Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[PeterAlt]

I've just formulated a new opinion. If the budget situation forces NASA to choose to keep either DC or CST-100, I think the wise choice would be DC. While Boeing may be further along, at the current pace of progress, SNC would probably make it to the finish line before Boeing does. Besides, DC delivers much more capability that CST-100. I would also reserve a token amount of funds to enlist Boeing to the team in an advisory role, lending its experience and expertise to an otherwise inexperienced SNC.

[neilh]

I've just formulated a new opinion. If the budget situation forces NASA to choose to keep either DC or CST-100, I think the wise choice would be DC. While Boeing may be further along, at the current pace of progress, SNC would probably make it to the finish line before Boeing does. Besides, DC delivers much more capability that CST-100. I would also reserve a token amount of funds to enlist Boeing to the team in an advisory role, lending its experience and expertise to an otherwise inexperienced SNC.

How are you comparing the pace of progress?

[yg1968]

Yes he did.. I'm not sure how anyone could have thought otherwise.

Great since you have all of the answers, please explain what a "partial award" means. Nobody (except you of course) seems to know.

[Go4TLI]

Experience matters, and the experiences NASA has had in dealing with SpaceX should be a warning sign for future contracts.  As an examKple they fought tooth and nail about a charge on the F9 for the range.  IMHO, NASA would be foolish to give anymore contracts as the management would be impossiple to work with.

Prober just stop.

NASA is routinely praising SpaceX as being the most agreeable and easiest group to work with that they have ever had, in fact going so far as to tacitly insult some of the more established contractor names in a recent live press conference when comparing the ease of being able to work together.  When you hear NASA officials griping about friction with contractors, they say SpaceX is like a breath of fresh air in that department.

Edit: The ruckus about the flight termination charge was between SpaceX and the FAA iirc.  NASA had nothing to do with it.  And it was just a repeat of the slosh baffles issue- something they didn't think they had to do, but they learned otherwise and fixed it and moved on.

See this quote is what is funny about the Internet and the myth and folklore that has grown up around SpaceX. 

While Elon has been made out to be soley responsible for everything and surrounded with this ideal and romantic notion, now we have a suggestion that SpaceX essentially yielded everything to NASA and did whatever they wanted and apparently did it with style and grace that brought a tear to everyone's eye and shear joy at the same time

Yet there are other posts claiming "Elon" is ready to walk and won't give into the "NASA way" and will go it alone leading us all to the golden age

Which is it?  How can they both be true?

[Chris Bergin]

Holy bananas, how did this get to 29 pages already!

I'm not pulling my "baby orbiter" card here, but Peter's right, DC offers a different capability to the pot. To lose DC this year due to a downselect would have me properly outraged.

[QuantumG]

Great since you have all of the answers, please explain what a "partial award" means. Nobody (except you of course) seems to know.

Less funding than the other two awards.

[Go4TLI]

Great since you have all of the answers, please explain what a "partial award" means. Nobody (except you of course) seems to know.

Less funding than the other two awards.

It is quite possible, and probably likely, that the two "winners" will not get exactly the same amount

[Downix]

Holy bananas, how did this get to 29 pages already!

I'm not pulling my "baby orbiter" card here, but Peter's right, DC offers a different capability to the pot. To lose DC this year due to a downselect would have me properly outraged.

Me too.  Hell, I'd move to Colorado in a heartbeat if it gave me a chance to work on the bird.  *hint hint SNC *

[yg1968]

[...]please explain what a "partial award" means. Nobody [...] seems to know.

Less funding than the other two awards.

Right but given that CCiCap is an end-to end program, how do you make that work? One option that I can see is a spacecraft such as DC that shares an LV with another company (Boeing) may not need as much money as the others. SpaceX and ATK may also need less money because their spacecrafts are further along. 

[joek]

Explain what a partial award means. Nobody (except you of course) seems to know.

Yes, that is the puzzle.  Optimistically: 3 x CCiCap1(required) + 2 x CCiCap2(optional).  If a "full award" is consdered to be an SAA with both CCiCap1+CCiCap2, that results in "2.5" awards.  Depending on funding, one of the CCiCap1 awardees: a potential stand-in should one of the others screw up; with funding spread over a longer period; or some combination.

edit: p.s. That said, if funding pressure continues, I expect at most only one CCiCap2 award is actually authorized.

[PeterAlt]

I've just formulated a new opinion. If the budget situation forces NASA to choose to keep either DC or CST-100, I think the wise choice would be DC. While Boeing may be further along, at the current pace of progress, SNC would probably make it to the finish line before Boeing does. Besides, DC delivers much more capability that CST-100. I would also reserve a token amount of funds to enlist Boeing to the team in an advisory role, lending its experience and expertise to an otherwise inexperienced SNC.

How are you comparing the pace of progress?

At least they appear to be moving at a pace a bit faster. I might be wrong, but the progress is fast nonetheless. Most important, they're not missing "beats". For a start up, this is quite impressive and certainly earns my respect. It shows that they're serious, not a "fly by night" company.

Both of these companies are extremely strong candidates and almost equals on the development front. If both are proven to be technically sound, then it boils down to two questions, really:

1. Which is the better product?
2. Which company is the most trustworthy?

DC is the the better product, but Boeing is the most trustworthy (based on their experience and expertise). SNC has earned my trust, however.

[yg1968]

Explain what a partial award means. Nobody (except you of course) seems to know.

Yes, that is the puzzle.  Optimistically: 3 x CCiCap1(required) + 2 x CCiCap2(optional).  If a "full award" is consdered to be an SAA with both CCiCap1+CCiCap2, that results in "2.5" awards.  Depending on funding, one of the CCiCap1 awardees: a potential stand-in should one of the others screw up; with funding spread over a longer period; or some combination.

Yes but like I said in the post above. Wolf says that a down selection to 2.5 must be done as soon as August 2012 because he specifies the down selection to 2.5 must be done "this summer" in his press release. Furthermore, it is possible that no CCiCap optional milestones will be exercised for any of the companies. So a further down selection during the optional period would not be considered a partial award.

I think that one of way of implementing a 2.5 strategy is by specifying in advance that NASA will fund both the LV and the spacecrafts for two proposals. But the .5 proposal will only get an award for its spacecraft. So it will have to use the LV from the other companies.

[neilh]

Experience matters, and the experiences NASA has had in dealing with SpaceX should be a warning sign for future contracts.  As an examKple they fought tooth and nail about a charge on the F9 for the range.  IMHO, NASA would be foolish to give anymore contracts as the management would be impossiple to work with.

Prober just stop.

NASA is routinely praising SpaceX as being the most agreeable and easiest group to work with that they have ever had, in fact going so far as to tacitly insult some of the more established contractor names in a recent live press conference when comparing the ease of being able to work together.  When you hear NASA officials griping about friction with contractors, they say SpaceX is like a breath of fresh air in that department.

Edit: The ruckus about the flight termination charge was between SpaceX and the FAA iirc.  NASA had nothing to do with it.  And it was just a repeat of the slosh baffles issue- something they didn't think they had to do, but they learned otherwise and fixed it and moved on.

See this quote is what is funny about the Internet and the myth and folklore that has grown up around SpaceX. 

While Elon has been made out to be soley responsible for everything and surrounded with this ideal and romantic notion, now we have a suggestion that SpaceX essentially yielded everything to NASA and did whatever they wanted and apparently did it with style and grace that brought a tear to everyone's eye and shear joy at the same time

Yet there are other posts claiming "Elon" is ready to walk and won't give into the "NASA way" and will go it alone leading us all to the golden age

Which is it?  How can they both be true?

I disagree with the apparent claim that a good working relationship is the same as "yielding everything".

[LegendCJS]

I disagree with the apparent claim that a good working relationship is the same as "yielding everything".

Indeed.  I don't have transcripts from this video, but one of the press conferences involved a NASA official explaining the ins and outs of their working relationship with SpaceX:

It paraphrases in my memory as this:

When we (NASA) approach SpaceX with a request or a requirement to change something they are doing, we've found that all we need to do is put in the hard work on our side to convince them that it makes sense.  Once the convincing is done they buckle down and make it happen without further ado, and its so nice not to have to deal with endless friction and resistance and heel dragging like we get from other contractors even after this point.

The superlative qualification in my earlier post on this was an (admittedly too enthusiastic and perhaps unwarranted) extrapolation from the following:

    Gerst notes he's worked with a lot of teams down at the Cape, but there are none better than SpaceX (ULA just fell off their chairs).
    <snip>

(sorry for the fail date... thread this quote was from was locked so can't get correct date string from a "reply with quote", and I don't know the date number magic, so I used date = 0.

[PeterAlt]

Holy bananas, how did this get to 29 pages already!

I'm not pulling my "baby orbiter" card here, but Peter's right, DC offers a different capability to the pot. To lose DC this year due to a downselect would have me properly outraged.

I'll go there! Imagine the renewed morale impact flying a "baby orbiter" would have on a nation still demoralized over the shuttle fleet. It would be a "we're back, baby" moment, symbolized in delta wings, the day DC lifts-off.

[joek]

Yes but like I said in the post above. Wolf says that a down selection to 2.5 must be done as soon as August 2012 because he specifies the down selection to 2.5 must be done "this summer" in his press release. Furthermore, it is possible that no CCiCap optional milestones will be exercised for any of the companies. So a further down selection during the optional period would not be considered a partial award.

Understood.  I was showing one interpretation of what a down-select to "2.5" might look like.  Agree that while it is possible no optional milestones will be exercised, whether or not their absence in an SAA constitutes a "partial award" is open to interpretation. edit: The other Another interpretation...

Per the solicitation, all of the SAA's must include at minimum required milestones in the base period; what is required could be quite limited:

For the base period, to be concluded no later than May 31, 2014, NASA’s goals are for Participants to:
1.   Complete the detailed integrated design of the CTS.
2.   Demonstrate a process to analyze, quantify, and understand the risks associated with the design.
3.   Establish the criteria and plans for the Participants’ certification of the system for the orbital crewed demonstration flight, which considers potential customer standards (e.g. NASA’s 1100 series, SSP 50808 and industry equivalents). 
4.   Conduct significant risk reduction activities (for example, uncrewed test flight, pad abort test, or drop test).

Presumably the required portion of one of the SAA's (the "0.5") will be much more limited than the other two (the "2.0"); e.g., with significantly less risk reduction activities, with consequently lower funding.  Unless someone drops out, there will be at least 3.0 SAA's executed with at least 3.0 awardees with at least 3.0 sets of required milestones which address the goals above.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

p.s. That said, if funding pressure continues, I expect at most only one CCiCap2 award is actually authorized.

Legally, NASA is required to give at least 2 awards.  (the selection documents, again). 

In short, NASA will award either 2 full priced awards, or 2 almost full priced awards, and one smaller award.  Those are the only options, at this point

Unless someone drops out, there will be at least 3.0 SAA's executed with at least 3.0 awardees with at least 3.0 sets of required milestones which address the goals above.

Not necessarily.  NASA is not required to make 3 awards - they can award as few as 2 awards.  And they may make the calculation that its better to put all on just 2 companies, rather than try and save a 3rd company. 

[Go4TLI]

It paraphrases in my memory as this:

When we (NASA) approach SpaceX with a request or a requirement to change something they are doing, we've found that all we need to do is put in the hard work on our side to convince them that it makes sense.  Once the convincing is done they buckle down and make it happen without further ado, and its so nice not to have to deal with endless friction and resistance and heel dragging like we get from other contractors even after this point.

Which is still not completely accurate by any means nor does it reconcile what has been said on these boards at length about SpaceX want to buck NASA and go its own way.

So again, which is it because it can't be both ways.

[QuantumG]

Which is still not completely accurate by any means nor does it reconcile what has been said on these boards at length about SpaceX want to buck NASA and go its own way.

So again, which is it because it can't be both ways.

The borgification is nearly complete?

[yg1968]

Not necessarily.  NASA is not required to make 3 awards - they can award as few as 2 awards.  And they may make the calculation that its better to put all on just 2 companies, rather than try and save a 3rd company. 

Given that the administration fought to keep competition going as long as possible, I would be surprised if they don't grant all 3 awards. I bet that Bolden even had to fight for that 0.5.