NASA Rejected Commercial Space Station Proposals from Maverick Space, Orbital Assembly and ThinkOrbital

by Douglas Messier
Managing Editor

NASA rejected space station development proposals from Maverick Space Systems, Orbital Assembly Corporation (OAC) and ThinkOrbital, according to a newly released document.

The three companies were competing for funding under the space agency’s Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) program. The effort is focused on the development of private commercial space stations that will provide the the United States with uninterrupted access to Earth orbit when the International Space Station (ISS) is retired in 2030.

NASA awarded $415.6 million for space station proposals from Blue Origin, Nanoracks and Northrop Grumman under the CLD program. The space agency also rejected proposals from SpaceX and Relativity Space.

NASA’s selection statement, signed by Director of Human Spaceflight Phil McAlister, said the agency had a very low level of confidence in the three proposals in terms of technical merits and business plans. Relevant excerpts from the selection statement are reproduced below.

NASA Confidence Level Ratings

Maverick Space Systems Inc.
Selection Statement (Excerpts)

Technical Evaluation

For the Technical Approach evaluation, Maverick received a Level of Confidence rating of Red.

There were no significant strengths identified.

Its strengths included a beneficial radiation shielding concept using supply water; a modular design concept that allows for growth; inclusion of an internal and external robotic arm, which would greatly increase remote operations and maintenance capabilities; an iterative development approach that reduces technical risks; and a prototype testing plan for key components prior to Preliminary Design Review (PDR).

Its significant weaknesses included a design focused on robotic/telescience low-Earth orbit (LEO) research rather than human presence; significant freeze/rupture risks created by use of water in the external thermal control system; lack of internal payload accommodations for NASA research; and proposed use of low maturity technologies for critical systems.

Its weaknesses included weak micro-meteoroid and orbital debris shielding strategy; added complexity from a proposed redesign of the NASA Docking System; insufficient data provided for proposed artificial gravity concept; a lack of detail on its external payload mounting site; a lack of permanent crew accommodations for long duration presence; a single docking port, which decreases resupply and crew handover capabilities; a small hatch diameter, which reduces cargo transfer capability; an insufficient timeline for proposed regenerative Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) development; complications with all-water working fluid; a lack of detail on its water resupply strategy; low design maturity on its water jet Reaction Control System; and no inclusion of an on-orbit safety plan in its proposed CLD plan.

Business Plan Evaluation

For the Business Plan evaluation, Maverick received a Level of Confidence rating of Red.

There were no significant strengths identified.

Its strengths included a business plan optimized for several market niches and a compelling case for a modular approach for its small module concept in LEO.

Its significant weaknesses included a management team that all comes from the small satellite industry; seeking the vast majority of its Space Act Agreement (SAA) costs from NASA; and a failure to identify who will supply many of the systems required for the proposed CLD.

Its weaknesses included unrealistic revenue estimates while ISS is still serving users; the proposed total cost through Critical Design Review (CDR) seems unrealistically low; schedule was included in the wrong proposal section and, therefore, not evaluated; and unclear start-up plan to acquire needed personnel and facilities.

Orbital Assembly Corporation (OAC)
Selection Statement (Excerpts)

Technical Evaluation

For the Technical Approach evaluation, OAC received a Level of Confidence rating of Red.

Its significant strengths included a flight demonstration of automated on-orbit assembly of truss.

Its strengths included more than 2 crew members at initial operations; modularity to increase flexibility and growth potential for the CLD; a design that provides capacity for large payloads; an artificial gravity proposal that includes external payloads, which could benefit future technology development; a maintenance crew for the CLD; and strong emergency response and redundancy planning

Its significant weaknesses included a lack of understanding of complexities for resupply for the artificial gravity concept and large crew proposed; not addressing space environment challenges with maintaining a CLD in continuous sun synchronous orbit; a lack of availability of launch facilities to launch crew into a sun synchronous polar orbit; use of NASA heritage hardware without a declaration of its government furnished equipment (GFE) needs and claims that its modified ISS ECLS system will have larger capacity than currently realized; its proposed long-duration artificial gravity concept for CLD is incompatible with some research; limited CLD development description; a weak risk strategy; and a complex assembly proposal.

Its weaknesses included a lack of controllability assessment for its artificial gravity design and an unidentified avionics and Command and Data Handling (C&DH) design and risk assessment.

Business Plan Evaluation

For the Business Plan evaluation, OAC received a Level of Confidence rating of Red.

There were no significant strengths and no strengths identified.

Its significant weaknesses included failure to provide a customer-based business strategy; a proposed management team that has no experience in funding and developing a large-scale human space system; seeking more funds from NASA than its costs during the SAA; seeking massive financing without presenting a viable financing plan; seeking massive revenue without presenting a viable marketing plan; proposing its CDR occur before its PDR; and failure to meet requirements of the Announcement regarding major suppliers.

Its weaknesses included lack of a clear plan for an early demonstration mission and schedule risk due to the need to acquire funds before acquiring development resources.

ThinkOrbital Inc.
Selection Statement (Excerpts)

Technical Evaluation

For the Technical Approach evaluation, ThinkOrbital received a Level of Confidence rating of Red.

There are no significant strengths identified.

Its strengths included more than 2 crew members at initial operations and a large internal volume that lends itself to flexibility in design to support multiple customers.

Its significant weaknesses included an inadequate and incomplete risk strategy; lack of detail on its concept for an incredibly complex on-orbit outfitting of systems internal and external to its CLD.; a complex on-orbit construction of its CLD using nascent electron beam welding; the use of a large, unassessed gas supply needed for initial pressurization of its habitation module; its proposal to install common external systems inside the crew cabin, raising safety concerns.

Its weaknesses included the lack of definition of its artificial gravity capability; the limited proposed positioning and pointing of external payload platform; the lack of detail on how the exploration analog goals could be met given only a single habitation module; its proposed use of payload hardware that is no longer in production or commercially available without addressing how hardware obsolescence will be mitigated; proposed on-orbit construction and outfitting of CLD is limited by small hatch size and increased complexity for piece part assembly; inaccurate understanding of what is needed to mature an ECLS system; an undefined platform mass and system architecture for its proposed single-launch capability; safety concerns about its future plan to increase crew size without a crew evacuation plan; and a lack of safety & mission assurance involvement in design.

Business Plan Evaluation

For the Business Plan evaluation, ThinkOrbital received a Level of Confidence rating of Red.

There were no significant strengths identified.

Its strengths included several spaceflight experienced suppliers were identified for CLD development.

Its significant weaknesses included a poor market strategy that failed to meet LEO economy development goal; a significant lack of relevant space experience by the management team; proposing very low private financing in the base period and none in the option period; lack of a viable financing plan; risk of revenue needed to fund development not materializing; a CDR plan that only involved building a prototype; insufficient detail provided on the overall development schedule; and a failure to conform to the 50% ownership by U.S. nationals requirement.

Its weaknesses included no commitments from several key suppliers and no proposed supplier cost estimates.