Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[Lobo]

Ok, for a moment, let’s assume that it comes down to a 3-way horse race for those 2.5 slots.  We’ll discount BO for now, as they don’t seem very far along, and ATK for the same reason (they don’t even have a flying LV yet, where the other do).  For the sake of argument.
Now, like Jim said, NASA can’t give extra credit for additional capabilities over spec.  (which would mean ATK’s Liberty’s extra capacity to LEO wouldn’t give them any advantages anyway).  So let’s assume SpaceX, SNC, and Boeing all meet the commercial crew spec’s.  So, how would NASA likely award the 2.5 contracts?  How much is price a consideration?  Could SpaceX offer a low-ball number because they have cost sharing with CRS and their other commercial customers?  And they own their LV, so they can make their bid whatever the heck they want really.  Boeing and SNC have to buy rides from ULA, so that is a cost they can’t control in their bids.  Which means theoretically, SpaceX, having full control of all of it’s components, can bid at cost if they so chose.  Can they undercut and land themselves one of the full contracts based on that alone if all 3 providers meet spec?
What about Boeing?  As a principle in ULA, can they in effect cut themselves a great deal on AV launches?  (Jim, you’d probably be the best to answer this question).  Or would ULA have to sell them launches at “market value” or something?  Basically, could Boeing undercut SNC on launch costs that way?  Or basically hide some of the CST-100 costs itself in that they have the SLS core contract?
So if everything else is equal, how much does cost play a factor?
Also, if everything else is equal, how much does personal preference play a part?  As in, a good “working relationship” with Boeing?  Or really liking having another space plane in SNC?  Or really liking Musk’s vision and salesmanship and wanting to support him?

Just wondering if the players can all meet the spec requirements, and things like longer loiter time, more upmass capacity, BLEO potential, etc can’t be factored in, then what will be the diving determinations in who gets the 2 full contracts, and who gets the 0.5 contract?

[Lobo]

Jim and I are saying the exact same thing. 

Yes, I was dovetailing my comments on that of both of yours to Prober's comments about ULA getting a contract directly, not refuting your comments. 
Sorry if I was confusing.  ;-)

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Having been a member of a source selection team on a $500M R&D contract award (SDIO year 1987) of a complex space system while I was in the AF, the very first thing is does the proposal meet the minimum technical requirements of the RFP. If yes then the proposal goes to the detail evaluation round. In that round the proposal solution for the requirements is evaluated as to the quality of the solution for meeting the requirement, the technical maturity of the solution, the schedule risk to develop and the cost risk. This is done for each specific requirement in the RFP. The ratings are then added up to give a top level rating for each category and a spread value (the variation of lowest rating and highest rating in each category).

Consistency is a plus in a proposal even if the overall may be lower. The source selection is legally made very narrow with politics and agency hopes and dreams associated with other possible projects being not allowed in the evaluations and rating process. When a source selection has been done poorly where such things were allowed the awards were usually challenged and overturned by a court suit where in some cases the Government also had to pay damages as well. NASA management does not wish this to happen and so far everything I have seen from the COTS and CCP program management reinforces the impression they have a determination to not have their decisions be challenged successfully.

Now with all of that and an Engineering and government program management background SpaceX has high marks in all technical requirements, high technical maturity, low schedule risk and very low cost risk. Boeing and SNC has high marks for all technical requirements, but have some problems with technical maturity in some areas (I think SNC has more maturity problems than Boeing and that may be the deciding factor as to who will be #2), moderate schedule risk (no actual flown hardware or operational software although that is mitigated by organizational maturity of which Boeing is superior to even SpaceX), and a low/medium cost risk (the nature of FFP or SAA is that additional cost are borne by the contractor). The primary problem in cost risk is the evaluation of the operational and business case financial part of the proposal. Boeing’s and SNC’s cost have more possible variation and risks due to the use of ULA and not having an existing operational analog to use to validate cost data.

So it shakes out this way:
SpaceX
Boeing
SNC
Blue Origin
ATK

[mr. mark]

My argument is about flight profiles and the fact that contestants are tailoring their vehicles to one set of Criteria meaning CCDEV or LEO limited spaceflight. Vehicles chosen should be more tailored to Orion as the 2004 COTS agreements states an eventual need for at least BEO cargo at the very least. This alone would mean eliminating several of the competitors long term as they have no interest in adapting out their vehicles for that purpose. One dimensional vehicles are just that one dimensional. NASA should be looking for spacecraft that will parallel Orion's flight profiles to have a backup not just for LEO but for BEO as well. This is why I stated the CCDEV contract is flawed. It takes us down a single road.

It isn't flawed because it is CCDev as it is or nothing.

and please provide the words from COTS.  Nothing of the sort made it in to the CRS contract.

Thanks Jim wording is listed not in contract but in White House 2004 NASA vision.

"As we move outward into the solar system, NASA
will rely more heavily on private sector space capabilities to support activities in Earth orbit and future
exploration activities.  In particular, NASA will seek
to use existing or new commercial launch vehicles
for cargo transport to the Space Station, and potentially to the Moon and other destinations".

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf

[Political Hack Wannabe]

I have seen multiple people make this mistake, so I am going to repeat it again.  CCiCap is for full concept of operations.  They won't be making an award for Human rating Atlas V by itself.  Atlas V will only have money for human rating IF CST-100, Dream Chaser, or Blue Origin's Space Vehicle is selected. 

Therefore, the .5 award CANNOT BE FOR ATLAS V. 

Sorry, but seeing multiple people making that mistake is driving me crazy. 

[baldusi]

Wrong.  The Dragon can not, as it is, do anymore than a LEO mission.  It is just as much " One dimensional" as the others.
Just as Dragon is going to modified for other missions, CST-100 and others can be too.

There's a level of effort to make a vehicle BEO capable. It's quite obvious that evolving the DC design to be BEO capable would be a lot more difficult than either Dragon or CST-100. It would seem that SpaceX has put the LAS on the side to allow for a lot of variations on the thrunk/service module, while keeping the main thrusters (Draco/Superdracos), while CST-100 put all of that into the SM and thus would expend it in each flight. Boeing's approach, and Liberty's, allow for better customized solutions.
SpaceX's thought they could do a Cargo and then add Crew on top. Now they are discovering that they are going to do a new evolution that can do both. I propose that if they ever do a BEO (or at least lunar), they'll find, if they are lucky, that they'll have to redo everything to be scalable, "back". And they'll have a relatively "heavy" for payload LEO craft.
Boeing, on the other hand, has stuck to LEO crew, and evolving it to BEO shouldn't be more difficult than Dragon's.
I won't go into making Liberty BEO capable because, well, it's called Orion.
But Dream Chaser can't be easily evolved, and I ignore the characteristics of the Blue Origin entry to comment.
But the overall concept is that some design are, relatively speaking, straight forward

[mr. mark]

Having been a member of a source selection team on a $500M R&D contract award (SDIO year 1987) of a complex space system while I was in the AF, the very first thing is does the proposal meet the minimum technical requirements of the RFP. If yes then the proposal goes to the detail evaluation round. In that round the proposal solution for the requirements is evaluated as to the quality of the solution for meeting the requirement, the technical maturity of the solution, the schedule risk to develop and the cost risk. This is done for each specific requirement in the RFP. The ratings are then added up to give a top level rating for each category and a spread value (the variation of lowest rating and highest rating in each category).

Consistency is a plus in a proposal even if the overall may be lower. The source selection is legally made very narrow with politics and agency hopes and dreams associated with other possible projects being not allowed in the evaluations and rating process. When a source selection has been done poorly where such things were allowed the awards were usually challenged and overturned by a court suit where in some cases the Government also had to pay damages as well. NASA management does not wish this to happen and so far everything I have seen from the COTS and CCP program management reinforces the impression they have a determination to not have their decisions be challenged successfully.

Now with all of that and an Engineering and government program management background SpaceX has high marks in all technical requirements, high technical maturity, low schedule risk and very low cost risk. Boeing and SNC has high marks for all technical requirements, but have some problems with technical maturity in some areas (I think SNC has more maturity problems than Boeing and that may be the deciding factor as to who will be #2), moderate schedule risk (no actual flown hardware or operational software although that is mitigated by organizational maturity of which Boeing is superior to even SpaceX), and a low/medium cost risk (the nature of FFP or SAA is that additional cost are borne by the contractor). The primary problem in cost risk is the evaluation of the operational and business case financial part of the proposal. Boeing’s and SNC’s cost have more possible variation and risks due to the use of ULA and not having an existing operational analog to use to validate cost data.

So it shakes out this way:
SpaceX
Boeing
SNC
Blue Origin
ATK

Best post I've read so far on the subject, very informative.

[Prober]

Jim and I are saying the exact same thing. 

Yes, I was dovetailing my comments on that of both of yours to Prober's comments about ULA getting a contract directly, not refuting your comments. 
Sorry if I was confusing.

Relax everyone, I never said a direct check to ULA.  I said a full award for the Atlas V.

Guess we will have to do this one at the Congressional level.   Listen, they don't want this 2.5 downselect, its the Compromise.

Pushes the reset button   ;-)

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Jim and I are saying the exact same thing. 

Yes, I was dovetailing my comments on that of both of yours to Prober's comments about ULA getting a contract directly, not refuting your comments. 
Sorry if I was confusing.

Relax everyone, I never said a direct check to ULA.  I said a full award for the Atlas V.

Guess we will have to do this one at the Congressional level.   Listen, they don't want this 2.5 downselect, its the Compromise.

Pushes the reset button   ;-)

Selection is based solely on the RFP. If Congress wants something else they have to force NASA to halt the current source selection, write a new RFP and start the process all over with a 6 month delay of award.

[Lurker Steve]

It seems to me that some people are arguing that a vehicle that just meets the requirements would be preferred over a more capable vehicle that costs the same amount.

I'm pretty certain that I must be reading those posts wrong, because that would be insane. Wouldn't it? 

exactly.... my argument

And it is insanity for any vendor to try to compete against SLS / Orion for NASA/Congressional funding for BEO missions. You must have been hiding in a cave for the last year if you haven't learned this already.

[Rocket Science]

I’ll second the following as a compromise:

CST-100  0.75

Dream Chaser  0.75

SpaceX   1.0

My two pennies… You all go back to flinging popcorn…

[baldusi]

So, there's no way for ULA to make a better offer if they get two wins? Can't Boeing/SNC/Blue Origin state in their offer that they'll get it for XXX, but if another ULA user wins that amount is reduced in Y?

[Lurker Steve]

So, there's no way for ULA to make a better offer if they get two wins? Can't Boeing/SNC/Blue Origin state in their offer that they'll get it for XXX, but if another ULA user wins that amount is reduced in Y?

I believe all of the vendors have submitted their proposals.
Each proposal should be weighed based on it's own merits, and not how it effects the development or production costs of another contestant.

[A_M_Swallow]

So, there's no way for ULA to make a better offer if they get two wins? Can't Boeing/SNC/Blue Origin state in their offer that they'll get it for XXX, but if another ULA user wins that amount is reduced in Y?

That may be the partial award.

Say:
SpaceX - Dragon Rider (0.5) + man rate Falcon 9 (0.5)

Boeing - CST-100 (0.5) + prime contractor man rate Atlas 5 (0.5)

SNC - DreamChaser and payload adaptor (0.5)

[Jim]

Relax everyone, I never said a direct check to ULA.  I said a full award for the Atlas V.

Atlas V doesn't get an award.  Only Boeing and/or SNC.  ULA gets their money from Boeing and/or SNC.

[Jim]

So, there's no way for ULA to make a better offer if they get two wins? Can't Boeing/SNC/Blue Origin state in their offer that they'll get it for XXX, but if another ULA user wins that amount is reduced in Y?

That may be the partial award.

Say:
SpaceX - Dragon Rider (0.5) + man rate Falcon 9 (0.5)

Boeing - CST-100 (0.5) + prime contractor man rate Atlas 5 (0.5)

SNC - DreamChaser and payload adaptor (0.5)

there are no partial awards for manrating.  It is up to the winners to determine how to allocate the money

[Prober]

So, there's no way for ULA to make a better offer if they get two wins? Can't Boeing/SNC/Blue Origin state in their offer that they'll get it for XXX, but if another ULA user wins that amount is reduced in Y?

That may be the partial award.

Say:
SpaceX - Dragon Rider (0.5) + man rate Falcon 9 (0.5)

Boeing - CST-100 (0.5) + prime contractor man rate Atlas 5 (0.5)

SNC - DreamChaser and payload adaptor (0.5)

there are no partial awards for manrating.  It is up to the winners to determine how to allocate the money

they aren't catching on Jim 

[vt_hokie]

Having "half" of an award just seems like a way of ensuring we throw away more money on yet another program that ultimately produces nothing.

[neilh]

Having "half" of an award just seems like a way of ensuring we throw away more money on yet another program that ultimately produces nothing.

So, to pick a hypothetical example of SNC's Dream Chaser, would it be better for it to get no funding rather than half-funding?

As I see it, one of the main benefits of having a 3rd half-funded competitor is that if one of the two main competitors has problems or starts going drastically overbudget, the half-funded competitor can take its place as a full competitor.

[QuantumG]

Yes. Imagine how COTS would have been different with a half funded competitor..