CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[ChrisWilson68]

  I'm not making claims that something illegal or even necessarily bad happened here, just that there may have been considerations outside of pure engineering involved.  Is that really so hard to believe?

That is in the selection criteria that is known to everybody.  Again, what smoke?

The fact that on two separate bid processes almost identical statements have been made.  Boeing thought they were out, the experts thought they had lost, etc.  Now sure, everyone could have been wrong.  It simply seems strange to me that two separate sets of reporters would end up thinking the same things about two separate programs. 

But you are right, no politics (from politicians or bureaucrats) could have possibly entered into anyone's minds even at a low level.  Those on the selection committees are 100% impartial, just like you Jim.   ::)

People believing rumors that turned out to be different from what the final selection announcement said doesn't require a late change in the decision.  All it requires is that the rumor wasn't based on correct information.

Guess what?  Rumors based on incorrect information happen all the time.  They're almost inevitable when there's a lack of genuine information and a strong desire for information.

[ChrisWilson68]

Also, for those who think all government decisions are just automatically corrupt: if that were true, the United States would be no different from third world countries that are riddled with corruption.  A big part of what separates the rich countries from the poor countries is the relative lack of corruption in the rich countries.

Of course, that's not to say there isn't room for improvement in the United States.  But the mindless posts assuming corruption just because the decision went against what they thought it should be betray a deep ignorance about the level of corruption in the U.S. government.

Oh come on.  That is ridiculous.  OF COURSE there is corruption within the US government.  Are you kidding me?  It is not necessarily automatic.  But it is also not automatic that there is none.  The fact that on two completely separate bid processes there are stories that sound very similar should at least make one think, no?

I never said there's no corruption.  I said it isn't so widespread that corruption is a better explanation than a groundless rumor for the fact that people believed one thing a few weeks before the announcement and the announcement was different.

[chuck34]

  I'm not making claims that something illegal or even necessarily bad happened here, just that there may have been considerations outside of pure engineering involved.  Is that really so hard to believe?

That is in the selection criteria that is known to everybody.  Again, what smoke?

The fact that on two separate bid processes almost identical statements have been made.  Boeing thought they were out, the experts thought they had lost, etc.  Now sure, everyone could have been wrong.  It simply seems strange to me that two separate sets of reporters would end up thinking the same things about two separate programs. 

But you are right, no politics (from politicians or bureaucrats) could have possibly entered into anyone's minds even at a low level.  Those on the selection committees are 100% impartial, just like you Jim.   

People believing rumors that turned out to be different from what the final selection announcement said doesn't require a late change in the decision.  All it requires is that the rumor wasn't based on correct information.

Guess what?  Rumors based on incorrect information happen all the time.  They're almost inevitable when there's a lack of genuine information and a strong desire for information.

I agree with this statement 100%.

But what if those rumors are almost exactly the same on two separate programs?  Can't you at least see that that might constitute a pattern, and that maybe reasonable people could have questions?

I never said there's no corruption.  I said it isn't so widespread that corruption is a better explanation than a groundless rumor for the fact that people believed one thing a few weeks before the announcement and the announcement was different.

But the same rumors on two separate projects??  And these are actual reporters reporting these "rumors".  You do realize that reporting is a dying profession, and that if you are wrong too often that bodes poorly for your career.  Most of these guys are fairly well connected and usually fairly accurate.  It's not simply internet forum rumors. 

[Brovane]

Why do the people that interview Musk ask all the wrong questions?

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/tech/2014/09/18/orig-jag-space-race-space-war.cnn.html?hpt=hp_t2


Apart from NSF that is 

Well Musk doing what he does normally which is throw some potshots at other companies.  I imagine there is some dart boards at Boeing with Musk's face on them. 

[Jim]

I imagine there is some dart boards at Boeing with Musk's face on them. 

Jeesh.   Really?  Why would you think that?  They are not in the same class, Boeing is more concerned about planes.

[Jim]

The smoke is in the fact that on two separate bid processes almost identical statements have been made.  Boeing thought they were out, the experts thought they had lost, etc.  Now sure, everyone could have been wrong.  It simply seems strange to me that two separate sets of reporters would end up thinking the same things about two separate programs. 

But you are right, no politics (from politicians or bureaucrats or low level functionaries) could have possibly entered into anyone's minds even at a low level.  Those on the selection committees are 100% impartial, just like you Jim.   

wrong, You have not shown that they are similar or have identical statements.  Show me where Boeing had given up. Again, you are seeing things that are not there.  Since you are quoting the internet, I suppose you also think that we maybe didn't go to the moon either?   What else do you believe on the internet?

And yes, I am impartial when I am on selection committee.

[Brovane]

I imagine there is some dart boards at Boeing with Musk's face on them. 

Jeesh.   Really?  Why would you think that?  They are not in the same class, Boeing is more concerned about planes.

Boeing is more concerned about airplanes but just as with any big company there is divisions.  I would imagine that there is sometimes some harsh language about Musk over at Boeing Launch Services division. 

[chuck34]

The smoke is in the fact that on two separate bid processes almost identical statements have been made.  Boeing thought they were out, the experts thought they had lost, etc.  Now sure, everyone could have been wrong.  It simply seems strange to me that two separate sets of reporters would end up thinking the same things about two separate programs. 

But you are right, no politics (from politicians or bureaucrats or low level functionaries) could have possibly entered into anyone's minds even at a low level.  Those on the selection committees are 100% impartial, just like you Jim.   

wrong, You have not shown that they are similar or have identical statements.  Show me where Boeing had given up. Again, you are seeing things that are not there.  Since you are quoting the internet, I suppose you also think that we maybe didn't go to the moon either?   What else do you believe on the internet?

And yes, I am impartial when I am on selection committee.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/09/dream-chaser-misses-out-cctcap-dragon-cst-100-win/

Just weeks ago, it was widely believed both SpaceX’s Dragon V2 and SNC’s Dream Chaser spacecraft were likely to progress into the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) phase of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. On Tuesday, NASA announced Boeing’s CST-100 was the winner of billions of dollars alongside the SpaceX spacecraft.

[symbios]

Not specifically the crew launch vehicles.  However they are human rating the entire Commercial Crew transport system which includes the spacecraft and Launch vehicle. 

NASA is not doing that.  NASA levied requirements on the contractors.  NASA has insight but not oversight.

I think you should adjust your statement. They have oversight on safety related issues.

They do have the go, no go order on any safety related issue. Maybe they do not get a diploma saying they are certified. But if NASA do not think they are safe, then it is a no go.

We are not talking on what bolts to use, but by that order they are approving (certifying) that the system is safe according to their criteria.   

[Rocket Science]

With this type of US tax dollar investment, true competition should include an orbital and sucessful return fly-off... Then decide from there... My morning 2 cents...

[Jim]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/09/dream-chaser-misses-out-cctcap-dragon-cst-100-win/

Just weeks ago, it was widely believed both SpaceX’s Dragon V2 and SNC’s Dream Chaser spacecraft were likely to progress into the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) phase of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. On Tuesday, NASA announced Boeing’s CST-100 was the winner of billions of dollars alongside the SpaceX spacecraft.

It says nothing about Boeing giving up, so it doesn't parallel the tanker. 
Also, I don't believe the sources used for the article.  Rumors are hearsay and not facts.

[CraigLieb]

Sorry for the rambling post:
On the Blue Origin contract to build a new engine for some future launch system like a follow-on Atlas or Delta rocket:
- Why can Boeing stick the costs of this contract in their bid for the Crew Transport and get away with it?

- Would this be considered a new launch system which if it is used for future military launches be required to go through the same certification like SpaceX is being required to meet before qualifying for contracts (3 flights, submit tons of data, have their design processes examined for years, etc.)?

And on Man-rating the Atlas in general:

-  Can you man-rate the current Atlas rocket with existing design margins without significant re-design, beefing up structures (it has got to add weight), and what does that do to performance? Or do you relax your standards, and just accept the risk with lower margins (e.g. It has launched successfully in the past enough, so margins are OK as is)?

-  If you have to re-design it and beef it up, how many launches do you need to qualify it for human occupied flight? It sounds like the contract only calls for two flights. Why are only two flights acceptable for NASA while the military needs three flights to certify platforms for launching their missions?

Seems like it is a lot more than just building and qualifying a capsule for Boeing. Seems they wil be a busy team for the next N years.  Anyone want to predict the number of years before they fly this whole modified system? 

[chuck34]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/09/dream-chaser-misses-out-cctcap-dragon-cst-100-win/

Just weeks ago, it was widely believed both SpaceX’s Dragon V2 and SNC’s Dream Chaser spacecraft were likely to progress into the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) phase of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. On Tuesday, NASA announced Boeing’s CST-100 was the winner of billions of dollars alongside the SpaceX spacecraft.

One quote and it says nothing about Boeing giving up.

I could find more, but I don't feel like it as you won't even consider any point of view other than yours.  And I don't think that Boeing giving up is the point.  The point is that it looked to many as they were out.  But again, you don't see it that way, won't see it that way, it's Jim's way or the highway.  It's sad that even though we agree (Boeing should be included for any number of reasons), you have to be argumentative to anyone that even suggests that there is more than pure engineering involved in the decision. 

All I, and many others, are saying is that there are some legitimate questions.  I understand that you have an unquestioning devotion to authority, but some of us do not.  We have seen the world for what it is (messy, and too often political) rather than what we would like it to be (logical, and ordered).  I am fully prepared to be wrong.  I've said many many times that I don't honestly think there is anything illegal or even really immoral going on here.  Are you prepared to be wrong if 2017 comes and goes and Boeing is asking for more time and money?

You edited your post as I was typing

Also, I don't believe the sources used for the article.  Rumors are hearsay and not facts.

You will have to take that up with the author of the article.  I for one tend to believe what is published as news on this site.  If you don't that's with you.  Rumors can be partial facts from well placed sources within the industry that might not have all the facts. 

Anyway, I'm done with this now.  I've said my peace. 

[yg1968]

Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.

I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN.  Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.

I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.

[Jim]

Sorry for the rambling post:
1.  On the Blue Origin contract to build a new engine for some future launch system like a follow-on Atlas or Delta rocket:
- Why can Boeing stick the costs of this contract in their bid for the Crew Transport and get away with it?

2.  - Would this be considered a new launch system which if it is used for future military launches be required to go through the same certification like SpaceX is being required to meet before qualifying for contracts (3 flights, submit tons of data, have their design processes examined for years, etc.)?

And on Man-rating the Atlas in general:

3.  -  Can you man-rate the current Atlas rocket with existing design margins without significant re-design, beefing up structures (it has got to add weight), and what does that do to performance? Or do you relax your standards, and just accept the risk with lower margins (e.g. It has launched successfully in the past enough, so margins are OK as is)?

4.  -  If you have to re-design it and beef it up, how many launches do you need to qualify it for human occupied flight? It sounds like the contract only calls for two flights. Why are only two flights acceptable for NASA while the military needs three flights to certify platforms for launching their missions?

1.  The new engine is not related to the Boeing win.  Boeing will used the existing Atlas

2.  It isn't a new system, it is modified system and the USAF would be involved in the whole process

3.  The point is that existing margins are already ok. 

[baldusi]

I will tell my plausible scenario.
1) The technical committee was in love with the DreamChaser proposal.
2) SpaceX proposal was cheaper and had the best chance of IOC by 2016 of any contract.
3) The SNC contract was comparable to the CST-100, but had higher technical and schedule risks.
4) Given the Russian situation, the decision officer considered that not achieving IOC by 2017 was not an option.
5) If you wanted to minimize IOC date risk, SpaceX and CST-100 were the right choice. SpaceX could shave one year on IOC, but if they didn't CST-100 was the safest choice to IOC by 2017.

Plain and simple. Nothing strange, no lobby, just a great schedule risk aversion explains everything.

[Jim]

1.  I could find more, but I don't feel like it as you won't even consider any point of view other than yours.  And I don't think that Boeing giving up is the point.  The point is that it looked to many as they were out.

2.  All I, and many others, are saying is that there are some legitimate questions.

1.  Just the same rumors being repeated over and over.

2.  The legitimacy of the questions are based on the legitimacy of the rumors.

I understand that you have an unquestioning devotion to authority, but some of us do not.

No, I just don't believe much less have unquestioning devotion to internet rumors unlike you.
Have you hear this information face to face or just read it online?

Are you prepared to be wrong if 2017 comes and goes and Boeing is asking for more time and money?

Can't happen, it is a fixed price contract and schedule can be changed (see how many times Spacex slipped COTS and CRS launches)

[yg1968]

I will tell my plausible scenario.
1) The technical committee was in love with the DreamChaser proposal.
2) SpaceX proposal was cheaper and had the best chance of IOC by 2016 of any contract.
3) The SNC contract was comparable to the CST-100, but had higher technical and schedule risks.
4) Given the Russian situation, the decision officer considered that not achieving IOC by 2017 was not an option.
5) If you wanted to minimize IOC date risk, SpaceX and CST-100 were the right choice. SpaceX could shave one year on IOC, but if they didn't CST-100 was the safest choice to IOC by 2017.

Plain and simple. Nothing strange, no lobby, just a great schedule risk aversion explains everything.

The selection committee had to follow very specific criteria. Price was the most important criteria.

(b) Evaluation Factors and Subfactors: The Government will use the evaluation factors Mission
Suitability, Price, and Past Performance, as described in NFS 1815.304-70, NASA Evaluation
Factors, to evaluate each proposal. [...]

(e) Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability and Past
Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price. The Price factor is more
important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance.

See page 161 of the RFP (the second document in this post):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32412.msg1257904#msg1257904

[ncb1397]

Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.

I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN.  Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.

I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.

Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.

[Jim]

Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.

Has no bearing on the matter, it is crew transport and not unpressurized cargo.