“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.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.
Quote from: Prober on 09/03/2012 04:09 pmNASA is not in the business of picking “Winners and losers”.You mean they shouldn't be... because they most certainly have been for decades now.
NASA is not in the business of picking “Winners and losers”.
Somebody has to win eventually. What is the point. The contracts were bid out, the process was transparent and the winners to date have clear realistic plans.
Quote from: DaveH62 on 09/04/2012 03:38 amSomebody has to win eventually. What is the point. The contracts were bid out, the process was transparent and the winners to date have clear realistic plans. Japan.
Quote from: QuantumG on 09/04/2012 04:02 amJapan.China!
Japan.
What would Japan have to do with the CCiCAP award?
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 09/03/2012 02:32 amThis was released publicly on FridayThanks!obligatory stoplight chart attached...
This was released publicly on Friday
SNC has the most significant amount of risk reduction and technology development work to do before reaching CDR, and I would like to see what kind of progress SNC can make on increasing the maturity of some of its key technologies and reducing some of its key risks to increase my confidence in its ability to reach CDR before providing them with additionnal funding. For this reason, I decided that SNC will receive a significantly reduced award.
Quote from: joek on 09/02/2012 09:40 pmAny thoughts or news on when we can expect the selection statement? It's been four weeks since the CCiCap awards, yet still nothing from the usual suspects, or on the Commercial Crew site. IIRC, NASA promised the selection statement would be available soon--"within a couple weeks" or some such at the time of the awards 03-Aug. (I had my money on Fri 31-Aug, but obviously no such luck.)This was released publicly on Friday
Any thoughts or news on when we can expect the selection statement? It's been four weeks since the CCiCap awards, yet still nothing from the usual suspects, or on the Commercial Crew site. IIRC, NASA promised the selection statement would be available soon--"within a couple weeks" or some such at the time of the awards 03-Aug. (I had my money on Fri 31-Aug, but obviously no such luck.)
any[/i] skin in the game?
This quote from Gerst is interesting as it seems to leave the door open for SNC receiving additionnal CciCap optional milestones funding if they are succesful in their CCiCap base period milestones.
"the DC is more proven in some respects" you have no idea what information I am referencing.
[SNC] All Weaknesses were fully addressed except as follows: does not adequately address the risk associated with spacecraft Thermal Protection System (TPS) damage.[...]SNC Confidence rating is driven by several factors: complexity of the heat shield design, complexity in abort conditions, controlling weight of the design, and ability to bring green propeilants on line in a cost effective and timely manner.[...]but SNC has many more technologies that need to be matured in order to reach CDR and its winged lifting body design presents some uinique challenges not found in a capsule design. This technology development and the rest of tis development actifivies within the CCiCap base period make SNC's proposal a higher risk choice.
A design by Alliant Techsystems (ATK) was dropped from NASA’s shortlist of potential space station crew taxis because the company did not present a technically sound plan for combining existing rocket and spacecraft designs into a single transportation system, according to a NASA source selection document released Sept. 4. “I had some significant concerns about the lack of detail in some areas of ATK’s technical approach,” William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, wrote in the document. “Basically, the proposal lacked enough detail to determine if a safe crew transportation system could be developed in a timely and cost effective manner out of the heritage components ATK selected for this concept.”
[...] demonstrates a viable business plan that targets different markets beyond crew transportation to LEO and ISS with multiple spacecraft and launch vehicle configurations.
The selection statement has the following interesting comments on page 8 on SpaceX' business plans:Quote[...] demonstrates a viable business plan that targets different markets beyond crew transportation to LEO and ISS with multiple spacecraft and launch vehicle configurations. I imagine that SpaceX' business plans includes launches to Mars as stated by Musk on various occasions.
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/05/2012 05:31 pmThe selection statement has the following interesting comments on page 8 on SpaceX' business plans:Quote[...] demonstrates a viable business plan that targets different markets beyond crew transportation to LEO and ISS with multiple spacecraft and launch vehicle configurations. I imagine that SpaceX' business plans includes launches to Mars as stated by Musk on various occasions. I don't see how NASA would have been able to categorize that as 'viable' at this point.
I decided to put numbers for all of these criterias in order to give each company an overall score based on the evaluations given by the Participant Evaluation Panel (PEP):
