help support Bigelow and (probably) Blue Origin, that is despite a portion of the money going to Washington lobbyists and the Boeing machine.
