ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[Chris Bergin]

Well I think it would be very strange if NASA suddenly issued a presser saying they were about to announce the awards today (it's usually a few days in advance for such awards, usually with a teleconference number and a time). And I can't imagine they would just issue a presser when they make the awards. This isn't a janitor contract for KSC, this is a mega money ISS resupply contract. By the same token they wouldn't "announce" it's delayed, so I think someone needs to update the procurement website from Nov 5 to TBA and go from there.

[king1999]

Well I think it would be very strange if NASA suddenly issued a presser saying they were about to announce the awards today (it's usually a few days in advance for such awards, usually with a teleconference number and a time). And I can't imagine they would just issue a presser when they make the awards. This isn't a janitor contract for KSC, this is a mega money ISS resupply contract. By the same token they wouldn't "announce" it's delayed, so I think someone needs to update the procurement website from Nov 5 to TBA and go from there.

Thanks for the note. I can breathe now ...... has been holding my breath

[Chris Bergin]

Funny from Laura - but I bet (given she's with the Denver Post and they are tied at the hip with SNC) this is a sign SNC's aware it's not happening today.

[spacekscblog]

Re the suggestions that politics and the FY16 budget may be the reason for a delay ...

Keep in mind that in September 2014 NASA issued commercial crew contracts to SpaceX and Boeing.  Those contracts were issued based on the assumption that Congress would actually fund those contracts.

The House has already voted to cut the President's FY16 commercial crew request by 20%.  The Senate has yet to act, but the appropriations committee voted to cut the President's request by 25%.

The recent budget agreement hopefully will change that, but it's a clear sign that Congress has no interest in assuring that NASA honors its contractual agreements.  NASA administrator Charlie Bolden said a couple months ago that NASA would have to suspend CCtCap work in the spring of 2016 if those cuts went through.

Several members of the space subcommittees have insisted that NASA downsize to one vendor, with the implication it should be Boeing.

So I can understand why NASA would be reluctant to commit to new commercial cargo contracts when the agency is unsure if it can honor those agreements.

[psloss]

The 2 year budget deal didn't include specific agency appropriations. Those still have to be negotiated..

The Administration is trying to free up non-defense discretionary money. It's a sensitive time to announce a multi-billion dollar NASA contract.

Yes, and the U.S. government is still operating under a continuing resolution between now and Dec. 11.  That's a lot of time to argue and make political points and it seems like the compromise on the budget caps hasn't changed that too much -- they're already back to the previous behavior with Defense Appropriations:
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/259209-after-bipartisan-budget-deal-congress-plunges-right-back-into-shutdown

This gamesmanship might run past the current CR and require another short-term one and as has been noted, an award like this might need to wait for more top-line certainty.

[psloss]

Confirmed on the procurement page:
http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/

11/5/15 The anticipated CRS2 award is now no later than January 30, 2016 to allow additional time for the Government to assess proposals.

[guckyfan]

The term Government in that statement is most interesting. So it is not NASA but probably Congress. 

[Todd Martin]

That's pretty much 1 year from the time the bidders sent in their bid package and the Government making a decision.  In my line of work, when we quote a complicated capital equipment item, we wouldn't want to honor a 1 year old quote since pricing and technology has changed since then.

If they take too much longer, they may need to start over.

[baldusi]

Among other issues, is that you might keep a certain supplier and infrastructure on contract for three months. You might risk extending that to six months. But one year of uncertain investment? This looks like actually looking to hurt the companies.

[Prober]

The term Government in that statement is most interesting. So it is not NASA but probably Congress. 

You might not understand but the term Government.   NASA is a government agency so it's their call to make. Waiting until Jan.2016 with the hope of some change is a very dangerous game to play. 

[guckyfan]

The term Government in that statement is most interesting. So it is not NASA but probably Congress. 

You might not understand but the term Government.   NASA is a government agency so it's their call to make.

I am not US citizen but I do understand that NASA is part of Government. Still if it were NASA's call they would state NASA. I am also aware that formally Congress has no influence. But in the real world if people from a related Committee express the desire for a delay do you believe NASA would go ahead anyway?

The fact alone that the delay was announced only today indicates to me that NASA tried to get the contract done to the last moment and that external influences were responsible.

It is speculation and I may be wrong.

Edit: no more from me. That kind of discussion should be in the politics section but presently there is no ongoing discussion there.

[Prober]

The term Government in that statement is most interesting. So it is not NASA but probably Congress. 

You might not understand but the term Government.   NASA is a government agency so it's their call to make.

I am not US citizen but I do understand that NASA is part of Government. Still if it were NASA's call they would state NASA. I am also aware that formally Congress has no influence. But in the real world if people from a related Committee express the desire for a delay do you believe NASA would go ahead anyway?

The fact alone that the delay was announced only today indicates to me that NASA tried to get the contract done to the last moment and that external influences were responsible.

It is speculation and I may be wrong.

Edit: no more from me. That kind of discussion should be in the politics section but presently there is no ongoing discussion there.

It's real simple; this is for commercial contracted services for the ISS.

It should be just that simple, and NASA's call (politics should have nothing to do with it, inside NASA or outside)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22791.msg1442237#msg1442237

Edit: add thread post

[John Santos]

It's pretty obvious to me that they want to see a successful Cygnus and Dragon flight before contracting for more.  Cygnus (on Atlas) is scheduled for early December and Dragon/Falcon (which should be the 4th post-RTF flight and the 3rd F9FT flight) is early January.  It all goes well with both (as I hope and expect) then they will award the new contracts.  If one or both fail, then NASA won't look incompetent for having awarded a big contract for something that doesn't work.  They'll probably award a contract to the one that succeeded and to Boeing/ULA, and initiate a major investigation.  If they awarded a contract before RTF and the RTF failed, then it would be Congress investigating NASA instead of NASA investigating the contractor.

[Dante80]

With a grain of salt

https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/662329945918742528

James Dean Verified account ‏@flatoday_jdean  Breaking: Boeing confirms it has been eliminated from NASA's CRS2 competition.

Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  Jeff Foust Retweeted James Dean
Just heard the same.

[baldusi]

Should this be true (and rumors have been wrong in the past), I would expect a 2 SPX, 1 ORB, 1 SNC award (my personal speculation). But we might have to wait for it another three months to know.

[AncientU]

With a grain of salt

https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/662329945918742528

James Dean Verified account ‏@flatoday_jdean  Breaking: Boeing confirms it has been eliminated from NASA's CRS2 competition.

Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  Jeff Foust Retweeted James Dean
Just heard the same.

Deja vu -- Commercial crew award... and we know how that came out.

[freakdog]

My question is does anyone know what Orbital did to solve the down-mass requirement? -- meaning, how are they going to return pressurized cargo in a vehicle that burns up on re-entry?

[freakdog]

With a grain of salt

https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/662329945918742528

James Dean Verified account ‏@flatoday_jdean  Breaking: Boeing confirms it has been eliminated from NASA's CRS2 competition.

Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  Jeff Foust Retweeted James Dean
Just heard the same.

Lurio reported this a few days ago.  It seems like his sources are pretty good, except when the content of the rumor is changed behind closed doors...

[guckyfan]

My question is does anyone know what Orbital did to solve the down-mass requirement? -- meaning, how are they going to return pressurized cargo in a vehicle that burns up on re-entry?

They don't and they don't need to. It is regarded enough to have one provider with downmass capability.

[freakdog]

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2015/11/05/nasa-delays-iss-cargo-contract-awards-again/75215178/

Florida Today is reporting SNC is still in, Boeing is out.  -- This is the James Dean story that has now 'hit the wire.'