NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016

[PhillyJimi]

The original COTS program had NASA ordering eight flights from Orbital valued at about $1.9 billion and 12 flights from SpaceX valued at about $1.6 billion. That is 20 flights for $3.5 billion.

Now NASA is "saying" or "claiming" 20 flights are going to cost $14 billion. That is very odd until you think about this.

NASA or really congress, has been developing SLS and Orion it has cost taxpayers over $10 billion (I don't have the exact numbers). The biggest problem is SLS/Orion, has no clear cut mission. SLS version 1.0 can only place 70 tons into LEO. Not enough to go to land on the Moon or Mars.   It is headed for the chopping block unless it has a mission.  Well it is too expensive to resupply the ISS?  Maybe not, if we can inflate the competitions costs...

Somehow I can hear a congressperson arguing that the SLS/Orion creates jobs in key states, can resupply the ISS (cargo & crew) and NASA can still go beyond LEO.  If this same congressperson can claim both programs are too expensive and one has to be cancelled.  If SLS/Orion is cheaper then $14 billion and it can do more than CRS2, we all know what program is going to die.   They can also roll out the we just can't waste the billions that have already been spent on SLS/Orion. 

Of course Congress won't be so interested in picking apart the fake $14 billion number.  Ask yourself for what other reason would 20 flights go from $3.5 billion to $14 billion? It just seem very strange to me.  Remember the SLS/Orion is in desperate need of something to do.  Strange how this new contract will kick in exactly when SLS/Orion will be coming online.  Resupplying the ISS the one bankable project that will get funded.  Without a mission SLS/Orion is dead. 

I am not a conspiracy person, but I have found if you want to find the truth, following the money trail it usually gets you the the truth quicker than anything else.     

[woods170]

The original COTS program had NASA ordering eight flights from Orbital valued at about $1.9 billion and 12 flights from SpaceX valued at about $1.6 billion. That is 20 flights for $3.5 billion.

Now NASA is "saying" or "claiming" 20 flights are going to cost $14 billion. That is very odd until you think about this.

NASA or really congress, has been developing SLS and Orion it has cost taxpayers over $10 billion (I don't have the exact numbers). The biggest problem is SLS/Orion, has no clear cut mission. SLS version 1.0 can only place 70 tons into LEO. Not enough to go to land on the Moon or Mars.   It is headed for the chopping block unless it has a mission.  Well it is too expensive to resupply the ISS?  Maybe not, if we can inflate the competitions costs...

Somehow I can hear a congressperson arguing that the SLS/Orion creates jobs in key states, can resupply the ISS (cargo & crew) and NASA can still go beyond LEO.  If this same congressperson can claim both programs are too expensive and one has to be cancelled.  If SLS/Orion is cheaper then $14 billion and it can do more than CRS2, we all know what program is going to die.   They can also roll out the we just can't waste the billions that have already been spent on SLS/Orion. 

Of course Congress won't be so interested in picking apart the fake $14 billion number.  Ask yourself for what other reason would 20 flights go from $3.5 billion to $14 billion? It just seem very strange to me.  Remember the SLS/Orion is in desperate need of something to do.  Strange how this new contract will kick in exactly when SLS/Orion will be coming online.  Resupplying the ISS the one bankable project that will get funded.  Without a mission SLS/Orion is dead. 

I am not a conspiracy person, but I have found if you want to find the truth, following the money trail it usually gets you the the truth quicker than anything else.     

I don't buy your "follow the money" explanation, and I don't buy your interpretation of facts either.

The theoretical max value of CRS-2 is $14 billion. But that is with all possible options and additional flights exercised. In other words: much more than just the guaranteed 18 flights (guaranteed 6 flights per provider).
The initial 18 flights will cost nowhere near the quoted max value of $14 billion.

[cscott]

They were very clear in the press conference that the $14 billion was simply the "guaranteed never to exceed" number, which they are legally mandated to report, and had little bearing on the actual costs of the program.

If one thinks that Congress critters are going to cancel the program on that basis, then one must have an extremely low opinion of their competence.  Now, that opinion may or may not be justified, but that discussion would seem out of scope for this forum.

If anything, I would say that Congress has shown a predilection for the sunk costs fallacy: I'd expect to see the ISS supported until way after it would be rational to replace it.  If anything, CRS2 will make that easier (by lowering resupply costs).

EDIT: also, it's worth noting that Congress never actually "sees" these contracts. Notwithstanding any contracts, NASA funding is on a year-to-year basis, and it has been held that the Constitution prohibits constraining the actions of future representatives.  So Congress will only ever "see" (and vote on) the yearly budget.  They will never have a $14 billion line item to cut.

[yg1968]

NASA also said in the RFI that they expect the contracts to cost them between $1.0B and $1.4B per year. If the ISS is extended to 2028, CRS2 could perhaps last as much as 10 years which equals $14B ($1.4B x 10 years).

We have the prices for Orbital/ATK and the prices per kg is less than it was under CRS1.

[Sesquipedalian]

I am not a conspiracy person, but I have found if you want to find the truth, following the money trail it usually gets you the the truth quicker than anything else.

When you follow the money, you have to follow what it actually says, not what you think it says.

Yg1968's analysis is an example of following what the money actually says.  NASA would like to have a station extension to 2028 and is carefully leaving the door open to supporting that with the CRS2 contract.

[yg1968]

Just to be clear. I haven't seen the CRS2 contract. But I know that for CRS1, the end date of the contracts were modified when an extension was needed. The maximum value of the contracts for CRS1 was about twice as much as what was originally needed. But that higher maximum value came in handy when CRS1 was extended past its previously scheduled end date. I am guessing that it's the same for CRS2. They likely kept a margin for a potential extension of the ISS to 2028. NASA purposely makes these contracts very flexible.

[yg1968]

Some good news! On his twitter account, Jeff Foust says that Boeing and LM told him that they would not protest the CRS2 awards.

I believe that once the deadline for filing a protest is over (10 days) and that the participants have been briefed (which should have happened already), NASA can release the source selection statement. 

[baldusi]

Some good news! On his twitter account, Jeff Foust says that Boeing and LM told him that they would not protest the CRS2 awards.

I believe that once the deadline for filing a protest is over (10 days) and that the participants have been briefed (which should have happened already), NASA can release the source selection statement.

Good news! But I'm interested if there's a ramp up clause in CRS2. It would seem that they have made enough leeway to service the ISS until 2028 (from the 14B maximum contract value). I've also heard that the Commercial Crew had a ramp up clause that would enable Dream Chaser to add a crewed version in the future. Conversely, could there be a ramp up clause in CRS2 to enable Boeing to propose a more competitively priced Cargo CST-100 in the future?

[yg1968]

This information would be posted in the RFI. I don't remember seeing a ramp up clause for CRS2. If NASA decides that it wants a new company to enter as a CRS provider, NASA could simply end CRS2 in 2024 and have a new round (CRS3) for the 2024 to 2028 period. See this thread for a discussion of the CRS2 RFI:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.20

CCtCap is a bit different and it does have a ramp up clause. But I think that's for new entrants to be able to get certified. I imagine that it might be possible for crewed DC and Blue to make use of that ramp up clause if NASA decided to allocate additionnal funding for CCtCap. SpaceX and Boeing are only guaranteed 2 post-certification missions (with a maximum of 6 each). I imagine that a new entrant would also be guaranteed two post certification missions but it would also need at least one crewed test flight as part of its certification phase. The uncrewed test was not a requirement for certification under CCtCap (although both Boeing and SpaceX proposed one).

If a company wans to get certified for commercial crew on an unfunded basis, they would be more likely to do so under a SAA in my opinion.

[arachnitect]

Some good news! On his twitter account, Jeff Foust says that Boeing and LM told him that they would not protest the CRS2 awards.

I believe that once the deadline for filing a protest is over (10 days) and that the participants have been briefed (which should have happened already), NASA can release the source selection statement.

Good news! But I'm interested if there's a ramp up clause in CRS2. It would seem that they have made enough leeway to service the ISS until 2028 (from the 14B maximum contract value). I've also heard that the Commercial Crew had a ramp up clause that would enable Dream Chaser to add a crewed version in the future. Conversely, could there be a ramp up clause in CRS2 to enable Boeing to propose a more competitively priced Cargo CST-100 in the future?

I hope more details about the Boeing proposal get released. What little information we have suggests that their proposal evolved pretty substantially from the simple stripped down crew vehicle they were proposing earlier.

I have a theory that Boeing got dismissed on technical grounds early in the competition, and that's why we had a definitive answer on their fate before anyone else. The RFP required pressurized downmass -if offered- to be a certain amount that Boeing would struggle to provide. One of the providers (we don't know who) asked for relief on this point during the draft RFP stage and didn't get it.

If I were Boeing, I'd be a bit grumpy about that; many changes solicited by SNC were added to the selection criteria. But Boeing has plenty  of work to do anyways. SNC was only competitive in CRS-2 because they were free to make major changes from their crewed vehicle.

[Space Ghost 1962]

If I were Boeing, I'd be a bit grumpy about that; many changes solicited by SNC were added to the selection criteria. But Boeing has plenty  of work to do anyways. SNC was only competitive in CRS-2 because they were free to make major changes from their crewed vehicle.

Suggest that Boeing can't be "agile" where SNC can, in adapting to CRS requirements.

Boeing's process is to do all the paperwork first, then at the last minute cut metal and make it work. This does not work well when the changes are in flux. This is what you referred to as them being "mad".

Live by the "process sword", die by it also. Maybe they'll twig to changing someday ... Nah!

[yg1968]

Some good news! On his twitter account, Jeff Foust says that Boeing and LM told him that they would not protest the CRS2 awards.

I believe that once the deadline for filing a protest is over (10 days) and that the participants have been briefed (which should have happened already), NASA can release the source selection statement.

Here is the article that is related to this news:
http://spacenews.com/losing-bidders-wont-protest-nasa-commercial-cargo-awards/

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Some good news! On his twitter account, Jeff Foust says that Boeing and LM told him that they would not protest the CRS2 awards.

I believe that once the deadline for filing a protest is over (10 days) and that the participants have been briefed (which should have happened already), NASA can release the source selection statement.

Yes great news. My understanding is that in a case such as this, where a debriefing is required, the 10 days starts once the debriefing is given. We may not quite be at that point yet, so my guess is that the source selection statement may not appear until next week, maybe end of this.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

@thelurioreport: May see source selection document re CRS-2 ISS cargo awards as early as late next week.  Also depends on final editing (e.g. redactions).

https://twitter.com/thelurioreport/status/692492928372064256

[arachnitect]

Source Selection Statement.

(I'll have more to say once I finish reading it.)

[rayleighscatter]

Source Selection Statement.

(I'll have more to say once I finish reading it.)

Very interesting tibit from it:
Orbital is cheapest, followed by SNC, followed by SpaceX.

[nadreck]

Source Selection Statement.

(I'll have more to say once I finish reading it.)

Very interesting tibit from it:
Orbital is cheapest, followed by SNC, followed by SpaceX.

sadly no info about the price from Boeing or LM

[GalacticIntruder]

NASA Score: (1000 total points)

SNC: 879
Orbital: 880
SpaceX: 922

[nadreck]

NASA Score: (1000 total points)

SNC: 879
Orbital: 880
SpaceX: 922

Those are just the mission suitability scores, there was also price and past performance

[rayleighscatter]

Both SNC and Orbital also have "acceptable" mitigation plans concerning foreign supplied engines. Presumably this isn't the entire cargo contract piling onto Falcon's. Vulcan? OA's all-solid? Curious...