NASA Posts Commercial Crew Selection Statement

Posted
by
Doug Messier
on September 4, 2012, at 12:17 pm
in News
. Tags: , , , , , , , .
Comments: 2 responses
2 Comments

NASA has posted the Selection Statement in which Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations William Gerstenmaier explains why the space agency decided to award $1.1 billion in Commercia Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCAP) funding to Boeing, Sierra Nevada Corporation and SpaceX.

The document includes ratings for the proposals submitted by all three companies as well as the one from ATK, which did not receive funding. NASA eliminated three other applicants for failing to meet bid requirements.

It’s going to take me a while to read through the Selection Statement. If you want to download the PDF document, click here.

Be Sociable, Share!

Permalink

Post Comment

  • http://www.variousconsequences.com jstults

    At NASA “nobody ever gets fired for buying Boeing”.

    SpaceX gets kudos for flying hardware: The PEP was concerned about the lack of sufficient detail provided to show how SpaceX will mature the integrated CTS from the current cargo configuration to a human configuration. I share that concern, but temper the concern with the advantages of having flown the basic cargo system. Flight experience with the cargo version will show areas of the design that will need additional work. Flying a version of the design will provide additional insight above single tests of systems. Flying the cargo version will lower the risk to the final CTS version, if the process for changes can be identified.

    Boeing gets kudos for having lots of meetings: A significant factor to me in Boeing’s proposal was the comprehensive approach Boeing had to its overall integrated vehicle development plan which included an incremental approach to the detailed design and development effort, including multiple subsystem-level Critical Design Reviews (CDRs) culminating in its integrated CDR. This approach did a good job of tying the milestones to completion of certification and qualification activities and will allow for greater review and understanding of technical products prior to advancing to later development milestones. Boeing’s approach also provides robust processes for mission assurance, engineering technical review boards, risk reduction, program management and design review.

    Boeing has the least “skin in the game”: It is important to note that Boeing’s proposal had a single weakness in the Business section after due diligence for not achieving the significant financial investment strategic goal laid out in the Announcement. However, Boeing met all the other goals and had a strong technical design; therefore, I did not find the lack of significant corporate financial commitment to be a major discriminator in my assessment of the Boeing proposal.

    I guess we know how serious they are about their “commercial” prospects…

  • http://www.parabolicarc.com Doug Messier

    Boeing’s lack of financial investment is disturbing. And that’s coming from the wealthiest company in the bunch.

    On the bright side, the marks for all three funded programs are very high. Not perfect in every respect, but sufficient that all three of these systems appear viable down the road. Think about that for a second. It’s a good problem for NASA to have.

    Healthy competition would be a boon to Bigelow. And Bigelow is ultimately the key to this whole thing working. These companies need more than just ISS as a destination. If Bigelow succeeds, that jump starts some of the other efforts that have been waiting for viable LEO transportation systems to emerge.

    If, by the end of the decade, there are multiple space stations in orbit and a viable commercial market for transporting people there, then NASA has commercial partners accustomed to successfully in space with whom it can go beyond Earth orbit to wherever we decide to go. Meanwhile, a sustained, focused R&D program though the end of the decade allows us to develop some of the key technologies we need.

    I think this is something people don’t get. There’s so much focus on where we go (Apollo style programs) that they can’t see the importance of how we do all these things.