Author Topic: NASA Awards Commercial Crew Program Certification Products Contracts (CPC)  (Read 35172 times)

Offline Garrett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1108
  • France
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 77
... Elon has ranted against cost-plus contracts. Elon is very big on PR so I somehow doubt that he would accept such a contract.

One can rant against something and still accept to have to do business with that something. It's not contradictory, it's working with reality. Elon's real rant is against cost-plus style contracts for human and cargo transport to space. I don't think Elon really cares much that the USAF prefers the cost-plus approach because he is well aware of the gap in requirements between commercial transport and national security
- "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." - Indiana Jones

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA -- previously in Ann Arbor, MI
  • Liked: 551
  • Likes Given: 228
We'll see. If they do it will be a case of the pot calling the kettle black considering how much Elon has ranted against cost-plus contracts. Elon is very big on PR so I somehow doubt that he would accept such a contract.

Elon says a lot of things that don't come true.
Part of the ELC costs are payload organization dependent and that is where the plus part comes in.

I've yet to see him rant multiple times against something and then to 180 and say that it's a good idea.
Internal combustion engine in space. It's just a Bad Idea.TM - Robotbeat

Offline dcporter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 397
I've yet to see him rant multiple times against something and then to 180 and say that it's a good idea.

Taking money from NASA





[citation needed]
« Last Edit: 01/31/2013 04:59 PM by dcporter »

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 74
I've yet to see him rant multiple times against something and then to 180 and say that it's a good idea.

Taking money from NASA
Citation needed.
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline simonbp

Yeah, I distinctly recall them saying back before they got COTS that the hope was to get both government and commercial contracts, they just didn't want to be totally dependent on the government money. At the time, I think that was more a snipe at Orbital, but it's since become true of ULA too.

Indeed, the Falcon 1 flights were largely funded by USAF.

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 165
Yeah, I distinctly recall them saying back before they got COTS that the hope was to get both government and commercial contracts, they just didn't want to be totally dependent on the government money. At the time, I think that was more a snipe at Orbital, but it's since become true of ULA too.

Indeed, the Falcon 1 flights were largely funded by USAF.

Source please since I believe that only one flight carried a USAF satellite.

Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32333
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10991
  • Likes Given: 327
Yeah, I distinctly recall them saying back before they got COTS that the hope was to get both government and commercial contracts, they just didn't want to be totally dependent on the government money. At the time, I think that was more a snipe at Orbital, but it's since become true of ULA too.

Indeed, the Falcon 1 flights were largely funded by USAF.

Source please since I believe that only one flight carried a USAF satellite.



DARPA provided some funding too

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3003
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 767
  • Likes Given: 23
NASA Certification Phase in Motion
Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:51:16 PM GMT

NASA's Certification Products Contracts (CPC) are officially under way as the agency took the early part of this year to lay out its expectations moving forward with The Boeing Company, Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) Space Systems and Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) during kickoff meetings. Throughout CPC, each company will begin the process of ensuring their integrated crew transportation systems can meet NASA's flight safety and performance requirements for missions to the International Space Station.
They'll deliver their own certification plans, their plans to verify and validate their systems are safe, hazard analysis reports and any proposed alternate standards to NASA's Commercial Crew Program for review. Those products will delve into all aspects of their systems, including spacecraft, launch vehicles, and ground and mission operations.

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA -- previously in Ann Arbor, MI
  • Liked: 551
  • Likes Given: 228
It somehow annoys me how they call paperwork, "products." Like its something thats able to be sold.
« Last Edit: 02/16/2013 12:18 AM by mlindner »
Internal combustion engine in space. It's just a Bad Idea.TM - Robotbeat

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8433
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 324
  • Likes Given: 145
It somehow annoys me how they call paperwork, "products." Like its something thats able to be sold.

The CCDev companies are selling the US Government paperwork.  This is standard practice on government contracts.  Although NASA is being a little odd in actually reading the documents.
« Last Edit: 02/16/2013 07:35 AM by A_M_Swallow »

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6669
  • Liked: 973
  • Likes Given: 139
It somehow annoys me how they call paperwork, "products." Like its something thats able to be sold.

Text books are products.  Analysis reports are products.  Reference sources are products.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32333
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10991
  • Likes Given: 327
It somehow annoys me how they call paperwork, "products." Like its something thats able to be sold.

That is what you buy in a study contract.

Offline MP99

It somehow annoys me how they call paperwork, "products." Like its something thats able to be sold.

As I understand it, those "products" should ultimately codify certification standards which meet the intent of NASA's Human-Rating standards, but in a way which is more appropriate for the CCiCAP participants.

As such, they would be quite valuable to the CCiCAP participants, in terms of making their lives easier, and presumably reduce the price NASA will need to pay to certify Commercial Crew systems.

That should have substantial value to NASA.

cheers, Martin

Tags: