Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[WindyCity]

This discussion both fascinates and perplexes me. From the public statements I have read from SNC and NASA, the justifications for SNC’s filing the appeal with the GAO and for NASA’s resume work order appear straightforward: SNC has viewed the documents showing NASA’s reasons for selecting Boeing and SpaceX. The company believes that its system scored competitively on safety, reliability, and cost against those other aerospace concerns; more than that, it believes that it outperformed at least one of its competitors. Therefore, it believes that empirical grounds exist for overturning NASA’s decision.  There is no publicly announced basis at present for determining which criteria played the most significant role in either NASA’s selection decision or SNL’s appeal. As for NASA’s order to resume work, it put forward the justification that national interest outweighed the financial risk of having its selection decision overturned by the GAO. The agency asserts that for the 2017 deadline for transitioning from the Soyuz to a commercial orbital transport service to be sustained, a delay of at least 100 days would constitute a serious setback. Until all the facts become public, what reasons are there to second-guess any of the public statements of the parties to the dispute?

[TomH]

How does that work? Does a favorable prior performer get positive points, an unfavorable prior performer negative points, and a new offeror zero points? If another metric, how is it set up?

Yes, more-or-less. Past performance is not numerically scored, but is expressed as a confidence level.  If past performance information is available and relevant, it would typically be expressed on a scale of, e.g., "low" (negative) to "high" (positive).  Those without a history would typically be graded "unknown", or "neutral".

A negative confidence level works against you; a positive confidence level works for you.  All other things equal, the competitor with the highest confidence level wins, with "unknown" or "neutral" being the equivalent of zero.  However, an "unknown" or "neutral" confidence level cannot be used as the sole basis for acceptance or rejection.

However, past performance and confidence level cannot be divorced from other evaluation factors.  A proposal which has a very high price and a very high confidence level does not necessarily get a pass vs. a proposal with a lower price and a lower confidence level.  That is where fuzzy interpretations of timeliness, need, and "value to the government" comes into play, and where disputes due to such fuzzy interpretations arise.

Thanks.

[erioladastra]

I'd of given Boeing 8B five years ago and would be flying today...

No they wouldn't. Atlas still isn't human rated yet, in spite of the relatively easy technical requirements to do so. Without SNC and SpaceX in the mix Boeing and ULA would have had absolutely no pressure to get it done. It would have been business as usual, drawn out as long as possible and get as much taxpayer money for it as possible.

False argument and not sure what data you are basing it on.  Human rating the Atlas is not relatively easy.  Most of the steps to getting there is a LOT of analysis, which Boeing and ULA have been doing.  I wont' disagree that if more money had been put to the effort it would be further along.  But easy, no, far from it.  Also, equally critical is NASA has a significant role in the human rating and until CCiCAP, really not fully engaged in it.

I suspect what you are trying to say is that if was Boeing solo there would be no incentive to do it as fast or cheaply as has been done so far.  That may well be a true statement (I don't think there is any data one way or the other but fair argument to postulate).

[clongton]

The agency asserts that for the 2017 deadline for transitioning from the Soyuz to a commercial orbital transport service to be sustained, a delay of at least 100 days would constitute a serious setback.

In my opinion NASA's assertion is bogus and I call it BS. There are 2 companies involved, one of which is already proceeding to manned flight with or without NASA's money. So a 100 day delay would not affect that company in any way. The other company has made no bones that without the NASA contract it would likely shut down its spacecraft effort and let the people involved in it go. That is the only setback - that company won't go forward without NASA's money promised up front.

In my opinion this entire thing reeks of corruption at the highest level of NASA, that company and both their Congressional lackeys.

[A_M_Swallow]

The agency asserts that for the 2017 deadline for transitioning from the Soyuz to a commercial orbital transport service to be sustained, a delay of at least 100 days would constitute a serious setback.

In my opinion NASA's assertion is bogus and I call it BS. There are 2 companies involved, one of which is already proceeding to manned flight with or without NASA's money. So a 100 day delay would not affect that company in any way. The other company has made no bones that without the NASA contract it would likely shut down its spacecraft effort and let the people involved in it go. That is the only setback - that company won't go forward without NASA's money promised up front.

In my opinion this entire thing reeks of corruption at the highest level of NASA, that company and both their Congressional lackeys.

Try something simpler.  The capsules are due to launch in 2017, that is only 3 years away.  NASA is currently planning when the new capsules will take astronauts the ISS.  If the spacecraft developments are late then NASA will have to pay for an extra Soyuz.  A 100 day delay may be sufficient to miss the launch window since history shows other delays can be expected.

[WindyCity]

The agency asserts that for the 2017 deadline for transitioning from the Soyuz to a commercial orbital transport service to be sustained, a delay of at least 100 days would constitute a serious setback.

In my opinion NASA's assertion is bogus and I call it BS. There are 2 companies involved, one of which is already proceeding to manned flight with or without NASA's money. So a 100 day delay would not affect that company in any way. The other company has made no bones that without the NASA contract it would likely shut down its spacecraft effort and let the people involved in it go. That is the only setback - that company won't go forward without NASA's money promised up front.

In my opinion this entire thing reeks of corruption at the highest level of NASA, that company and both their Congressional lackeys.

Serious charges. I infer that the corruption you're referring to involves the selection of Boeing over SNC. You didn't spell it out, so if I'm wrong, please clarify.

You certainly could be right. I've had the same suspicion. However, the key point of my post was that no publicly available evidence that I'm aware of exists at this time to sustain such a theory. Absent a study of the documents that lay out the basis of NASA's selection decision, it simply is not possible to conclude that Boeing's political influence, corrupt or otherwise, led NASA to decide as it did. Thus, I think it serves no constructive purpose to speculate in an incriminatory manner about Boeing's or NASA's roles in the down-select process.

That said, I too am concerned about the decision. I was among the many who felt that SNC and SpaceX outpaced Boeing's entry. I was shocked when I saw that the CST-100 beat out the Dream Chaser. The tax-paying public deserves a full accounting of what happened.

[WindyCity]

In my opinion NASA's assertion is bogus and I call it BS. There are 2 companies involved, one of which is already proceeding to manned flight with or without NASA's money. So a 100 day delay would not affect that company in any way. The other company has made no bones that without the NASA contract it would likely shut down its spacecraft effort and let the people involved in it go. That is the only setback - that company won't go forward without NASA's money promised up front.

In my opinion this entire thing reeks of corruption at the highest level of NASA, that company and both their Congressional lackeys.

Try something simpler.  The capsules are due to launch in 2017, that is only 3 years away.  NASA is currently planning when the new capsules will take astronauts the ISS.  If the spacecraft developments are late then NASA will have to pay for an extra Soyuz.  A 100 day delay may be sufficient to miss the launch window since history shows other delays can be expected.

So you're defending NASA's rationale of "national interest" for ordering Boeing and SpaceX to resume work?

[A_M_Swallow]

In my opinion NASA's assertion is bogus and I call it BS. There are 2 companies involved, one of which is already proceeding to manned flight with or without NASA's money. So a 100 day delay would not affect that company in any way. The other company has made no bones that without the NASA contract it would likely shut down its spacecraft effort and let the people involved in it go. That is the only setback - that company won't go forward without NASA's money promised up front.

In my opinion this entire thing reeks of corruption at the highest level of NASA, that company and both their Congressional lackeys.

Try something simpler.  The capsules are due to launch in 2017, that is only 3 years away.  NASA is currently planning when the new capsules will take astronauts the ISS.  If the spacecraft developments are late then NASA will have to pay for an extra Soyuz.  A 100 day delay may be sufficient to miss the launch window since history shows other delays can be expected.

So you're defending NASA's rationale of "national interest" for ordering Boeing and SpaceX to resume work?

Yes.  NASA now has a difficult deadline about 4 years away.  If it misses that deadline it will cause international embarrassment for both NASA and the USA.

[Rocket Science]

I think the international embarrassment for both NASA and the USA ship sailed years ago when we gounded our fleet and had to "go hat in hand to Russia"....

[Mike Harris-Stone]

While I wouldn't be surprised at politics being involved in Boeing's selection, I do buy NASA's assertion that 100 days would jeopardize the launch deadline.  Part of my job involves software project management.  While this isn't nearly as complex as dealing with new manned spacecraft, any delay ripples through the chain of work.  3 months is a long time and with the possibility of further legal action, it could go longer.  I read in Motley Fool that SNC was on the receiving end of a contract dispute from Beechcraft over providing combat aircraft for Afghanistan and it took a year to resolve (which it did in SNC's favor).  Also, those who would argue that the company's involved can keep working are forgetting NASA itself.  For the project to stay on course, NASA needs to keep moving too.  Of course political pressure could have been applied to NASA to keep going, but I can't imagine it was just that.  Three years is short when you factor in the need for test flights and the whole host of unknowns that can still come up.

This is just my 2 cents.  I mentioned the reinstatement to my Dad and he said "of course."  Maybe some here know the situation much better, and maybe know something more than I do, but I can take it at face value.

[Rocket Science]

A concern over 100 days means that there is no margin built in a program that will be 2 years behind due to lack of full presidential requested funding by Congress. If it means buying another Soyuz ride for 70M compared to the CC program in the billions, so be it in search of the truth...

[woods170]

Human rating the Atlas is not relatively easy.  Most of the steps to getting there is a LOT of analysis, which Boeing and ULA have been doing.  I wont' disagree that if more money had been put to the effort it would be further along.  But easy, no, far from it.  Also, equally critical is NASA has a significant role in the human rating and until CCiCAP, really not fully engaged in it.

This flies directly in the face of Jim who stated that human rating launchers is actually not all that difficult, nor all that expensive, as it is mostly a paper exercise.

[su27k]

Another article based on source selection document:

http://aviationweek.com/space/why-nasa-rejected-sierra-nevadas-commercial-crew-vehicle

I wonder what they meant by SpaceX has "the least robust approach for addressing the actual specific feedback on the Phase 1 products that are the foundations of certification in this second phase.", and what are the "problems not yet well understood, and design trades made late in the development process"

[clongton]

The agency asserts that for the 2017 deadline for transitioning from the Soyuz to a commercial orbital transport service to be sustained, a delay of at least 100 days would constitute a serious setback.

In my opinion NASA's assertion is bogus and I call it BS. There are 2 companies involved, one of which is already proceeding to manned flight with or without NASA's money. So a 100 day delay would not affect that company in any way. The other company has made no bones that without the NASA contract it would likely shut down its spacecraft effort and let the people involved in it go. That is the only setback - that company won't go forward without NASA's money promised up front.

In my opinion this entire thing reeks of corruption at the highest level of NASA, that company and both their Congressional lackeys.

Try something simpler.  The capsules are due to launch in 2017, that is only 3 years away.  NASA is currently planning when the new capsules will take astronauts the ISS.  If the spacecraft developments are late then NASA will have to pay for an extra Soyuz.  A 100 day delay may be sufficient to miss the launch window since history shows other delays can be expected.

The 1st company I mentioned plans to be flying manned in 2016, a year ahead of the ISS crew flight. NASA is in no danger - unless it doesn't trust the 1st company? In that case then why did they get a contract in the first place?

No, this is about taking care of old friends - nothing more.

[rpapo]

Another article based on source selection document:

http://aviationweek.com/space/why-nasa-rejected-sierra-nevadas-commercial-crew-vehicle

I wonder what they meant by SpaceX has "the least robust approach for addressing the actual specific feedback on the Phase 1 products that are the foundations of certification in this second phase.", and what are the "problems not yet well understood, and design trades made late in the development process"

Interesting article.  Bill G sounds a lot like Jim in his assertions.

It would seem that NASA found something during the previous phase that they think will require significant rework by SpaceX.  On the other hand, SpaceX has considerable padding in their schedule too.

Odd the article would say that the Dragon Crew launch would take place from LC40.  I was under the impression they were planning on using LC39A for crewed launches.

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, crew will be from 39a. The article is wrong.

[erioladastra]

The agency asserts that for the 2017 deadline for transitioning from the Soyuz to a commercial orbital transport service to be sustained, a delay of at least 100 days would constitute a serious setback.

In my opinion NASA's assertion is bogus and I call it BS. There are 2 companies involved, one of which is already proceeding to manned flight with or without NASA's money. So a 100 day delay would not affect that company in any way. The other company has made no bones that without the NASA contract it would likely shut down its spacecraft effort and let the people involved in it go. That is the only setback - that company won't go forward without NASA's money promised up front.

In my opinion this entire thing reeks of corruption at the highest level of NASA, that company and both their Congressional lackeys.

Try something simpler.  The capsules are due to launch in 2017, that is only 3 years away.  NASA is currently planning when the new capsules will take astronauts the ISS.  If the spacecraft developments are late then NASA will have to pay for an extra Soyuz.  A 100 day delay may be sufficient to miss the launch window since history shows other delays can be expected.

The 1st company I mentioned plans to be flying manned in 2016, a year ahead of the ISS crew flight. NASA is in no danger - unless it doesn't trust the 1st company? In that case then why did they get a contract in the first place?

No, this is about taking care of old friends - nothing more.

Correct - I don't think NASA believes the 2016 date and you shouldn't either.  You can measure that multiple ways.  Past performance has been pretty clear (and not trying to fault SpaceX - this is hard work and they should be commended for where they have gotten, but they have been over optimistic, as all aerospace companies are).  WHat they submitted in CCiCAP, especially CPC.   But most importantly, and I have repeatedly stated this multiple times but it seems to be getting lost on many folks here is how long it will take NASA to integrate a human rated vehicle into the CCP and ISS programs.   Now, I won't say that is good or bad but it is the reality.  NASA would be very hard pressed to support the critical work needed for a single human vehicle to be ready in 2017 for one company.  I do not believe NASA has allocated the resources todo that for TWO companies.   So my point is that even if SpaceX was, in their opinion, ready to launch a crew in 2016 I don't believe they can be ready by NASA's standards by then.

[erioladastra]

A concern over 100 days means that there is no margin built in a program that will be 2 years behind due to lack of full presidential requested funding by Congress. If it means buying another Soyuz ride for 70M compared to the CC program in the billions, so be it in search of the truth...

Yes, you are correct that funding, and NASA trying to deal with TWO companies will be the biggest factor - but 100 days is a HUGE amount fo time.   Even without the inevitable burps and issues along the way throwing away 3 months certainly guarantees at least one more launch provided by Soyuz.  That is significant money and political/national prestige there.

[clongton]

Correct - I don't think NASA believes the 2016 date and you shouldn't either.

The 2016 flight will not be a NASA flight. It will be a SpaceX vehicle likely with a SpaceX crew on a SpaceX mission to shake down the vehicle.

[Rocket Science]

A concern over 100 days means that there is no margin built in a program that will be 2 years behind due to lack of full presidential requested funding by Congress. If it means buying another Soyuz ride for 70M compared to the CC program in the billions, so be it in search of the truth...

Yes, you are correct that funding, and NASA trying to deal with TWO companies will be the biggest factor - but 100 days is a HUGE amount fo time.   Even without the inevitable burps and issues along the way throwing away 3 months certainly guarantees at least one more launch provided by Soyuz.  That is significant money and political/national prestige there.

Like I said above in post #168 "that ship has sailed" and Joe the plumber is the US couldn't care less...