NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016

[Chris Bergin]

January 14, 2016
MEDIA ADVISORY M16-002
NASA to Make Major Space Station Cargo Transport Announcement Today
NASA will make a major announcement today at 4 p.m. EST regarding the future of commercial resupply launches to the International Space Station (ISS). The announcement will be made during a news conference from NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, broadcast live on NASA Television and the agency’s website at:

http://www.nasa.gov/nasatv

The event will include a brief question-and-answer session with media.

The news conference participants are:

Ellen Ochoa, Johnson Space Center director
Sam Scimemi, ISS Division director at NASA Headquarters in Washington
Kirk Shireman, ISS program manager at Johnson
Julie Robinson, ISS chief scientist at Johnson
Media may attend the briefing at Johnson, or ask questions by phone by calling the Johnson newsroom at 281-483-5111 no later than 3:45 p.m. Accreditation for international media is closed for this event.

For more information on the International Space Station, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/station

For breaking news and features, follow the station on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/Space_Station

[rocx]

According to the collective wisdom of 155 NSF forum members (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38793.0), this is the most likely outcome:

61   39.35%   SpaceX & Orbital ATK only
55   35.48%   SpaceX, SNC & Orbital ATK only
19   12.26%   SpaceX & SNC only
4   2.58%   SpaceX & LM only
3   1.94%   SpaceX only
3   1.94%   SpaceX & Boeing only
3   1.94%   SpaceX, Orbital ATK & LM only
2   1.29%   SNC & Orbital ATK only
2   1.29%   SpaceX, Orbital ATK & Boeing only
1   0.65%   Orbital ATK & LM only
1   0.65%   LM & Boeing only
1   0.65%   Other scenario (e.g., more than 3 winners, no winners at all, at least on winner not named above; please specify)
0   0.00%   Any other combination

For each of the five candidates, here are how often they are included:
150   96.77%   SpaceX
124   80.00%   Orbital
76   49.03%   SNC
9   5.81%   LM
6   3.87%   Boeing

[jongoff]

I wonder if they'll reveal more details about the technical concept used by each winning team. A lot of people have made assumptions about what each team was bidding, and my guess is at least one or more of the teams bid something "more creative" than suspected.

~Jon

[Craftyatom]

I wonder if they'll reveal more details about the technical concept used by each winning team. A lot of people have made assumptions about what each team was bidding, and my guess is at least one or more of the teams bid something "more creative" than suspected.

~Jon

On one hand, I doubt anyone will put forward anything too innovative - taking cargo to LEO isn't exactly ground-breaking, and NASA would probably prefer safer options to creative ones (then again, CRS1 didn't exactly use flight-proven hardware - maybe they go for one safe and one creative?).  On the other hand, I would absolutely love to see something new on the table, and I'm sure there's more than enough combined talent in all the competitors to get it done.

For each of the five candidates, here are how often they are included:
150   96.77%   SpaceX
124   80.00%   Orbital
76   49.03%   SNC
9   5.81%   LM
6   3.87%   Boeing

Interesting figures - the bets are placed, now only 5 hours until we find out just how well NSF can see into the future!  It seems we're rather set on history repeating itself...

[Political Hack Wannabe]

I wonder if they'll reveal more details about the technical concept used by each winning team. A lot of people have made assumptions about what each team was bidding, and my guess is at least one or more of the teams bid something "more creative" than suspected.

~Jon

Who and what do you think might be creative?
2 were completely public (SNC and LM)
2 are currently doing it (SpaceX and Orbital/ATK), so what would their rationale for change be
1 is a Commercial Crew winner (Boeing), and they could've proposed something innovative, although I have no evidences that suggests that, and they've said they didn't win.

Or do you think someone else bid?

[AncientU]

Round 1 was basic capabilities; worked out well.
Round 2 has room for innovation, though cost should remain in the driver's seat.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

If I had a few days, I'd be curious to run a poll to see if people think SpaceX bid a Falcon 9 and Dragon, or a Falcon 9R and a Dragon. 

[yg1968]

Here is the link to the prior thread on CRS2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1262708#msg1262708

[MattMason]

I wonder if they'll reveal more details about the technical concept used by each winning team. A lot of people have made assumptions about what each team was bidding, and my guess is at least one or more of the teams bid something "more creative" than suspected.

~Jon

Who and what do you think might be creative?
2 were completely public (SNC and LM)
2 are currently doing it (SpaceX and Orbital/ATK), so what would their rationale for change be
1 is a Commercial Crew winner (Boeing), and they could've proposed something innovative, although I have no evidences that suggests that, and they've said they didn't win.

Or do you think someone else bid?

NASA might have considered SNC as a new cargo vehicle as it can fly on anything, which could still keep Orbital in the ring for its cargo ship as a launch provider. A safe bet is to keep SpaceX in any case for downmass but SNC offers that, too. Orbital, I feel, has the greater upmass advantage and can fly on another LV but not (yet) Falcon until Falcon Heavy is available.

Lots of options, will be fascinating to see what's chosen. Might even get surprised and find SpaceX isn't chosen.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

If I had a few days, I'd be curious to run a poll to see if people think SpaceX bid a Falcon 9 and Dragon, or a Falcon 9R and a Dragon.

I don't think that NASA cares either way as long as SpaceX meets their cargo requirements.

I can think of 2 different ways it matters for NASA
1)  Price - presumably the Falcon 9-R will be cheaper, so NASA could like that
2)  "New System" - while the Dragon and the 9-R have flown, per se, including a used first stage is something new, and I can imagine conservative NASA being nervous about embracing that, when there has only been 1 landing, and no demonstrated reuse of the 1st stage (they've only recovered it).  It's a bit like whether they would choose LM - LM is a known quantity for delivering hardware, but Jupiter is a new system, per se.

I wonder if they'll reveal more details about the technical concept used by each winning team. A lot of people have made assumptions about what each team was bidding, and my guess is at least one or more of the teams bid something "more creative" than suspected.

~Jon

Who and what do you think might be creative?
2 were completely public (SNC and LM)
2 are currently doing it (SpaceX and Orbital/ATK), so what would their rationale for change be
1 is a Commercial Crew winner (Boeing), and they could've proposed something innovative, although I have no evidences that suggests that, and they've said they didn't win.

Or do you think someone else bid?

NASA might have considered SNC as a new cargo vehicle as it can fly on anything, which could still keep Orbital in the ring for its cargo ship as a launch provider. A safe bet is to keep SpaceX in any case for downmass but SNC offers that, too. Orbital, I feel, has the greater upmass advantage and can fly on another LV but not (yet) Falcon until Falcon Heavy is available.

Lots of options, will be fascinating to see what's chosen. Might even get surprised and find SpaceX isn't chosen.

Yes, there are lots of options.  But Jon was suggesting that we'll see something different than people are expecting.  I'd be surprised if NASA didn't consider SNC as a new vehicle, but from our perspective, we KNOW what they are bidding (we have the movie even). 

Now, one thing that would be "different" (sort of) would be if SpaceX bid their Dragon and Falcon 9R, and they were offering a price cut due to reusing their first stage (I have no data on this, for the record - pure speculation).  Another is if Orbital/ATK decided to split Cygnus into 2 vehicles (similar to what Lockheed Martin is doing - and again, this is pure speculation). 

But, unless someone wants to offer up what the "different" or "surprise" might be, we are left with the options I listed, none of which truly represents a surprise....

[yg1968]

If I had a few days, I'd be curious to run a poll to see if people think SpaceX bid a Falcon 9 and Dragon, or a Falcon 9R and a Dragon.

I don't think that NASA cares either way as long as SpaceX meets their cargo requirements.

I can think of 2 different ways it matters for NASA
1)  Price - presumably the Falcon 9-R will be cheaper, so NASA could like that
2)  "New System" - while the Dragon and the 9-R have flown, per se, including a used first stage is something new, and I can imagine conservative NASA being nervous about embracing that, when there has only been 1 landing, and no demonstrated reuse of the 1st stage (they've only recovered it).  It's a bit like whether they would choose LM - LM is a known quantity for delivering hardware, but Jupiter is a new system, per se.

NASA has asked the companies to insure the cargo. So I am not sure they have much of a say in what SpaceX decides to do for the LV.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

NASA has asked the company to insure the cargo. So I am not sure they have much of a say in what SpaceX decides to do for the LV.

Insuring the vehicle doesn't actually mean the cargo gets delivered.  For example, I could bid the old [u=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conestoga_(rocket)] Conestoga Rocket[/u], and I could have full insurence to pay back NASA's money. 

But that doesn't mean NASA is going to really trust that the rocket will work, since it's success rate is only 33%.....

[yg1968]

You would have to ask Jim. He seemed to imply in a prior post that NASA has little to say about the LV for the CRS contract.

[yg1968]

I am surprised that the winners haven't been leaked yet.

[cscott]

My bet is that the dollar value of the SpaceX contract will be far less than the dollar value of the other contract(s) awarded.  Bidding low seems to be a SpaceX habit/trademark.  Cf the CRS1 contract and the USAF engine contract.

[gongora]

If I had a few days, I'd be curious to run a poll to see if people think SpaceX bid a Falcon 9 and Dragon, or a Falcon 9R and a Dragon.

What makes you think they had to bid one or the other?  They could bid both of them as different system configurations with different price points and NASA could choose between them when ordering missions.

[yg1968]

Reading tea leaves. But Garett Reisman of SpaceX tweeted about an hour ago about the 4 pm CRS2 NASA annoucement. I don't think that he would have tweeted that if SpaceX had lost.

[jgoldader]

My heart says SpaceX and SNC, but I suppose it'll be SpaceX and Orbital.  (Unless Boeing sneaks in again!   Just kidding!)  I'd love to see wings again, and DC is such a beauty.

[ChrisWilson68]

Reading tea leaves. But Garett Reisman of SpaceX tweeted about an hour ago about the 4 pm CRS2 NASA annoucement. I don't think that he would have tweeted that if SpaceX had lost.

Silence on the Twitter feed of SNCspacesystems.  Does that provide a hint?

In a few hours we'll know all, and look back and laugh about how we were trying to guess based on scraps of hints of information. :-)

[kingfisherb90]

My preference is:

SNC Dreamchaser Cargo Large Award
LM Exoliner Medium Award
OATK Medium Award

I would prefer these awards are used to stimulate development and competition vs strictly being about the lowest cost/redundancy.