The CCiCAP Award (PRE- and Post-AWARD DISCUSSION) Thread

[Jim]

That’s another point I’d disagree with.   In my evaluation the DC is more proven in some respects than the Boeing and SpaceX designs.  Too much is made of the TPS   

Huh?  You don't have the information to make such a claim.  And even that which is publicly available does not support your claim

[Jim]

Launch Abort brand new systems untested on the Boeing and SpaceX designs.   The DC we know how it lands. The ATX had a tested design as well for Aborts.

Again huh?   DC abort system is no more tested that the others and actually Boeings would be the best since it relies on simpler systems.

ATK's system was not tested?  The MLAS test was in no way similar to an operational system

[oiorionsbelt]

In short, SNC is higher risk compared to Boeing and SpaceX.

True for the technical case but they scored much better with the business case. I suppose the technical side one over on the business side.
 Don't know about others but I was surprised at how low Boeing scored in the business side of the evaluation. What do they not have that SpaceX and SNC do?

[BrightLight]

In short, SNC is higher risk compared to Boeing and SpaceX.

True for the technical case but they scored much better with the business case. I suppose the technical side one over on the business side.
 Don't know about others but I was surprised at how low Boeing scored in the business side of the evaluation. What do they not have that SpaceX and SNC do?

After the Apollo program, Boeing said they lost $0.75 on the dollar (I need a reference here) and would not invest large amounts of Boeing funds for manned spaceflight again I'm not fond of Boeing but they do make good product).  This is consistent with what I have seen of Boeing business practices - you want it, you pay for it.
I think they lost points for the limited Boeing investment in the program where as SpaceX and SNC put more of there own cash on the line.

[oiorionsbelt]

Does putting more of your own cash on the line improve your business case? I don't see how it does. It decreases NASA's risk but that's about it.

[joek]

Don't know about others but I was surprised at how low Boeing scored in the business side of the evaluation. What do they not have that SpaceX and SNC do?

Amount of private money they are willing to commit:

All weaknesses were fully addressed except as follows: proposed corporate investment during the CCiCap period does not provide significant industry financial investment and there is increased risk of having insufficient funding in the base period.

[joek]

Does putting more of your own cash on the line improve your business case? I don't see how it does. It decreases NASA's risk but that's about it.

That's part of it, but not all of it.

[oiorionsbelt]

Thanks joek.
Boeing seem to be skating along with a get what you can and risk as little as possible attitude.
 I think this speaks to the popularity of companies like SpaceX and SNC compared to.. dare I say it, "old space"

[BrightLight]

Thanks joek.
Boeing seem to be skating along with a get what you can and risk as little as possible attitude.
 I think this speaks to the popularity of companies like SpaceX and SNC compared to.. dare I say it, "old space"

Just to be a curmudgeon, "Old Space"  paid in dollars and lives - Kelly Johnson slept at the fabrication facility while the Saturns were being built (another reference needed here) at the expense of his family as did many others. Old space is way up on the learning curve - and when a payload is critical to national security - Old space wins on reliability.
To get back on-topic - Boeing's advanced state of the CST-100 in terms of retiring risk early I suspect, won the day for them over SNC. 

[Ronsmytheiii]

Kelly Johnson slept at the fabrication facility while the Saturns were being built (another reference needed here) at the expense of his family as did many others.

Kelly Johnson never worked on the Saturn, or any other LV as I recall.....

[QuantumG]

Kelly Johnson, and skunkworks in general, is the model. It was the diamond in the rough. It's what made people believe that it might actually be possible to do better than the norm.

[BrightLight]

Kelly Johnson slept at the fabrication facility while the Saturns were being built (another reference needed here) at the expense of his family as did many others.

Kelly Johnson never worked on the Saturn, or any other LV as I recall.....

I have the wrong engineer!

[sdsds]

Don't know about others but I was surprised at how low Boeing scored in the business side of the evaluation. What do they not have that SpaceX and SNC do?

Amount of private money they are willing to commit:

All weaknesses were fully addressed except as follows: proposed corporate investment during the CCiCap period does not provide significant industry financial investment and there is increased risk of having insufficient funding in the base period.

I share the disappointment with what appears to be mediocre support for CST-100 and commercial crew from Boeing's corporate leadership. What level of financial investment (beyond zero) would be characterized as "not significant?" Do they have any skin in the game?

[Prober]

That’s another point I’d disagree with.   In my evaluation the DC is more proven in some respects than the Boeing and SpaceX designs.  Too much is made of the TPS   

Huh?  You don't have the information to make such a claim.  And even that which is publicly available does not support your claim

 "the DC is more proven in some respects"  you have no idea what information I am referencing.

[Prober]

Launch Abort brand new systems untested on the Boeing and SpaceX designs.   The DC we know how it lands. The ATX had a tested design as well for Aborts.

Again huh?   DC abort system is no more tested that the others and actually Boeings would be the best since it relies on simpler systems.

ATK's system was not tested?  The MLAS test was in no way similar to an operational system

Did I say that ATK's system was fully operational, NO

I said we know how the DC would land after an abort.

You see in my evaluation I give higher priority to the basics like “abort” and not if the company will make it the commercial market selling seats.

[Prober]

Kelly Johnson, and skunkworks in general, is the model. It was the diamond in the rough. It's what made people believe that it might actually be possible to do better than the norm.

ahhh Kelly Johnson one of the greats.

[Jim]

That’s another point I’d disagree with.   In my evaluation the DC is more proven in some respects than the Boeing and SpaceX designs.  Too much is made of the TPS   

Huh?  You don't have the information to make such a claim.  And even that which is publicly available does not support your claim

 "the DC is more proven in some respects"  you have no idea what information I am referencing.

It doesnt matter, You don't have access to any info of any significance about DC much less the others to make such a judgement.

[Jim]

Did I say that ATK's system was fully operational, NO

I said we know how the DC would land after an abort.

You see in my evaluation I give higher priority to the basics like “abort” and not if the company will make it the commercial market selling seats.

You said ATK had a tested design, which it does not.

We also know how CST-100 and Dragon will land, so what is your point?

Your "evaluation"?     The actual evaluation is based on meeting the requirements in the solicitation.  Not somebody's own personal wants

[Prober]

Did I say that ATK's system was fully operational, NO

I said we know how the DC would land after an abort.

You see in my evaluation I give higher priority to the basics like “abort” and not if the company will make it the commercial market selling seats.

You said ATK had a tested design, which it does not.

We also know how CST-100 and Dragon will land, so what is your point?

Your "evaluation"?     The actual evaluation is based on meeting the requirements in the solicitation.  Not somebody's own personal wants

“You said ATK had a tested design, which it does not.”
What are you talking about?  I’ve watched the video of the system ATK planned on using.

"We also know how CST-100 and Dragon will land, so what is your point?
My point is that a winged spacecraft has the advantage of landing on a runway."

"Your "evaluation"?     The actual evaluation is based on meeting the requirements in the solicitation.  Not somebody's own personal wants"

Yes, my “evaluation” and I have done many in my lifetime, and they are respected.  My clients this time are the US taxpayer.

I can spot a flubbed up evaluation like the CCiCap with very little effort.  If the criteria were based on “Commercial market” it’s flawed. Jim as you enjoy saying “Unknown”, that just what the “Commercial market” is.    It was being factored so heavily into this process skews the outcome.  Maybe the same people that said the high launch rates of the EELV did this one, sigh. 

[BrightLight]

Did I say that ATK's system was fully operational, NO

I said we know how the DC would land after an abort.

You see in my evaluation I give higher priority to the basics like “abort” and not if the company will make it the commercial market selling seats.

You said ATK had a tested design, which it does not.

We also know how CST-100 and Dragon will land, so what is your point?

Your "evaluation"?     The actual evaluation is based on meeting the requirements in the solicitation.  Not somebody's own personal wants

“You said ATK had a tested design, which it does not.”
What are you talking about?  I’ve watched the video of the system ATK planned on using.

Are you trying to be sarcastic?
what has ATK built - the composite MPCV shell, has it been pressure tested/leak checked? the steel cased DM motor, the air start Vulcan.
what video?