Why NASA Did Not Pick SNC (Updated)
NASA Releases Commercial Crew Source Selection Statement, SpaceRef
“[HEOMD AA Bill Gerstenmaier]: On August 6, 2014, the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed to evaluate proposals for the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability Contract (CCtCap) under Request for Proposals (RFP) NNK14467515R presented the results of its evaluation to me and other senior officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). I held a follow-up meeting on August 19th to ask additional questions of the SEB and receive input from my advisors. My decision on selection of the successful Offeror is set forth in this Source Selection Statement.”
GAO Bid Protest Decision: Sierra Nevada Corporation
“Sierra Nevada alleges that NASA’s evaluation of proposals departed from the RFP’s stated criteria, and was unequal and unreasonable. We deny the protest.”
The 29-page long version of the selection statement has an abundance of curious phrasing and also a topic glaring in it’s absence.
Missing is any “commercial” focus as having to do with the potential NASA provider also using systems that would be likely and legally used or provided to non-government customers. This would have been a plus to SpaceX, more likely to sell Falcon’s to non-government customers.
Often in the document there seems to be a recurring theme almost wanting an offeror to charge more-in case NASA thinks of something else. This seems not just a desire to address surprises (unknown-unknowns), but also as a way of saying things NASA might ask for in the future would have the money there to avoid the contractor having an excuse to say “no”. (For example, the phrase “SpaceX also has a strong approach for incremental development and testing with risk reduction, but has the least robust approach for addressing the actual specific feedback on the Phase I products that are the foundations of certification in this second phase”)
Old habits die hard.
When I read that, I parsed it as Boeing demonstrated their intimate knowledge of how to include governmental oversight and create excellent mountains of paperwork, while SpaceX excels in build-and-test with less inclusivity. NASA is overwhelmingly a bureaucracy now, evolved from its incarnation as an ambitious young agency, so of course it makes sense they value paper trails so highly.
What turned me against SNC DC was not any abort tests. Only a separation test. They have done a pad abort on a simulator and it worked fine. A glide back. That does not sound like NASA and may be one of the reasons they were turned down. I am also surprised that NASA is going to let Boeing not do an inflight abort.. They will partially do one on the test flight when they shut down the engines and separate the capsule.
no, the biggest reason they were turned down is that they had decided to overhaul their main engines. word on the street is that they wanted to take out the hybrids and put in all liquid fuel. of course such a redesign would push their schedule back. they simply would not have met NASA’s goal of sending astronauts to the ISS by 2017, so their bid was declined.
DC is based heavily on NASA’s HL-20, which did utilize that glide-back abort, with a secondary possibility of ditching in the ocean, so that’s definitely not the reason they were not chosen.
i agree that Boeing should do an in-flight abort.
No, what? You are saying no to something I did not say. What is the no in reference to? I said one of the reasons.I did not say Boeing should do an inflight abort. What ever they want to do is fine with me. The test flight has enough tests of the abort system I think. Not at Max Q, but the time spent there is very short. SpaceX could cancel also, but it will be fun to see. Get to hear their plans Monday.
“That does not sound like NASA and may be one of the reasons they were turned down”
I was sorry that Dream Chaser didn’t make the cut. But after reading the selection docs I can see why it happened.
That vehicle was very photogenic and was very attractive to those who still grieve after shuttle. Plus, IMO, its design screams re-usability. I hope SNC finds a way to get it into operation.
But I don’t think its selection would have displaced Dragon. CST-100 would have probably been dropped. Which means NASA wouldn’t have Boeing lobbying power in Congress for commercial crew. If they were feeling spiteful Boeing might even have lobbied against commercial crew. So all-in-all I suspect things worked out about the best way they could.
As for CST-100 I don’t feel Boeing really put their best effort forward. In an alternate universe; one where the Apollo program was not cancelled and the Space Shuttle never happened, CST-100 looks to me like a ’77 or ’78 model Command Module. Not a 2017 manned spacecraft at all.
But that’s just my opinion.