No surprises. They picked the two bidders:

Phase 2, covering final CEV design and production, was scheduled to start with a down-selection to a single industry team in 2008. To reduce or eliminate the gap between the Shuttle’s retirement in 2010 and an operational CEV, the Phase 2 down-selection is planned for 2006.

Results of NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s Exploration Systems Architectural Study will be incorporated into a Call For Improvements later this year to invite Phase 2 proposals from the Phase 1 contractors.

While, as I said, not a surprise, based on all the scuttlebutt, this really turns up the heat on the contractors. They don’t have four years to convince NASA as to who has the better concept and ability to execute it–they have (possibly less than) one. There will be no fly off, and they’ll now basically write new proposals under contract.

I had heard last Thursday that some kind of announcement on the CEV contract was imminent, expected any day. According to Keith Cowing, there will be some word this afternoon. I’ll update when I hear something.

[Update a couple minutes later]

I’m guessing they’re waiting for the market to close at 4:30 so they don’t influence late traders.

[Update at 3:20 PM EDT]

In this Reuters piece that quotes Jim Albaugh of Boeing as saying he expects an announcement today, Dr. Griffin says something at the Paris Air Show that I find a little disturbing:

“We have enough money to put people back on the moon in that [2015-2020] timeframe,” he said. “The model that I have is that we should build a lunar outpost similar to the kinds of multinational outposts we have in Antarctica.”

Antarctica is a very bad model, for two reasons. First of all, Antarctica is basically off limits to mineral exploitation, a precedent that would be disastrous if applied to the moon and, in the words of the infamous Moon Treaty, “other celestial bodies.” Second, Antarctica is focused primarily on scienctific research. Such a mindset isn’t necessarily conducive to the other uses to which a base might be put.

Basically, it sounds like he wants to dust off his old plans from the early 1990s for “First Lunar Outpost” or FLO, that he developed before he left NASA, just before the president’s father’s Space Exploration Initiative died.

I just think that by the year 2015, it’s going to be very clear that the future, and probably present, of space transportation will not lie in putting up throwaway capsules on throwaway rockets, whether Shuttle derived, or EELV derived. What he’s proposing is just picking up where Apollo left off, but there’s no reason to think that that will be any more sustainable than Apollo ultimately was. It’s certainly unlikely to be much more affordable.

Then there’s this:

NASA is weighing up competing bids for the so-called Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), the successor to the space shuttle, which will be retired in 2010. The new vehicle is expected to be compatible with the International Space Station and to play a role in a manned mission to the moon.

This is a little misleading. It’s not going to succeed the Shuttle in the sense that it will perform all the same functions as Shuttle does. In that sense, there will never (praise the heavens) be a successor to the Shuttle, because its overspecification was one of the things that made it such a programmatic disaster.

Also, the “expected to be compatible with the ISS” is a new requirement, not addressed in any of the proposals submitted, because it wasn’t required at the time the RFP came out (a result of the fact that Griffin hadn’t had time to influence it, being newly arrived). But now the first task of the contractors (and it would be surprising if that turns out to be anyone other than the Boeing/Northrop-Grumman team and the Lockmart team) will almost certainly be to redesign their respective concepts to satisfy this need.

[Update at 4:35]

Keith Cowing is saying that Lockmart has won something. I don’t see anything at their web site yet. That doesn’t (yet) mean that Boeing/Northrop-Grumman hasn’t, of course.

Taylor Dinerman says that we should be optimistic about the political staying power of the president’s Vision For Space Exploration.

Unfortunately, the example he uses doesn’t inspire confidence in me, at least in terms of the potential for success of the program, though it may continue to get funding ad infinitum, as our ineffective space activities already have for the past three decades since Apollo. After all, over two decades after Reagan made his “Star Wars” speech, we still don’t have a missile defense.

Alan Boyle has more details on Blue Origin’s plans.

A hundred kilometers, once a week, with three or more passengers. That’s at least a hundred fifty new “astronauts” per year. How big will their fleet be?

Their choice of propellants is interesting–peroxide and kerosene. I wonder what the strength of their peroxide is, and where they’re getting it?

Ed Kyle has an overview of Mike Griffin’s plans for a Shuttle-derived launch architecture.

I think that it’s a mistake to maintain the expensive Shuttle infrastructure, and an even bigger one to make the president’s vision dependent on heavy lift vehicles, particularly when there’s only one type, with no resiliency. But as Ed points out, politically, there are a lot of influential congresscritters with Shuttle employees in their districts, so pork may rule the day once again.

Jeff Foust asks, with regard to Griffin’s reorganization:

At what point does the standard reorganization of officials during a change of leadership become something more like a purge?

I’m not sure exactly where that point is, but it seems pretty clear to me from this WaPo article that, though they don’t use the word, we’re well beyond it.

As I’ve said before, Dr. Griffin is either going to be a spectacular success, or a spectacular failure, but either way, he’s going to do it his way. As the article points out, he’s been thinking about these issues for a long time. If I were in his position, I’d do a pretty thorough housecleaning as well, but I wouldn’t necessarily bring in all of the same people that he will.

[Update in the afternoon]

Via Keith Cowing, here’s a Slashdot discussion of this.

[Another update at 3 PM]

Thomas James says that Griffin is being Machiavellian. He means that in a good way, of course.

Jeff Foust points out a couple of editorials in the DC Examiner that set up the false choice of manned exploration versus, well, other stuff. In the one case, it’s earth sciences, though why this is NASA’s job (as opposed to, say, NOAA or NSF) isn’t said.

And both point out the continuing need for resolving my pet peeve, that we have still not had a national debate on why NASA even exists. Until we can develop some kind of consensus on why we have a government-funded space program, and particularly a manned one, we’ll continue have these pointless discussions. As it is now, the purpose is vague and chameleon like, allowing proponents of pork and hobby shops to continue to proliferate.

Mark Whittington has a survey of space tourism activities in which you can participate today.

Mark Whittington has a survey of space tourism activities in which you can participate today.

Mark Whittington has a survey of space tourism activities in which you can participate today.