NASA Commercial Crew Procurement Documents are Leaking
Why Boeing Beat SpaceX in NASA’s Space-Taxi Contest, WSj (subscription)
“Boeing Co. received consistently higher rankings than Space Exploration Technologies Corp. during NASA’s recent multibillion-dollar competition to build “space taxis,” according to an internal agency document. The memo–dated Sept. 15 and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal–provides an inside look at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s deliberations and reveals why agency officials rated Boeing’s bid better across the board than the one submitted by SpaceX, as the smaller company is called. … The document won’t become public until a protest by a third company, Sierra Nevada Corp., is resolved. Sierra Nevada, which didn’t receive any award but contends its rankings were comparable to the winners, has said the government could save $900 million by picking its proposal. Legal wrangling could drag on for months, potentially slowing down progress on the vehicles or putting work by Boeing or SpaceX on hold.”
Not sure what this “beat” means. As NASA announced it, Boeing and SpaceX were awarded what they asked for and SNC did not.
BTW – I am always concerned about anything coming out of Rupert Murdoch’s Right-Wing-Echo-Chamber Empire.
Just a small sampling of Rupe’s holdings:
News Corp.
Fox News
Wall Street Journal
Dow Jones & Company
Barron’s
Marketwatch
News UK
The Sun
The Times
Press Association
http://www.news.com.au National online news website
Australian Associated Press (45%)
News Corp Australia
News Review Messenger
The Australian
The Courier-Mail
The Daily Telegraph
New York Post
Far Eastern Economic Review
Financial News
Dow Jones Newswires
Dow Jones Indexes
HarperCollins
David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, best captured the political influence Fox News has come to wield on the right of American politics: “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us. Now we’re discovering that we work for Fox.”
I agree. WSJ is no longer unbiased in any sense.
But both Boeing and SpaceX have received “stop work” orders pending the resolution of the SN lawsuit. I would expect Boeing to actually stop work, whereas SpaceX will continue with whatever resources it can spare.
For Boeing its a contract. For SpaceX its their purpose.
Perhaps from a corporate sense, but I rather doubt the people at Boeing who actually work on the program would agree with you. And no, I am not of them.
I think the Boeing grunts that do the work – the engineers, scientists, factory workers, etc do feel like they are participating in sailing into space. I mean, as you say, as a corporation, that Boeing could be building rockets, or manure spreaders, or cigarettes, whatever. Just as long as it goes to the bottom line.
WSJ is just continuing right along with their slant/misinformation after saying Boeing “beat out” SpaceX and SNC the day before the announcement was made… where bids from both Boeing and SpaceX were accepted. I’m surprised, but I guess I won’t be next time. Is it the same author? Yale S you are right on.
And we go to the NYTimes, Washington Post, BSNBC, etc. for objectivity? Give me a break!
Reading the WSJ article, I suspect they got it right. Boeing offered the safest bet … from their (NASA’s) point-of-view.
Also they were both highest quality, most experienced and organized management team, more responsive and timely to the customer. So it was a cost vers quality trade off …..and cutting quality on manned space craft to replace the Soyuz and augment the Orion (and adding schedule risk) does not make NASA or congress happy.
I think Boeing’s decades long string of debacles and expensive failures belies that view.
These must be decades in another universe I’m not in? They are most of the surviving once huge US aerospace industry. Are now collected or owned the companies that did virtual all maned space (and unmanned space) for the last half century in the US, as well as a excellent record in mil and commercial aircraft. So what are you referring to?
Go read the thread with a dozen or so links to the astounding string of underperforming, budget exploding overuns, massive delays, and complete failures..
Go read the history of them being the most successful aerospace firm around, with the noted highest quality.
I think a difference is that while those outlets: NYT, center-left, WP (very slight) center-right, and MSNBC on the left, do have emphases, Rupert’s properties are told what their positions to be promoted will be on a daily basis.
They are simply carriers for furthering Murdoch’s (and Ailes) narrow political and/or business purposes.
For a fascinating and funny look at Rupert’s World read the rolling stone articles:
Part 1
Part 2
I don’t believe anyone is dictating to the editors of the WSJ and I believe they (WSJ) got it right with this decision of NASA.
WSJ’s editors are handpicked trusted supporters of Rupe’s, and there has a been a flow of defections from the paper by its most senior journalists and editors. The editorials have been shown to on occasion, echo across his similar holdings, just like the daily talking points that the shows on
FakeFox News are expected to promote.Left-wing paranoia.
Murdoch’s first chief editor Thomas was a deep ally his who redirected the already conservative paper into deep right country. The current editor Gerard Baker self describes himself as a “right-wing curmugeon” and has appeared on Murdoch’s
FakeFox New’s Hannity Show making mocking deliberate satirical insults toward the President.The paper is deteriorating, as all Murdoch’s news properties do. His entertainment properties have maintained much of their strength, but that is also sliding as Fox Entertainment Network is skidding in ratings.
And Jeff Bezos (Blue Origin) owns the Washington Post, meaning his echo chamber is now national.
It interesting to see what Bezo’s will do as owner. His politics appear to be (mostly) libertarian on social freedom (except his own worker conditions) side of the spectrum. I don’t yet see any influence he may be having on WP editorial position. He may have his hands full with other chores for the moment.
Again with the concept that Boeing “won?” With this second pro-Boeing article ( and the previous one being maybe 50/50 on facts), I don’t know how much clearer it needs to be that the WSJ is a mouthpiece for those either within NASA that favor Boeing or Boeing itself. There was no winner. It was a tie.
If the memo is ever released, it will be interesting to compare this article with actual wording of it. Since there was not one single favorable quote in the WSJ article from the memo about SpaceX (other than references to ratings) yet they were selected, that tells you a lot.
(BTW, I actually like the CST-100 concept just as much Dragon V2. I hope they both succeed and I agree that given Boeing’s experience, I don’t doubt they will. What I don’t like is shoddy journalism.)
I completely agree that there was no winner in the sense of dollars awarded. However, if accurate, the information they describe from the memo indicates that its author felt (or at least wrote) that Boeing’s bid was superior because (to paraphrase) they were expected to be more predictably old school, would stay on schedule, and wouldn’t be doing any of those newfangled things that make the slide rule set get the hee bee gee bees. (not that there’s anything wrong with old schools, slide rules or hee bee gee bees) In that sense, Boeing could be said to have won.
More correctly. Boeing had delivered on or well ahead of time on pervious phases of CCDev. SpaceX and SNC were late.
Boeing was responsive to questions and direction from NASA. SpaceX and SNC didn’t always know the answers, and sometimes were argumentative or pushed back.
Customers normally like dealing with providers like Boeing better – hence why Boeings dominant player in the global aerospace market..
Boeing is a so-so player in the space market, certainly out launched by SpaceX, Astrium, and the East Europeans.
Is that from the WSJ article? (I can’t read it)
Yes.
To read a subscriber only WSJ article. Do a Google search on the articles title. Google will return a direct link bypassing the subscriber entry stuff.
Misleading. The things that SpaceX and SNC have delayed are not things that Boeing has done — typically flight testing. The milestones that Boeing has finished (design reviews/etc) were the things that SpaceX/SNC both also finished. In addition, SpaceX/SNC have both met milestones relating to manufacture and testing of actual hardware; something Boeing apparently hasn’t done.
[Edit: For example, Boeing won’t do a pad abort test until 2016. And had no plans to do an in-flight abort test, and would do a single test of an unmanned capsule with the uprated Atlas before flying live crew.]
One of the problems, IMO, was numbering the milestones from 1-to-n within each funding round. There was no absolute measure of progress. If the program managers had instead named/numbered milestones by their “class” (design, manufacture, static-testing, flight-testing, etc) would have made comparisons much easier. (Kind of like talking about TRLs of components when comparing proposals.)
“SpaceX has delayed its two class-four milestones, but finished its class two and three milestones. SNC has delayed its remaining class-four milestones and had a partial failure of another, but has met all of its lower milestones. Boeing has completed its class one and two milestones and has no class three or four milestones in this round.”
Sounds great. So how many commercial payloads will Boeing launch next year?
> he things that SpaceX and SNC have delayed are not things that Boeing has done — typically flight testing. <
Given neither SpaceX or Dream Chaser have finished their vehicle designs, neither of them have done any real testing either.
The National Review has a nice article Boeing Isn’t Getting More NASA Money Because It’s Doing a Better Job than SpaceX
> “its design was further along than that of the SpaceX proposal and, in the opinion of NASA’s leadership, has the best chance of meeting the schedule,” that is simply untrue.<
Actually it IS true. The Boeing design work is much farther alone, and done to significantly higher standard’s. For example Orbitec is teamed with both the CST and Dream Chaser dev teams for ECLSS and TCS, but Boeing finished up last year even though they were demanding much more meticulous and complete work. Both SNC and SpaceX needed 6 month extensions on their delivery schedules.
That’s contradicts the report that states that Boeing’s design is more mature than SpaceX’s.
Aviation Week has published the same report. Are you now going to say that they are the mouthpiece for Boeing?
In another thread Saturn said that musk had said that about 500,000 is needed to have dragon V2 ready. So why the high cost.
Also hug Doug seemed to justify the high cost of Boeing’s capsule.
What is real?
How much juice is uncle sam / NASA giving away.
I believe there is lots of juice in both, and Spacex will do a lot more with their profit. But I sure would like to know the cost versus “profit”
Because the price includes up to 6 launches as well.
According to Encyclopedia Astronautica an Apollo CSM (both Boeing and SpaceX’s designs resemble) cost $77 million, let’s say that was in 1965 dollars (assumption on when it was purchased), which equates to $435 million today. Of course, I didn’t include the launch vehicle costs, so my guess is the capsule probably costs like $300 million and the Atlas 5 is like $150.
If the contract was for 6 crewed flights + 1 crewed test flight + at least 1 uncrewed flight, then Boeing could justifiably charge $3.60 billion for the flights and $600 million for the rest of the development (they already did CDR, so hopefully it’s all done). Considering Boeing (North American) had the same army of contractors at the time, I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
Your forgetting the development costs. I.E. all the upfront engineering requirements development, system design, and R&D costs for the craft. Its like GM can make a Camaro or Corvette for thousands of dollars, but they spent a couple billion each getting each from sketch to production line.
Unit cost shouldn’t include NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering), the R&D, etc., that you referred to. I assumed it did not include NRE. Since SRR (System Requirements Review), happened in one of Boeing’s first contract, that is already done. I think the most recently completed contract did both PDR and CDR (preliminary and critical design reviews). That portion of NRE is already a sunk cost and shouldn’t be counted in the unit cost. Finally, there are a few tests like a unmanned flight test and 1st manned flight test that Boeing has outlined that are part of the development costs (NRE) and not the unit costs. As you are implying, the R&D costs of Apollo were much greater than Commercial Crew. But once the NRE is removed, a system that has similar requirements and is built in similar ways should cost about the same amount.
>.. Unit cost shouldn’t include NRE
> (Non-Recurring Engineering), the R&D, etc…
🙂
In space launch the NRE dwarfs the Direct costs. Like in the shuttle where the direct costs per flight weer $50m, but the fixed overhead and NRE added $1.2B. Even for SpaceX COTS flighhts its $140M direct with $300M in fixed overhead adn NRE R&D that NASA paid and pays for.
>…Since SRR (System Requirements Review),
> happened in one of Boeing’s
first contract,
> that is already done. I think the most recently
> completed contract did both PDR and CDR
> (preliminary and critical design
reviews).
Thats a little squishy in this contract. SpaceX and SNC have not nailed down their requirements or designs, and won’t for some time — though they might have been allowed to be “reviewed” with what they have so far.
>..once the NRE is removed, a system that has
> similar requirements and is built in similar
> ways should cost about the same amount.
Obviously none of the previous capsules were done under SAR rules, FAR under NASA quadruples costs. (So Apollo or Orion done under FAR, would be expected to cost 4 times more then identical capacity capsules under SAR rules.) Boeing is holding CST to a higher quality design point, more complete testing etc. So it would be expected to cost more in upfrount and R&D costs.
I don’t think you are using the same definition of NRE that is traditionally used in industry. You mention the standing army cost of the Shuttle and lump that in with NRE. Since those people are there for flight after flight, by DEFINITION, it is a recurring cost. NRE is normally defined as design, creating info drawings, analysis, testing, qualification, factory and manufacturing process development. Once all of that is complete, it never needs to be done again, hence the name NON-Recurring.
By the more traditionally accepted definition, the NRE of the shuttle was cheap: only about $5.5 billion. It was paying $4 billion or so for 30 years that was expensive.
i did? when?
While many debate issues and capabilities of SpaceX, Boeing, SNC, BO, and others getting/not getting contracts. Just what are specifics? or are these only those with authority to read procurement sensitivities. i.e. the “good stuff” not published. So us outsiders debate on issues that are probably non-issues.
That’s my sense as well- in fact it’s probably true about just about everything called ‘news’ that you hear on TV, less so in print.
Boeing’s bid may well have been the best one within the narrow criteria
for fulfilling the limited ISS crew rotation role until end of station
life, but I really think that mission was a poor basis for trying to
foster a true commercial competition. In terms of opening access to
space through innovation and cost reduction, it was the worst choice. I
wish we had X-plane type programs like in the good old days of NASA,
but maybe the government is happy having that be the exclusive domain of the military (with agencies like DARPA doing some of the really interesting stuff).
I agree with the previous comment that for Boeing it’s just a contract, while for SpaceX it’s their purpose. I’ll be rooting for the underdog that brings some heart and some vision to the table.
>..I really think that mission was a poor basis for trying to
foster a true commercial competition. In terms of opening access to space through innovation and cost reduction,..<
Agree, but that’s not what NASA wanted to do.
Really they don’t want COTS or CCDev at all. Certainly a contract to develop new ships, for a tiny number of flight, was never going to push us forward, or offer a real chance for commercial dev of craft really able to lower costs and increase safety and reliability.
NASA has stated explicitly that this was a seeding process to create 2 prongs – shuttles to ISS and promote a commercial non-NASA space capability.Whether it is effective way is different than their motivation. And it looks like with Dragon 1 and 2, they get both. The priming that SpaceX gets from this will leave a revolutionary leap into true space exploitation.
NASA lies a lot. A non-NASA space capacity undercuts NASA viability as a agency, and their political support.
If they REALLY wanted to foster a commercial non space capacity they wouldn’t have rejected all the big players offers going back decades – or so carefully limited the possible bidders, and systms, to ones so weak they couldn’t deliver anything significant.
I can’t say how they think, but there is plenty for NASA to do out there that would still be bread and butter NASA exploration, that furthers its political support, and that is beyond the business case of any private company. They built and run the ISS for starters! And maybe the asteroid thing, or… I’m one of those that would be in favor of going back to the Moon and doing some real work there. Bolden even says we need the companies to follow behind us. Maybe they don’t think the same as they did going back decades.
>.. there is plenty for NASA to do out there that
> would still be bread and butter NASA
> exploration, that furthers its political support,..
Sadly its public political support is about 90% for the jobs they bring to districts, and 9% for national prestige. So they are under intense pressure to maximize costs. CATS is their nightmare.
>..Bolden even says we need the companies
> to follow behind us. Maybe they don’t think
> the same as they did going back decades.
But Bolden also said Obama told him the US must never leed in space again. In decades past NASA was in a race with Russia, and then thought they would become the national space trucking firm (as secure a job as the post office).
I wouldn’t doubt Boeing would show with better numbers in a scorecard where change, by definition, is weighted heavily as a con, more cost is rated as more realistic, and less change is scored as a pro. What would anyone expect after all. These people may be delusional, but they’re not stupid. Even insane people rationalize their insane actions.
I see it as partly like the old “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM” syndrome that killed the superior Wang.
and several other plainly superior machines that still live.
okay .. wow
First the headline … Boeing didnt beat Spacex. What did happen is that they both won with different proposals at different prices.
You cant compare the scoring strait up. Boeing would be expected to get a better score. Afterall their prices was vastly higher. 61% in fact. Since price was suppose to be the most important factor, weighing 50%, Boeing would be expected to score 61% better across the board than SpaceX for the offers to come out equal.
at this WSJ piece suggest to me, and i dont think this is the angle the journalist is trying to put forward, is that NASA in fact did not weigh price at 50%. It also suggests to me that doing it the “old, and expensive way” counted as a plus.
This notion of price underweight also supports the SNC protest.
Boeing had a huge leg up because they have past experience with NASA. Whether fair or not, knowing exactly what your review panel wants to hear is a big advantage. Even knowing the right terms and how to format the viewgraphs can be a big boost.
Hmm. Does anyone actually know the ‘metric used by NASA’?
I think that we are getting a hint of what NASA were looking for – No surprises, as little innovation as possible and, to the greatest extent possible, a mini-Orion. We can see this by the fact that NASA demanded parachute descent and single-use expendability in Dragon. They didn’t want an advanced concept (possibly because they feared consequential unreliability). Thus, SpaceX was marked down relative to Boeing.
Boeings flown a hell of a lot of things, manned and unmanned in space over the last 60 years or so, and clearly had a better handle on developing CST on time, and delivering what the customer wanted.
Note: neither Boeing SpaceX or SNC few their proposed vehicles, nor have the even finished developing the designs — or even developing the requirements lists of what the designs are required to do. But Boeings something over a year ahead on this. Well ahead of the schedule, which also was noted as a reason to be more confident that they can deliver CST on schedule.
Boeing was the only company that completed all of their CCiCap milestones on time. It makes sense that they would have scored highest in the competition. In fact, there were additional optional milestones added, which were also completed within the contract period. Shouldn’t NASA give credit for completing all the scheduled work, or at least penalize the companies that can’t meet the development timelines ?
That’s what NASA does, but I have to say it’s not necessarily right. The CST uses a forward unpressurized bay for the parachutes and a docking tunnel, simpler and more elegant than the dragon’s stowing of the main chutes in the base with the lines running up the side. But the SpaceX design uses pressurized volume more efficiently by eliminating the docking tunnel. The CST air bags appear simpler than the braking rockets on the Dragon, and the CST uses nontoxic LOX/RP for its abort rockets. So on paper it has some advantages.
However the real questions won’t be answered on paper.
Seems to me that this “commercial” vehicle program is turning into just another pork give away program. Another nipple
What if NASA just said it would meet the Russian price per seat for ISS taxis and just let industry build their own capsule with their own financing.
Wouldn’t that be best?
Isn’t that possible?
Wouldn’t companies like Spacex and Sierra step up to the plate?
Real Commercial space with the US Gov. as the first customer.
No FAR rules
Just simple payment for service.
And I know congress creatures wouldn’t allow it. My question is, is it possible?
If NASA had simply gave a flat RFP for any contractor to deliver cargo and crew to ISS at min cost under SAR (not FAR) contract rules, ULA would would have won with their proposal to operate Shuttles under SAR rules and with the NASA management pulled back. Costs per flight were proposed as less then SpaceX’s COTS flights, but carrying 4 times more cargo per flight and up to 8 people.
If you really wanted to show commercial space reducing costs. Do a project like Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration, but RFP all facilities and ships and cargo transport will be delivered and operated by the contractor teams, suitable for all operations and transport requirements specified in the RFP. That would allow you to drop costs for the ships, moon base, Mars craft, etc. – and their operations – by a factor of 4. Add in requirements that the ships must be fully reusable, capable of high flight rates, and fully certified under FAA testing rules, and you field all the infrastructure you’ld need for low cost access to space and space industrialization.
Instead we just have a pork set aside mostly for news space in COTS and CCDev.
I think you mean USA rather than ULA. USA operated the shuttles. ULA performs unmanned launches for DOD.
Actually I meant USA. They submitted a SAR based bid to operate the Shuttles for lower cost preflight then SpaceX is doing.
But ULA could also deliver good low cost bits as well.
Man, leaks really annoy me unless they are whistle-blowing. It shows a complete lack of respect for your company or agency, your employer (assuming an inside leak). They deserve to be fired.
Now I’m not normally one for conspiracy theories, but here’s one to be considered – some type of cooperation or at least favoritism among some people affiliated with Boeing and with NASA, to leak documents that appear favorable to Boeing (twice?), to possibly help Boeing tailor their bid with more inside information on what NASA is looking for besides the RFP, and you could go all the way up to collusion on picking winning bids if you were really going for it 🙂
I’m not saying I believe these ideas, but they are plausible.
its fascinating to watch these debates. look seriously the only debate is whether the second contract should have gone to SNC or SpaceX. SpaceX having a bit more credibility because of Dragon. but Boeing was a slam dunk. past performance matters a LOT in contract awards. i know almost everybody on here is a cheer leader for Elon Musk but this is getting a bit ridiculous. this is not a contest of equals based on history. and no board deciding who to award a contract to is going give billions to SpaceX and SNC and shut Boeing out and just hope it all works out. that’s just lunacy. even a government file clerk isn’t that stupid.
and by the way SpaceX has more active lobbyists working than ULA right now. they may talk a big game about private money but they’re surviving on the government tit. so you all can stop acting like they’re a different animal. they’re not. so no they’re not going to risk that giant contract by just spending their own money to press ahead whether NASA likes it or not. they’re learning to play the game. they just want to be the only player.
Yeah, it’s SpaceX who is sucking on the government tit, even worse than ULA. Monsters.
Using the USAspending.gov site, looking at the government contractors, the list is:
[Ranking (all of government): COMPANY NAME – 2014 contract value¹ – Share of govt spending – Share of revenue from US govt contracts.]
1: LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION — $26,007M — 7.38% — 85%²
2: THE BOEING COMPANY — $16,240M — 4.61%³ — >45%
17: UNITED LAUNCH ALLIANCE L.L.C. — $2,468M — 0.70% — ~100%
49: (ATK) ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC. — $949M — 0.27% — >60%
57: ORBITAL SCIENCES CORPORATION — $802M — 0.23% — ??
89: SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES — $497M — 0.14% — ~30%
90: SIERRA NEVADA CORPORATION – $487M – 0.14% — ??
—
¹ These are as prime awardees. The rat’s nest of aerospace contracting means that, for example, ATK earns more as a secondary contractor than as a prime, while SpaceX has no revenue as a secondary contractor. In 2013, LM was close to 10% of all government spending, ATK and ULA were all about $1.5b each.
² That 85% is just US govt contracts. Add foreign govt contracts (13%) just 2% of LM’s revenue comes from commercial sales. Why the hell doesn’t the US govt just nationalise them and be done with it?
³ It can be hard to work out totals¹, many companies have multiple entities named. Bell Boeing Joint Projects, for example, is 30th with $2.1b. Where does that go?
you missed my point. probably because of emotions. SpaceX has a ton of GOVERNMENT money coming in the door. And yes they do have more lobbyists working for them. thats how they’re getting their foot in the door. if SpaceX is so pure as the wind driven snow why don’t they just go on and go to mars and forget about EELV? because they need the revenue from EELV. but obviously this kind of truth hits a nerve with some folks. and a good guess would be that they’re starting to recognize nobody’s going Mars so they’ll have to do something…..
And SpaceX sure does lobbying. They must.
SpaceX spend about $1.1mil while ULA spends about 2/3 million, while ULA’s parents, Boeing and Lockheed, spent $30mil on lobbying.
You miss the point. SpaceX has always said that they will be the prime space transportation company. They will fly cargo, satellites, people into space. What does purity have to do with it? Musk’s overriding goal is making humanity a multiplanet culture, but why is that sullied by being an active business – one who provides service to the government and the taxpayers for a fraction of the cost of the monopoly ULA?
They are going to Mars. The Raptor investment is predicated on that premise. Altho the engines do have potential value as single engine cores for a Falcon The Next Generation rocket, there is little market for a 14 million pound thrust or 42 million pound thrust vehicle except for space exploration. I suppose you could launch the gigantic Bigelow station with one, but still not much of a market. Musk always has business and social plans. His car, solar and battery businesses are part of a blended strategy for a renewable future.
there’s no doubt Musk has a combined strategy. that battery plant isn’t just to pump out tesla cars. Musk is going after entire industries. the entire space launch industry, the electric car market, and i predict using tesla batteries on solar city installs going after the entire power grid industry starting with PG&E.
But renewables aren’t nearly as “renewable” as the green machine insists. I appreciate and applaud his moxie and his capitalist bent, i’m just viewing him as a realist should.He’s not some renaissance altruistic dreamer just doing what’s good for mankind that almost all his admirers see… He has ideas, enters a business area and plans to corner the entire market. nothing new here, see Rockefeller John, D.
Mars is best explored by robot. there is zero value sending humans there. certainly none compared to the resources spent sending them vs the payback.
Musk sees an opportunity to maintain the goals of his SpaceX business while bringing in revenue by taking a large potentially lucrative business segment from Boeing/LM. that’s all. nothing romantic about it….
and by the way the only reason to preserve the first stage in that case is that you have a relatively low performing engine, thus you need a ton of them. and from a manufacturing flow standpoint eventually you need to start reusing or you just can’t keep up with production. the interesting thing would be if and how they ever sell a flight on a reused set of engines. Hint: Never on EELV flight unless a paid for congressman directly intervenes. and just one won’t have enough horsepower
Musk’s statement’s that SpaceX could go ahead without the big gov contracts (that paid for all his development, and underwrites his commercial bids) is rather doubtful given he said the same thing about the COTS bid, but later admitted SpaceX was about to go under until it got the COTS money.
It just occurred to me. This almost looks like its set up to have SpaceX to drop?
Congress said they would rather NASA downselect to 1 CCDev provider. Then NASA picks 2 capsules. i.E. they have 3 capsules in work for operation at the same time. 3! Which has to look ridiculously redundant to a congress wanting them to down select to 1 w Orion. Dream chaser could be said to be different from a capsule, so it and Orion might have some arguments (and raise arguments about how crude Orion looks compared to shuttle). If you want a second capsule, Boeing is going to deliver as good a one as you can get.
That’s a little scary actually. Hopefully SpaceX’s progress would put it ahead of Boeing despite Boeing meeting its milestones better.
you just answered you’re own question. “… Boeing meeting its milestones better” see that’s the sort of thing that comes from experience and record. it’s not a matter of press releases or interviews with the CEO, or cheer leading from admirers. it comes from performance. and Boeing and LM, and ULA as well, perform. you can look it up
What question? Well I almost put this in my last comment, but I didn’t – Boeing’s milestones were easier. Don’t get me wrong, I have a ton of respect for Boeing. I’m ok with the contract awards. I just don’t want a downselect to one, and if heaven forbid there is I don’t want SpaceX kicked out.
Unlikely. Boeings too far ahead, and too experienced. They may not be as good as they used to be – but they are much better at this, and already impressed NASA with their speed and management capability. to things SpaceX is good at.
Which is the “second contract”?
The attitude of “we are Boeing so we deserve an outsized award” does not cut it. Boeing needs to trim down their costs. They could certainly afford to have about $ 500 M reprogrammed to SN to keep that innovative concept alive.
With Elon Musk at the helm, I doubt SpaceX has “stopped” much. Musk is going to Mars, with or without NASA.
In other news, it’s unsurprising that NASA would rate Boeing’s proposal “better.” Boeing has had 50+ years of experience at worming their way into goverment and pulling out contracts. They know which backs to scratch and which tummies to tickle to get what they want.
Altho NASA accepted SpaceX’s submission (how could they not. The stink would have been apocalyptic if they hadn’t), there were two sets of problems that bothered them.
Technique and technology
Technique: NASA felt that SpaceX was not invested sufficiently in the paperwork and close coordination with NASA personnel. This has been ongoing and sometimes contentious. SpaceX (arrogantly in NASA’a view) takes the attitude that they know (better) what they are doing and leave them alone. They see themselves as a commercial business offering a service while Boeing is used to being in the role of direct implementer of NASA’s will as a contractor.
There is also a big technology dispute. NASA really, really wants SpaceX to use radiation-hardened hardware. SpaceX really really wants to use massively redundant systems of radiation vulunerable hardware.
For example SpaceX doesn’t want to use the standard radiation-hard computer. Instead they use triplicated synced systems each with triplicated processors. They view that the rad-hard computer is expensive and low in supply. More importantly, your cellphone has greater performance. Most importantly, SpaceX runs C++ on Linux which aint for that old hardware. NASA has never formally required that hardware and almost all the station controlling ISS PCs are standard laptops, and SpaceX says they don’t have too.
The actual flying Dragon which is not the design being bid for CCDev? Unlike the power point and mock up Dragon still to be designed for CCDev.
You could no fly the existing Dragon. Its life support, controls, abort capacity, etc isn’t there. So where is the existing SpaceX hardware?
If you want to consider Dragon, you might as well credit Shuttle to X-37B to Boeing.
I just love the way some posters are virtually quoting both the criteria as well as the ratings. None of this information has been made public irrespective of what people may think. All they are making is guesses pure and simple. The only facts on the table are as follows:
1. Price quoted by each company; and
2. The 2 winners and the single loser.
When the protest is decided, then we may see something substantive in the way the awards were determined but until then …
Cheers.