NASA Releases CCtCap Source Selection Statement

[BuzzumFrog]

I didn't see a thread anywhere else here for this and I haven't had a chance to read the entire document (29 pages), but here it is for everyone who wasn't aware that it was released.  I find it interesting that it was released through the Commercial Crew Program's blog, instead of on its main web page.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2015/01/16/nasa-releases-cctcap-source-selection-statement/

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/CCtCap-Source-Selection-Statement-508.pdf

[nSpace]

Looks like SSA rated SpaceX as number 1 overall, even thou SEB and SSA tried to make non-issues into issues. I got great respect for both Boeing and SpaceX and have no doubt that they will be able to launch crew to ISS in 2017. It is a pity that SNC didn't make the cut, but I think it was the right call. Hopefully they will find funding elsewhere and finish the Dream Chaser.

[AnalogMan]

Here is an OCR'd version of the Source Selection Statement for anyone who wishes to cut and paste quotes in this thread.
(You should check any copied text against the original image in case there are small conversion errors.)

[rayleighscatter]

Looks like SSA rated SpaceX as number 1 overall, even thou SEB and SSA tried to make non-issues into issues. I got great respect for both Boeing and SpaceX and have no doubt that they will be able to launch crew to ISS in 2017. It is a pity that SNC didn't make the cut, but I think it was the right call. Hopefully they will find funding elsewhere and finish the Dream Chaser.

They found Boeing to be the strongest proposal, although their language obfuscates it a bit. The GAO statement summarized it more clearly than NASA:
"Specifically, NASA recognized Boeing’s higher price, but also considered Boeing’s proposal to be the strongest of all three proposals in terms of technical approach, management approach, and past performance, and to offer the crew transportation system with most utility and highest value to the government."

[DGH]

Looks like SSA rated SpaceX as number 1 overall, even thou SEB and SSA tried to make non-issues into issues. I got great respect for both Boeing and SpaceX and have no doubt that they will be able to launch crew to ISS in 2017. It is a pity that SNC didn't make the cut, but I think it was the right call. Hopefully they will find funding elsewhere and finish the Dream Chaser.

They found Boeing to be the strongest proposal, although their language obfuscates it a bit. The GAO statement summarized it more clearly than NASA:
"Specifically, NASA recognized Boeing’s higher price, but also considered Boeing’s proposal to be the strongest of all three proposals in terms of technical approach, management approach, and past performance, and to offer the crew transportation system with most utility and highest value to the government."

If I am reading it correctly:
All three would launch and return 4 crew and 100 kg the basic specification.
Boeing and SpaceX would launch and return 5 crew and 100 kg.
Only Boeing would launch and return 7 crew and at least 100 kg.

[natebrau]

Found this statement of interest:
"Boeing proposed to pursue an alternate launch vehicle in parallel with their baseline design work. This
new launch vehicle, if used in the CTS design, provides alternatives but would negate the
benefits of the established reliability of the existing launch vehicle. "

Does anyone have any details about what this alternate launch vehicle was?  It's not clear to me that "new launch vehicle" just means new-to-Boeing, or an actual new launch vehicle?

[Sesquipedalian]

Does anyone have any details about what this alternate launch vehicle was?  It's not clear to me that "new launch vehicle" just means new-to-Boeing, or an actual new launch vehicle?

That may be a reference to the Falcon 9.  Boeing said early in the Commercial Crew program that their CST-100 would be compatible with Falcon 9 and that they could pursue that in parallel with the Atlas V.

See, for example, this article and this previous thread.

[arachnitect]

Does anyone have any details about what this alternate launch vehicle was?  It's not clear to me that "new launch vehicle" just means new-to-Boeing, or an actual new launch vehicle?

That may be a reference to the Falcon 9.  Boeing said early in the Commercial Crew program that their CST-100 would be compatible with Falcon 9 and that they could pursue that in parallel with the Atlas V.

See, for example, this article and this previous thread.

Could also be a reference to the BE-4 powered "Atlas Prime"

[rcoppola]

Does anyone have any details about what this alternate launch vehicle was?  It's not clear to me that "new launch vehicle" just means new-to-Boeing, or an actual new launch vehicle?

That may be a reference to the Falcon 9.  Boeing said early in the Commercial Crew program that their CST-100 would be compatible with Falcon 9 and that they could pursue that in parallel with the Atlas V.

See, for example, this article and this previous thread.

That could very well be. Curious though:

-By the time CC flights begin, F9's reliability will be, should be, firmly established.

-The Atlas V will be moving to a new configuration anyways with ULA's engine replacement program. While not negating the entirety of the launcher, it's not a small data point either. But the timing of this switch is still uncertain since it's a dev program.

-Could they have offered a DeltaIV? Doesn't sound right wrt increased costs and human-rating which has been discussed on other threads.

-Couldn't be Antares for any number of reasons.

-What else could they have offered that makes sense? And that they could use with their approved baseline launch operations at Atlas V's launch complex?

Edit: Using an F9 puts them over at Pad 39A. It's still a good back-up plan though.

[rcoppola]

Does anyone have any details about what this alternate launch vehicle was?  It's not clear to me that "new launch vehicle" just means new-to-Boeing, or an actual new launch vehicle?

That may be a reference to the Falcon 9.  Boeing said early in the Commercial Crew program that their CST-100 would be compatible with Falcon 9 and that they could pursue that in parallel with the Atlas V.

See, for example, this article and this previous thread.

Could also be a reference to the BE-4 powered "Atlas Prime"

I though so at first as well but that's not supposed to be on-line until at least 2 -3 years after these CC flights have been initiated. I don't see a way they could have a BE4 powered Atlas ready by 2017, 2018 or even 2019.

[arachnitect]

Does anyone have any details about what this alternate launch vehicle was?  It's not clear to me that "new launch vehicle" just means new-to-Boeing, or an actual new launch vehicle?

That may be a reference to the Falcon 9.  Boeing said early in the Commercial Crew program that their CST-100 would be compatible with Falcon 9 and that they could pursue that in parallel with the Atlas V.

See, for example, this article and this previous thread.

Could also be a reference to the BE-4 powered "Atlas Prime"

I though so at first as well but that's not supposed to be on-line until at least 2 -3 years after these CC flights have been initiated. I don't see a way they could have a BE4 powered Atlas ready by 2017, 2018 or even 2019.

Hard to picture any alternative being ready by 2017 really. Maybe F9, but Spacex is gonna be busy with their own stuff.

Assuming it has a future past the first couple missions, CST is going to need to move over to the new Atlas′ anyway.

[A_M_Swallow]

Found this statement of interest:
"Boeing proposed to pursue an alternate launch vehicle in parallel with their baseline design work. This
new launch vehicle, if used in the CTS design, provides alternatives but would negate the
benefits of the established reliability of the existing launch vehicle. "

Does anyone have any details about what this alternate launch vehicle was?  It's not clear to me that "new launch vehicle" just means new-to-Boeing, or an actual new launch vehicle?

Could it have been the Blue Origin's new launch vehicle?

[guckyfan]

The only new manrated vehicle they could refer to would be the Falcon 9. At least that is the only one I can think of and that would be ready to fly in time. And they have been talking about using it.

[avollhar]

What about the 'new' vehicle, Tory Bruno (ULA CEO) mentioned here:

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/554423398277718017
"@Tobias_Reining @SpaceX @ulalaunch A new rocket, a new way to buy rockets, and a couple more surprises to come soon"

apparently to be unveiled at the Stanford Space Symposium on Feb 4th:

https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/554626374623694849
"@Tobias_Reining @TrampolinRocket @SpaceX @ulalaunch Come to Space Symposium. I will be revealing our new system"

[Jcc]

Interesting that Boeing got good marks for landing capability (parachutes and air bags in the desert), and SNC did not win special favor by landing horizontally on a runway, nor SpaceX for pinpoint landing anywhere.

[newpylong]

"Pinpoint landing anywhere" is not baselined or the certified method of landing for Dragon in this contract, that's why they didn't get ratings for it.

The new vehicle Boeing speaks of is the Atlas replacement, which will not be ready before the decade is out but is something they are already working on for certification.

[Sesquipedalian]

The new vehicle Boeing speaks of is the Atlas replacement, which will not be ready before the decade is out but is something they are already working on for certification.

Do you have a citation for that?

If you don't, then please don't phrase your statement as an assertion of fact.

[arachnitect]

Interesting that Boeing got good marks for landing capability (parachutes and air bags in the desert), and SNC did not win special favor by landing horizontally on a runway, nor SpaceX for pinpoint landing anywhere.

If you look at the summary on pages 6-8, all three get "strengths" for at least some aspect of their recovery plans.

Boeing received strengths for its: 1) primary landing sites;

SpaceX's proposal had strengths for its: [...] 4) landing system availability opportunities.

SNC's proposal had strengths for its: [...] 3) co-location of launch and recovery operations;

SNC also had a significant strength for "Inherent capabilities that greatly enhances operational flexibility, mission performance, and crew and ground safety;"

[Coastal Ron]

The new vehicle Boeing speaks of is the Atlas replacement, which will not be ready before the decade is out but is something they are already working on for certification.

You have to remember how far back this bid effort goes - Tony Bruno became President of ULA in August, and Boeing has been saying that they could use Falcon 9 for quite a long time.

Based on that I think, at the time, Boeing was referring to Falcon 9.  Today though they would change that over to the Atlas V replacement depending on when they would need a backup and when the new launcher could be certified, but Falcon 9 would always be a possible backup they could point to.

[nSpace]

Looks like SSA rated SpaceX as number 1 overall, even thou SEB and SSA tried to make non-issues into issues. I got great respect for both Boeing and SpaceX and have no doubt that they will be able to launch crew to ISS in 2017. It is a pity that SNC didn't make the cut, but I think it was the right call. Hopefully they will find funding elsewhere and finish the Dream Chaser.

They found Boeing to be the strongest proposal, although their language obfuscates it a bit. The GAO statement summarized it more clearly than NASA:
"Specifically, NASA recognized Boeing’s higher price, but also considered Boeing’s proposal to be the strongest of all three proposals in terms of technical approach, management approach, and past performance, and to offer the crew transportation system with most utility and highest value to the government."

Yes, Boeing was considered slightly better in all areas except price. But according to the document, price was to be valued as high as all other areas combined. Considering that they acknowledge that SpaceX was much cheaper then Boeing and SNC, that should have put them ahead. If you look at the summary and conclusion in the document, SSA mentioned SpaceX as a winner first even thou he use the order Boeing, SpaceX and SNC in the rest of the document. This made me conclude that he considered SpaceX the winner, not that it matter that much who came first.   

[muomega0]

The only new manrated vehicle they could refer to would be the Falcon 9.

Tony Bruno became President of ULA in August, and Boeing has been saying that they could use Falcon 9 for quite a long time...... but Falcon 9 would always be a possible backup they could point to.

That of course was *not* said in the selection statement.   If Falcon, then it would not have *negated* all the benefits of an existing LV.  Both of you are way too logical....

The new vehicle Boeing speaks of is the Atlas replacement, which will not be ready before the decade is out but is something they are already working on for certification.

Do you have a citation for that?  If you don't, then please don't phrase your statement as an assertion of fact.

Did you read the source selection statement?  Logically one would have thought a new single and tricore Atlas replacement.........hmmm....interesting comment Sesquipedalian   ........  lets dig into this....   

Both alternative and new LVs were cited in Commercial Crew Contract (CCtCap)  NNK14467515R Source Selection Statement

Boeing Technical: .... The launch vehicle has demonstrated reliability and well-known failure modes and operating environments, which facilitates an integrated abort system for a crewed system and results in a safer launch vehicle. Both of these elements of the CTS design solution reduce technical and schedule risk and increase ability to meet safety requirements for human spaceflight. I also recognized that Boeing proposed to pursue an alternate launch vehicle in parallel with their baseline design work. This new launch vehicle, if used in the CTS design, provides alternatives but would negate the benefits of the established reliability of the existing launch vehicle.

In addition to the new LV, Boeing uses the old LV (Atlas?)  that is no longer allowed to support the DOD.   Interestingly enough, the words 'Falcon' or 'Atlas' do *not* appear in the source selection statement, although NASA stated here that CST-100 will fly on an Atlas.  'CST-100' was not included either....perhaps they pitched Orion?

A new LV, which likely relies on the new liquid engine program, at least explains the difference in costs.  NASA awarded contracts to ferry crew to ISS for a total of $6.8 billion with Boeing getting the larger share, $4.2 billion and SpaceX getting $2.6 billion.

So by the sole source document alone, Altas is not specified....neither is Falcon or CST-100...

Now for the fun part.

Perhaps one day Atlas/Delta/SLS will be consolidated and the US will have two non sole source LVs, while performing LV R&D on improvements and replacements at the same time since SLS/Orion/existingEELV are not taking Astronauts to Mars..too big and/or too expensive.     Wait a minute...breaking news...Orion on FH  --  and from the newly named 'competitive' committee:  "SLS and Orion are critical to our medium- and long-term ability to explore space".  Perhaps the new alternative LV is SLS and/or FH launching Orion which would supplement, but not replace Atlas, since afterall, even with a proposal in hand, the USG can't really dictate HW choices to private companies. and having a backup that is not Falcon derived is quite logical.....now is it SLS with solid or liquid boosters?

[Coastal Ron]

A new LV, which likely relies on the new liquid engine program, at least explains the difference in costs.

There is no mystery here.  Boeing would only quote what was quantifiable, and that means (for now) Atlas V as their planned primary launch vehicle.  The successor to the Atlas V does not yet exist, and Boeing cannot quote pricing for something that does not yet exist.  Boeing does not take risks like that, which is why it's a very profitable company.

As to the pricing, the additional cost is likely because of two very well known factors:

1.  Atlas V costs far more than Falcon 9.

2.  Boeing has more work to do than SpaceX to finish the CST-100, AND they would charge more for the same amount of work compared to SpaceX.

Nothing is inherently wrong or evil about having higher prices, and Boeing gambled that they could win one of the two Commercial Crew contract awards by using the pricing they did.  And they did.

Perhaps one day Atlas/Delta/SLS will be consolidated and the US will have two non sole source LVs...

The SLS would never be used for lifting a Commercial Crew vehicle to LEO, which is the topic of this thread.

[yg1968]

Here is the full GAO decision (21 pages) on the SNC protest:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/667979.pdf

This document provides information that is not available in the selection statement. For example, Boeing received 913 points for Mission suitability, SpaceX received 849 points and SNC received 829 points. All three companies had a 2017 date for certification. See pages 4 and 5.

[Rocket Science]

Anyone get the names of who was on the selection committee?

[Jim]

Perhaps one day Atlas/Delta/SLS will be consolidated

That will never happen.

[Jim]

In addition to the new LV, Boeing uses the old LV (Atlas?)  that is no longer allowed to support the DOD. 

Quite wrong, see today's launch

[Jim]

1. A new LV, which likely relies on the new liquid engine program, at least explains the difference in costs.

2.  So by the sole source document alone, Altas is not specified....neither is Falcon or CST-100...

1.  It has nothing to do with the new engine program.  Boeing is not stupid enough to pay for it nor pass the cost to NASA

2.  Because it is up to Boeing and Spacex to specify the boosters.  NASA is just buying a service.

[yg1968]

Here is a good summary of the statement and of the GAO decision on the SNC protest:
http://spacenews.com/documents-show-how-boeing-and-spacex-won-commercial-crew-amid-schedule-concerns/