NASA CRS2 Contract Award Announcement - Jan 14, 2016

[Rocket Science]

I found it interesting that it highlighted the ability for Dragon to abort and save the cargo. That's something that we have discussed before here as being a plus by some...

[mkent]

Wow.  Just wow.  Still reading, but my thoughts on a quick scan-through:

First: no info at all on Boeing or Lockheed.

Second: Sierra Nevada, despite being three years late and counting on their CCiCap contract, received the same Past Performance rating as SpaceX and Orbital.

Third: Despite having noted that Sierra Nevada had no experience managing a project on the scale of the CRS2 contract, NASA didn't hold it against them and instead rated their management team a strength.

Fourth: Sierra Nevada's price was "notably" lower than SpaceX's, despite requiring at least hundreds of millions of dollars in development (apparently in CLIN 0002A) and using a launch vehicle about three times as expensive, yet this didn't throw up any red flags.

Just goes to show you the lengths a government agency will go to swing a competition their preferred way.

[AnalogMan]

Here's an OCR'd version of the Source Selection Statement so you can cut-n-paste bits that are of interest, or just search the document.

Note: the OCR process is not perfect, so might be wise to check copied text against the original visible scanned text before posting.

[Lars-J]

Wow.  Just wow.  Still reading, but my thoughts on a quick scan-through:
...
Just goes to show you the lengths a government agency will go to swing a competition their preferred way.

Yep, agreed. There are elements in NASA that *really* want a winged vehicle.

[rayleighscatter]

Just goes to show you the lengths a government agency will go to swing a competition their preferred way.

You're right. SpaceX proposes the most expensive option with the least capable vehicle and still gets the highest score.

[Coastal Ron]

Just goes to show you the lengths a government agency will go to swing a competition their preferred way.

You're right. SpaceX proposes the most expensive option with the least volume and still gets selected.

Although from a redundancy standpoint, Orbital ATK doesn't provide downmass, so without SpaceX NASA would have to rely on Sierra Nevada - who hasn't finished development and testing yet.  So SpaceX, interestingly enough, may have been chosen as a backup to Sierra Nevada.

[rayleighscatter]

Just goes to show you the lengths a government agency will go to swing a competition their preferred way.

You're right. SpaceX proposes the most expensive option with the least volume and still gets selected.

Although from a redundancy standpoint, Orbital ATK doesn't provide downmass, so without SpaceX NASA would have to rely on Sierra Nevada - who hasn't finished development and testing yet.  So SpaceX, interestingly enough, may have been chosen as a backup to Sierra Nevada.

My earlier sarcastic reply aside, I think all 3 providers act as a backup to each other. Every aspect of CRS2 has at least two options now.

[bbliss]

I enjoyed that, in their analysis of SpaceX's use of small businesses, they point out that, up until recently, SpaceX *was* a small business :-)

I was also surprised that SNC's mechanical re-working of DCCS to include a folding wing joint (in order to fit inside a fairing's envelope) and presumably the accompanying deployment mechanisms, launch latches, etc. was considered a time-consuming change but apparently not an especially risky configuration change?

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...

I was assuming that the DCCS mitigation of Atlas main engines' becoming unavailable was Ariane 5, rather than Vulcan?  Of course, Ariane 5 still has "foreign supplied engine"s, just not "Russian/Ukrainian supplied engines"

[Robotbeat]

Or they fly on Delta IV and/or Falcon 9. Delta IV is probably worst-case (i.e. problems with Falcon 9, too). And transition to Vulcan when that becomes available.

[yg1968]

SpaceX is the most expensive! What a shocker!

SpaceX is the most expensive of the three options partly due to the fact that maintaing two lines of productions for two spacecrafts increases their prices. Their prices are apparenly somewhat higher than SNC's but are notably higher than Orbital's (page 15). But NASA likes the fact that SpaceX has two pads in Florida. They also like the cargo launch abort capability (page 21).

SNC's lead time due to the remaining development of their spacecraft was considered a weakness.  But NASA likes the fact that SNC has LM and ULA as subcontractors (page 13).

LM's proposal was rejected by NASA on May 6th 2015 (which confirms that the rumors were true) and Boeing's proposal was rejected on November 5th 2015 because they were outside of the competitive range (pages 4 and 5 respectively).

[terryy]

According to Jeff Foust's article, the reason the SpaceX mission is the most expensive is because of the way they are comparing the missions.  They are only looking at pressurized up mass.  No credit is given for the down nor the unpressurized trunk cargo.

http://spacenews.com/nasa-offers-more-details-on-cargo-contract-decision/

[yg1968]

According to Jeff Foust's article, the reason the SpaceX mission is the most expensive is because of the way they are comparing the missions.  They are only looking at pressurized up mass.  No credit is given for the down nor the unpressurized trunk cargo.

http://spacenews.com/nasa-offers-more-details-on-cargo-contract-decision/

For CRS1, SpaceX was cheaper than Orbital for pressurized upmass. It is obvious that SpaceX increased their prices for CRS2. 

[guckyfan]

For CRS1, SpaceX was cheaper than Orbital for pressurized upmass. It is obvious that SpaceX increased their prices for CRS2.

How so? Orbital may have very significantly lowered theirs. Given higher mass per flight and fewer flights plus less abilities. Plus they may have felt they need to lower prices to get the contract at all.

The surprise is that the bid of Sierra Nevada is lowest. I cannot come up with a rationale for that.

[dror]

For CRS1, SpaceX was cheaper than Orbital for pressurized upmass. It is obvious that SpaceX increased their prices for CRS2.

How so? Orbital may have very significantly lowered theirs. Given higher mass per flight and fewer flights plus less abilities. Plus they may have felt they need to lower prices to get the contract at all.

The surprise is that the bid of Sierra Nevada is lowest. I cannot come up with a rationale for that.

1. They build only two vehicles (though more service modules). The main vehicle is fully reusable.
2. It's a life or death situation for the company

[guckyfan]

2. It's a life or death situation for the company

Life or death for Dream Chaser, I agree. Sierra Nevada is not on the line, unless they totally miscalculated and drive themselves to bancrupcy building Dream Chaser, that's quite unlikely though.

Edit: While I don't understand or share the affection for a winged vehicle I do appreciate and admire the dedication of Sierra Nevadas owners.

[rpapo]

For CRS1, SpaceX was cheaper than Orbital for pressurized upmass. It is obvious that SpaceX increased their prices for CRS2.

I wouldn't call that a given.  When the CRS1 bids were out there, SpaceX was a dark horse, and nobody knew what they might seriously bid, and for that matter SpaceX probably wasn't sure exactly what others would bid.  And in 2008, SpaceX was starving.  They bid dramatically low as a matter of survival.

Now, everybody knows they have to bid something in SpaceX's general range or stand little chance of getting the contract.  And SpaceX has a track record now, and a reasonably good one at that.  Not as good as Atlas or Ariane, but quite good.

It makes me wonder just what range the Lockheed and Boeing bids were in, especially in light of what the perfect track record got Boeing in Commercial Crew.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

Just goes to show you the lengths a government agency will go to swing a competition their preferred way.

You're right. SpaceX proposes the most expensive option with the least capable vehicle and still gets the highest score.

*sigh*

Unless you're Jim and can cram informative posts into one line, please don't.

 The point was that the prices don't make sense. Even with the seperate Dragon 1 and Dragon 2 production lines, SpaceX shouldn't be that expensive. RnD for Dragon 1 is done essentially (it's a mature craft) and Dragon 2s development is being funded under Com Crew.

So what cost analysis did SNC and OrbitalATK give Nasa which ended up with that conclusion? Dreamchasers are freakin' expensive. Cygnus goes on Atlas.

Even from superficial analysis, two and two does not make twenty two.

[guckyfan]

SpaceX was probably quite confident they would get the contract. They may love to offer new apsules for every flight NASA choses to go on Dragon 2. They can modify those free capsules to go to Mars as Red Dragon. Though honestly I believe those will be different enough that they would want to build them from scratch.

[Rocket Science]

Wow.  Just wow.  Still reading, but my thoughts on a quick scan-through:
...
Just goes to show you the lengths a government agency will go to swing a competition their preferred way.

Yep, agreed. There are elements in NASA that *really* want a winged vehicle.

And one with a reliable launch vehicle to boot!

[rayleighscatter]

Just goes to show you the lengths a government agency will go to swing a competition their preferred way.

You're right. SpaceX proposes the most expensive option with the least capable vehicle and still gets the highest score.

*sigh*

Unless you're Jim and can cram informative posts into one line, please don't.

 The point was that the prices don't make sense. Even with the seperate Dragon 1 and Dragon 2 production lines, SpaceX shouldn't be that expensive. RnD for Dragon 1 is done essentially (it's a mature craft) and Dragon 2s development is being funded under Com Crew.

So what cost analysis did SNC and OrbitalATK give Nasa which ended up with that conclusion? Dreamchasers are freakin' expensive. Cygnus goes on Atlas.

Even from superficial analysis, two and two does not make twenty two.

NASA knows how much an Atlas V costs. Which really brings us back to the point I bolded above.

For CRS1, SpaceX was cheaper than Orbital for pressurized upmass. It is obvious that SpaceX increased their prices for CRS2.

How so? Orbital may have very significantly lowered theirs. Given higher mass per flight and fewer flights plus less abilities. Plus they may have felt they need to lower prices to get the contract at all.

The surprise is that the bid of Sierra Nevada is lowest. I cannot come up with a rationale for that.

OA stated their CRS2 bid was worth about 1.5B with NASA commenting OA came in significantly cheaper. We know SpaceX bid 1.6B in CRS1 so, yes, SpaceX's prices must have increased.