http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32The video is rather long but worth watching all the way through.Rumors have been floating around for the last month that now appear true. I expect fireworks.o.o
Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 07/21/2011 06:43 pmhttp://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32The video is rather long but worth watching all the way through.Rumors have been floating around for the last month that now appear true. I expect fireworks.o.oExpound.
There are still other non FAR contracting mechanisms that can be used. This isn't a big deal as some think.
Ideally, what NASA should pursue, rather than contracts or SAAs, are something called "tickets" for astronauts to fly on these new vehicles.
Quote from: Jim on 07/21/2011 07:31 pmThere are still other non FAR contracting mechanisms that can be used. This isn't a big deal as some think. But CCP has already begun the FAR contracting process.https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=fa0fa4228c7a32be80bd35443336d33a&tab=core&_cview=0Edit: CCDev3 and only two weeks to reply.
Quote from: Danderman on 07/21/2011 07:31 pmIdeally, what NASA should pursue, rather than contracts or SAAs, are something called "tickets" for astronauts to fly on these new vehicles.I believe this is going in the opposite direction, from what I can tell.It sounds disappointing and like some in management want things to stay the same as other NASA HSF efforts (i.e. NASA taking a more central role in designing the service... i.e., specifying exactly what kind of bolts to use and how exactly to tighten them... if everyone has to follow NASA's way of doing things, aren't we going to get the same results?). But I do not have enough information to have a strong opinion. Does give me a kind of sick feeling, though.
No, the contracting mechanism for unmanned vehicles is not an SAA and it does fine.Remember, the SAA's are only for CCP development, actual procure of rides or launches for crew would still be done via a FAR contact, similar to CRS and NLS.
But Jim this is a proposed contract for CCP development. In fact this replaces CCDev3 SAA with a Integrated Design Contract.
Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 07/21/2011 08:30 pmBut Jim this is a proposed contract for CCP development. In fact this replaces CCDev3 SAA with a Integrated Design Contract.CCDev3 was going to be an SAA for an integrated design. IDC does the same thing. The issues isn't the requirements. It is how the requirements are levied. And apparently, this is not feasible with an SAA.
Quote from: Jim on 07/21/2011 08:39 pmQuote from: Norm Hartnett on 07/21/2011 08:30 pmBut Jim this is a proposed contract for CCP development. In fact this replaces CCDev3 SAA with a Integrated Design Contract.CCDev3 was going to be an SAA for an integrated design. IDC does the same thing. The issues isn't the requirements. It is how the requirements are levied. And apparently, this is not feasible with an SAA. I agree that that is NASA OGC's position. Industries' contention is that the IDC imposes potentially huge costs and that current SAA authorization permits requirements certification. It may all be a tempest in a teapot but the Industry is scared right now. You can hear it in the lawyers' voices.
Geesh, let this work out. If NASA is going to pay out some money for development, it has the right to have some of its requirements met.
It also feels like NASA anticipated this reaction from industry.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/21/2011 08:50 pmIt also feels like NASA anticipated this reaction from industry.There have been rumors for the last month, ever since the Space Act Agreement Authority was rewritten a month ago to eliminate Sec 5 which authorized Funded Space Act Agreements. Now there is no such thing.
I'm with Jim on this. I think this is actually a fairly good thing.It seems intended to significantly reduce the amount of bureaucracy that was involved in the SAA process and with the normal FAR contracting methods too.
Assuming that this new contracting method actually gets approved, it will create a new means for the agency to fund commercial crew activities with lower overheads than are possible today -- which is especially helpful given the loss of SAA Chapter 5.The only aspect I'm a little concerned about, is the change from SAA's "Minimal Cost Reporting" approach to "No Cost Reporting". Zero cost reporting just sounds like an invitation for abuse of the system to me.
Other than that, I think this is a positive thing for commercial crew.Ross.
Quote from: Jim on 07/21/2011 08:42 pmGeesh, let this work out. If NASA is going to pay out some money for development, it has the right to have some of its requirements met.The point that was made by Bigelow, Blue Origin, SpaceX and others was that such requirements can be imposed through a Space Act Agreement (like it was under COTS). They also made the point that with a FAR contract comes a lot of additionnal requirements that are cumbersome and that are not useful either for NASA or for the commercial crew company (regional development requirements, etc.).
A point not addressed in the forum is a target on a Powerpoint slide to run to run the first ISS commercial crew delivery mission by the end of FY 2016 - September 30, 2016. Boeing, Sierra Nevada, and SpaceX have all said they are capable of conducting manned test flights in 2014 and fly the first ISS commercial crew flights in 2015.
They also pointed out something I'd overlooked.
Quote from: Jim on 07/21/2011 08:42 pmGeesh, let this work out. If NASA is going to pay out some money for development, it has the right to have some of its requirements met.NASA's requirements cost far too much in time and money. If we let NASA requirements govern the airline industry we would still be watching barnstormers from the 1930's as representing state of the art air travel. People seem to think that the commercial companies are stupid and don't know what to do. People forget that it was commercial companies who built every spacecraft NASA has ever flown. NASA needs to let them alone and let them do what they know how to do. They are not going to field an unsafe spacecraft. NASA needs to identify its need and let them fill it. If NASA wants to do cost sharing then let them but NASA doesn't get to muck this up like everything else it has touched lately.Let NASA do with these guys what the Air Force does; set the needed specs, oversee the development (hands off) and get out of the way.
Quote from: clongton on 07/21/2011 09:00 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/21/2011 08:42 pmGeesh, let this work out. If NASA is going to pay out some money for development, it has the right to have some of its requirements met.NASA's requirements cost far too much in time and money. If we let NASA requirements govern the airline industry we would still be watching barnstormers from the 1930's as representing state of the art air travel. People seem to think that the commercial companies are stupid and don't know what to do. People forget that it was commercial companies who built every spacecraft NASA has ever flown. NASA needs to let them alone and let them do what they know how to do. They are not going to field an unsafe spacecraft. NASA needs to identify its need and let them fill it. If NASA wants to do cost sharing then let them but NASA doesn't get to muck this up like everything else it has touched lately.Let NASA do with these guys what the Air Force does; set the needed specs, oversee the development (hands off) and get out of the way.That is the whole point, whether SAA's can have specs
SAA's are unfunded are they not? If that is true then it's the golden rule. The one with the gold sets the rules. If NASA wants to set the rules then they have to come up with the cash. Otherwise NASA can tell the commercial companies what they want and the commercial companies set the rules.Setting specs to meet is fine because that's telling the commercial companies what NASA, the *customer* would like and the companies can then choose whether or not to participate with their own money, but imposing *anything* else is outside the scope of an unfunded SAA.
Only the SAA with ULA is unfunded. All the other CCDev-2 SAAs are funded. But can't the human requirements be imposed through the FAA or else through the certification requirements. I am not sure why the certification process has to be tied to the SAA. The only company that said that they did not intend to follow the NASA certification requirements is Blue Origin.
Quote from: clongton on 07/23/2011 12:53 pmSAA's are unfunded are they not? If that is true then it's the golden rule. The one with the gold sets the rules. If NASA wants to set the rules then they have to come up with the cash. Otherwise NASA can tell the commercial companies what they want and the commercial companies set the rules.Setting specs to meet is fine because that's telling the commercial companies what NASA, the *customer* would like and the companies can then choose whether or not to participate with their own money, but imposing *anything* else is outside the scope of an unfunded SAA.No, they can be funded. COTS is a funded SAA
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/23/2011 01:14 pmOnly the SAA with ULA is unfunded. All the other CCDev-2 SAAs are funded. But can't the human requirements be imposed through the FAA or else through the certification requirements. I am not sure why the certification process has to be tied to the SAA. The only company that said that they did not intend to follow the NASA certification requirements is Blue Origin. FAA has no certification requirements for NASA
However, in December 2012 the FAA is authorized to begin proposing regulations concerning the safety of passengers and crew involved in commercial spaceflight. As previously discussed, NASA plans to impose its own set of requirements, standards, and processes that commercial partners must meet to obtain a certification before transporting Agency personnel. Accordingly, NASA must coordinate with the FAA to avoid an environment of conflicting requirements and multiple sets of standards for commercial companies seeking to transport Government and non-Government passengers to low Earth orbit. Toward that end, the FAA and NASA have expressed a spirit of cooperation, and both groups have agreed that the goal is FAA licensing of commercially developed vehicles used to transport NASA personnel. Additionally, the agencies are co-locating personnel at NASA Headquarters, FAA field offices, and Johnson and Kennedy Space Centers to optimize Government oversight of commercial partners through compatible requirements, standards, and processes
Yes I know they *can* be but the SAA with ULA is *un* funded, correct (I wasn't clear)? If so then NASA does not have the authority to impose anything beyond setting the specs it wants to see. It's then up to ULA to *choose* whether or not to participate and if they do then because they are funding it 100% with their own money then ULA sets the rules *not* NASA. ULA knows what they are doing. The best thing NASA can do is to *get out of the way* and let ULA do its thing without interference.
As one potential customer of the private sector, NASA expects the CCDev Space Act Agreements to result in commercial capabilities that consider the Agency’s commercial crew transportation system certification requirements, but is not dictating specific system elements or mandating compliance with specific requirements. Rather, each participant operating under a CCDev Space Act Agreement is free to determine the system requirements and concepts that it believes best serve its target markets.Although NASA is the biggest and most viable customer for these companies in the near term, because compliance with NASA’s requirements is not mandatory it is possible that the companies’ designs will not track all of NASA’s requirements. To mitigate this risk, NASA may perform an analysis to identify shortfalls between the companies’ designs and the Agency’s requirements to improve the vehicle design or correct a known issue or defect. However, as discussed below, proceeding in this manner could create additional financial risks for the Agency.
Oversight in the Development, Test, and Evaluation Phase. Once the design phase has ended, NASA may award contracts, Space Act Agreements, or both for commercial vehicle development, test, and evaluation. At that point, the Agency will be both stimulating a commercial crew industry and assisting with the development of safe, reliable, and cost-effective commercial vehicles that meet NASA’s Certification Requirements. While NASA would still need to maintain insight into the development of each vehicle, at that stage in the process the Agency may assume more of an oversight role in granting approval or direction to companies as they move toward certification. As of May 2011, NASA had not finalized the oversight model for this phase, including defining key milestones regarding what will be required of commercial companies.Establishing an insight/oversight model, however, is not without risks, particularly with respect to ensuring fair and open competition if, for example, the Agency were to transition from Space Act Agreements in the design phase to fixed-price contracts in the development, test, and evaluation phase. NASA would need to ensure it structured its insight during the design phase of CCDev so as not to give participants an unfair competitive advantage over non-participants. For example, although NASA’s solicitation for vehicle development and crew transportation services would be open to non-participants, if NASA identifies differences in partners’ designs and NASA requirements, only CCDev partners would have received that analysis, which could increase the likelihood that their vehicles will meet contract requirements.NASA has received at least one question in response to the CCDev 2 announcement for proposals regarding the relationship between CCDev awards and future contracts. An industry representative inquired whether NASA anticipates overlap between CCDev 2 and any future procurement of commercial crew demonstration or transportation services.NASA responded that there is no relationship between the two phases of acquisition. However, if NASA provides its CCDev partners information relevant to the differences between their designs and NASA requirements, non-CCDev companies may perceive that as an unfair competitive advantage. According to the Agency’s Space Act Agreements Guide, such a relationship or perceived relationship could raise conflict of interest concerns. If NASA fails to address such potential conflicts or develop appropriate mitigation plans, the Agency could be faced with a bid protest, which could cause delays in the procurement.
Quote from: clongton on 07/23/2011 01:46 pmYes I know they *can* be but the SAA with ULA is *un* funded, correct (I wasn't clear)? If so then NASA does not have the authority to impose anything beyond setting the specs it wants to see. It's then up to ULA to *choose* whether or not to participate and if they do then because they are funding it 100% with their own money then ULA sets the rules *not* NASA. ULA knows what they are doing. The best thing NASA can do is to *get out of the way* and let ULA do its thing without interference.Huh? So what is your point? NASA isnt adding more than what is in the SAA
Opinion... NASA could probably defer the shift from SAA to FAR for CCDev, but it may potentially take longer (more phases) and maybe cost more. NASA is effectively prioritizing "NASA ISS crew" over "[generic] commercial crew" in order to meet ISS crew needs by 2015-2016 and apparently feel the need to start imposing requirements to ensure they get what they need when they need it sooner rather than later. (E.g., see requirements in this thread)edit: clarify what's in the report vs. my opinion.
I remain far less hopeful about America developing commercial crewed capability than I was six months ago.
Opinion... NASA could probably defer the shift from SAA to FAR for CCDev, but it may potentially take longer (more phases) and maybe cost more. NASA is effectively prioritizing "NASA ISS crew" over "[generic] commercial crew" in order to meet ISS crew needs by 2015-2016 and apparently feel the need to start imposing requirements to ensure they get what they need when they need it sooner rather than later. (E.g., see requirements in this thread)
Does NASA need to do anything more than include a CCDev-3 milestone, paying half of the total payment, that requires astronauts shall be carried to the International Space Station and and safely returned to Earth by 31st December 2015?
CCDev are development agreements, the equivalent operational contracts may need a name.
NASA Policy Directive 1050.1I states that funded Space ActAgreements may be used only when the Agency’s objective cannotbe accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant,or cooperative agreement. The Committee believes that the currentpractice by NASA has gone beyond what is cited under NASA’sown policy directive. Such misuse of these authorities underminesthe oversight of NASA in the procurement process and threatenscrew safety. For future rounds of commercial crew competitionsand acquisitions, NASA shall limit the use of funded Space ActAgreements as stated in the directive in order to preserve criticalNASA oversight of Federal funds provided for spacecraft andlaunch vehicle development.
Looks like the Senate doesn't like Space Act Agreements either:QuoteNASA Policy Directive 1050.1I states that funded Space ActAgreements may be used only when the Agency’s objective cannotbe accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant,or cooperative agreement. The Committee believes that the currentpractice by NASA has gone beyond what is cited under NASA’sown policy directive. Such misuse of these authorities underminesthe oversight of NASA in the procurement process and threatenscrew safety. For future rounds of commercial crew competitionsand acquisitions, NASA shall limit the use of funded Space ActAgreements as stated in the directive in order to preserve criticalNASA oversight of Federal funds provided for spacecraft andlaunch vehicle development.
WTF as in Win the Future?
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/16/2011 06:41 pmWTF as in Win the Future? Still, this is ridiculous that Congress is micro-managing like this. Who put this part into the document? This reeks of undue lobbyist interference.
Still, this is ridiculous that Congress is micro-managing like this.
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/16/2011 06:41 pmWTF as in Win the Future? Still, this is ridiculous that Congress is micro-managing like this. Who put this part into the document? This reeks of undue lobbyist interference. I mean, it could be partly due to lobbying by the astronaut corp (guarantee that's NOT the only reason!!!), but honestly, we can have BOTH low cost AND high crew safety, but not with directives by Congress like this!!!
If ...you come to believe that your friend is instead playing loose with that trust, wouldn't you call him to account? That's exactly what is happening here.
For whatever reason, right or wrong, Congress believes NASA is not adhering to the intent of the delegated authority and is pulling it back a notch to ensure compliance, as they are Constitutionally required to do.There is nothing cynical happening here.
The Congress created the SSA's to relax that requirement a little on NASA and in exchange, NASA is expected to be judicious in their use of the authority that the Congress has delegated to them. In this case Congress believes that NASA has overstepped the intent of that delegated authority
Whether NASA is or is not playing loose with the SAA's is not the issue.
Congress wrote the rules and delegated the authority to NASA with the expectation that NASA would follow those rules. It would appear that NASA did not follow the rules
{snip}QuoteCongress wrote the rules and delegated the authority to NASA with the expectation that NASA would follow those rules. It would appear that NASA did not follow the rulesEvidence please. "The Committee says so" doesn't count.
The sizable increase proposed in the budget request, however, was premature given the still-undefined acquisition strategy for the Commercial Crew Development Round 3 (CCDev 3) awards and the uncertainty behind assumptions about pricing, schedule, market demand, flight opportunities and other economic factors that are essentially unknowable at this time.
This is largely a non-event IMHO. NASA counsel and IG have already weighed in with the opinion that funded SAA's are inappropriate for CCDev-3, and NASA has already stated its intent to move towards FAR for CCDev-3.
Congress is a court. For what sounds like a criminal offence the standard of evidence is "Beyond reasonable doubt".
Quote from: clongton on 09/16/2011 07:22 pmCongress wrote the rules and delegated the authority to NASA with the expectation that NASA would follow those rules. It would appear that NASA did not follow the rulesEvidence please. "The Committee says so" doesn't count.
Funded Agreements are Agreements under which appropriated funds are transferred to a domestic Agreement Partner to accomplish an Agency mission. Funded Agreements may be used only when the Agency's objective cannot be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.
Why NASA's own policy is so restrictive with respect to funded SAA's or whether NASA could change the policy to be more expansive is another subject and a question for lawyers. In any case, today the policy is what it is and the rules are what they are.
Quote from: joek on 09/16/2011 09:05 pmWhy NASA's own policy is so restrictive with respect to funded SAA's or whether NASA could change the policy to be more expansive is another subject and a question for lawyers. In any case, today the policy is what it is and the rules are what they are.Perhaps I should phrase it like this - when did NASA break this rule? With what action? When was a SAA used (or attempted to be used) when it should not have been and with which contractor(s)? The wording by the senate suggests such a violation has occurred.
Still, this is ridiculous that Congress is micro-managing like this. Who put this part into the document? This reeks of undue lobbyist interference. I mean, it could be partly due to lobbying by the astronaut corp (guarantee that's NOT the only reason!!!), but honestly, we can have BOTH low cost AND high crew safety, but not with directives by Congress like this!!!
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 09/04/2011 07:31 pmDoes NASA need to do anything more than include a CCDev-3 milestone, paying half of the total payment, that requires astronauts shall be carried to the International Space Station and and safely returned to Earth by 31st December 2015?Yes, it does and this is obvious to those with a clue.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/16/2011 06:47 pmStill, this is ridiculous that Congress is micro-managing like this. Who put this part into the document? This reeks of undue lobbyist interference. I mean, it could be partly due to lobbying by the astronaut corp (guarantee that's NOT the only reason!!!), but honestly, we can have BOTH low cost AND high crew safety, but not with directives by Congress like this!!!Quote from: Jim on 09/04/2011 08:03 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 09/04/2011 07:31 pmDoes NASA need to do anything more than include a CCDev-3 milestone, paying half of the total payment, that requires astronauts shall be carried to the International Space Station and and safely returned to Earth by 31st December 2015?Yes, it does and this is obvious to those with a clue.So it seems pretty necessary, NASA has been talking about this for awhile (not just Congress) Also, we should prioritize ISS transport over the general commercial sector, as it exists now and is threatened by single crew sourcing.
IF you believe the primary objectives of CCDev are and have been to develop...1. ...generic non-NASA-specific commercial orbital human transportation capabilities with the goal of promoting that and related markets, THEN NASA has not broken the rules.2. ...NASA ISS crew transportation capabilities with the goal of acquiring NASA ISS crew transportation services, THEN NASA has broken the rules.
Quote from: joek on 09/16/2011 09:56 pmIF you believe the primary objectives of CCDev are and have been to develop...1. ...generic non-NASA-specific commercial orbital human transportation capabilities with the goal of promoting that and related markets, THEN NASA has not broken the rules.2. ...NASA ISS crew transportation capabilities with the goal of acquiring NASA ISS crew transportation services, THEN NASA has broken the rules.Sounds like lawyer gibberish to me. The second could be considered a part of the first. That's the party line of the administration, as far as I understand it - "by serving as an anchor tenant, we'll help the HSF market grow", essentially. So I guess whether it's permissible or not comes down to whether one thinks there is/might be a non-NASA use for these vehicles or not, correct? Depending on who you ask, you get a different answer to that one.
I watched it. Nothing answers why Congress decided to get involved. That part still smells to me.
whether NASA has the time and money to fund development for non-NASA use indepedently of NASA-specific needs.
The rules are NASA policy; per NASA Policy Directive 1050.11 section 1(c):QuoteFunded Agreements are Agreements under which appropriated funds are transferred to a domestic Agreement Partner to accomplish an Agency mission. Funded Agreements may be used only when the Agency's objective cannot be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.I have highlighted what I *suspect* might be the offense. SAA's take Congressional oversight out of the funding that Congress made available. Realizing that, Congress required a very narrow interpretation of when these funds may be used and when they may not. It's not a matter of whether or not the cause is a worthy one or not. It's a matter of whether or not the agency could have funded the project thru normal channels. SAA's are designed specifically to allow projects to move forward that would not have otherwise made the cut thru normal channels. Apparently the Congress feels that in this instance, the use of the SAA was not legally allowed per the language of the funding authorization. In other words, while the project was worthy, NASA overstepped its bounds in the use of these funds. This project should have gone thru the normal procurement route, not a SAA. In response, we notice that NASA did not object to the Congressional inquiry. YMMV.
Quote from: clongton on 09/17/2011 01:42 amThe rules are NASA policy; per NASA Policy Directive 1050.11 section 1(c):QuoteFunded Agreements are Agreements under which appropriated funds are transferred to a domestic Agreement Partner to accomplish an Agency mission. Funded Agreements may be used only when the Agency's objective cannot be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.I have highlighted what I *suspect* might be the offense. SAA's take Congressional oversight out of the funding that Congress made available. Realizing that, Congress required a very narrow interpretation of when these funds may be used and when they may not. It's not a matter of whether or not the cause is a worthy one or not. It's a matter of whether or not the agency could have funded the project thru normal channels. SAA's are designed specifically to allow projects to move forward that would not have otherwise made the cut thru normal channels. Apparently the Congress feels that in this instance, the use of the SAA was not legally allowed per the language of the funding authorization. In other words, while the project was worthy, NASA overstepped its bounds in the use of these funds. This project should have gone thru the normal procurement route, not a SAA. In response, we notice that NASA did not object to the Congressional inquiry. YMMV.I bet you're right. Though it could be argued that if part of the "objective" includes achieving all this stuff within a highly constrained budget. i.e. it cannot "be accomplished through use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement" within the alloted budget.
The rules are NASA policy; per NASA Policy Directive 1050.11 section 1(c):QuoteFunded Agreements are Agreements under which appropriated funds are transferred to a domestic Agreement Partner to accomplish an Agency mission. Funded Agreements may be used only when the Agency's objective cannot be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.I have highlighted what I *suspect* might be the offense. SAA's take Congressional oversight out of the funding that Congress made available. Realizing that, Congress required a very narrow interpretation of when these funds may be used and when they may not. It's not a matter of whether or not the cause is a worthy one or not. It's a matter of whether or not the agency could have funded the project thru normal channels. SAA's are designed specifically to allow projects to move forward that would not have otherwise made the cut thru normal procurement channels. Apparently the Congress feels that in this instance, the use of the SAA was not legally allowed per the language of the funding authorization. In other words, while the project was worthy, NASA overstepped its bounds in the use of these funds. This project should have gone thru the normal procurement route, not a SAA. If true, this is a clear misappropriation of funds. In response, we notice that NASA did not object to the Congressional inquiry, but quietly complied. YMMV.
Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 09/16/2011 10:26 pmwhether NASA has the time and money to fund development for non-NASA use indepedently of NASA-specific needs.I don't understand the difference. What would be an example of "non-NASA use" hardware that is paid for by CCDev?
p.s. the quote is from me.
SAA's are designed specifically to allow projects to move forward that would not have otherwise made the cut thru normal procurement channels.
Apparently the Congress feels that in this instance, the use of the SAA was not legally allowed per the language of the funding authorization. In other words, while the project was worthy, NASA overstepped its bounds in the use of these funds. This project should have gone thru the normal procurement route, not a SAA. If true, this is a clear misappropriation of funds. In response, we notice that NASA did not object to the Congressional inquiry, but quietly complied. YMMV.
Haha. I told you all that this was coming. Welcome to "commercial". Guess it sucks when "the internet" and their ideology is proven wrong. This is what you get when you have no strategy for anything moving forward on anything. When "the internet" and "space advocates" demand more government money for "commercial" without thinking anything through just the demand for more money and the actual NASA employees needing to find a program to latch onto. More or the same amount of money but nothing else equals the bigger stick for NASA. Many of you "advocates" are in some degree responsible for this. Relish the bed you have made through your advocacy.
Quote from: OV-106 on 09/17/2011 02:01 amHaha. I told you all that this was coming. Welcome to "commercial". Guess it sucks when "the internet" and their ideology is proven wrong. This is what you get when you have no strategy for anything moving forward on anything. When "the internet" and "space advocates" demand more government money for "commercial" without thinking anything through just the demand for more money and the actual NASA employees needing to find a program to latch onto. More or the same amount of money but nothing else equals the bigger stick for NASA. Many of you "advocates" are in some degree responsible for this. Relish the bed you have made through your advocacy. what?
Somebody has to clip the wings of SpaceX and ULA or SLS will look even worse than Constellation. While NASA is figuring out how to not cross the 60 billion mark on the first SLS test flight, SpaceX and ULA could be on the moon and have spent 6 billion, if I worked at NASA I would be figuring out a way to slow them down as well...
the senate just loves to clip wings nasa or new space for pork
Haha. I told you all that this was coming. Welcome to "commercial". Guess it sucks when "the internet" and their ideology is proven wrong.
September 16th 2011, another dark day for American spaceflight.Does anyone think it was a coincidence that ULA and ATK both entered into unfunded SAA’s once NASA changed the CCP rules? The CCP is now on track to follow in the footsteps of all previous NASA manned space programs, massively over budget and months, if not years, late. Innovation will be buried under tons of paperwork and “requirements” from the last century. Affordability and flexibility will take a backseat to purported safety while the usual suspects feed at the NASA trough.Based on these changes I am pretty sure who is going to win the “competition” for a “commercial” crew contract. The fix is in and I was naive to ever believe that the leopard could change its spots.Maybe in another fifty years…
September 16th 2011, another dark day for American spaceflight.Does anyone think it was a coincidence that ULA and ATK both entered into unfunded SAA’s once NASA changed the CCP rules?
..i award you no points..
Elbon took a more nuanced view to the debate. “I think it’s unfortunate that the debate is centered around the contract mechanism and is not focused on the attributes that whatever mechanism is put in place needs to have,” he said, adding that he believes an SAA-based or FAR-based approach can be successful if those attributes are there. The biggest issue, he said, is who is responsible for design decisions: “The design decisions in this current environment rest with us as the developer,” he said, referring to the SAA-based CCDev-2 award Boeing currently is working out.
John Elbon of Boeing stated before hand that this is not that big of a deal:QuoteElbon took a more nuanced view to the debate. “I think it’s unfortunate that the debate is centered around the contract mechanism and is not focused on the attributes that whatever mechanism is put in place needs to have,” he said, adding that he believes an SAA-based or FAR-based approach can be successful if those attributes are there. The biggest issue, he said, is who is responsible for design decisions: “The design decisions in this current environment rest with us as the developer,” he said, referring to the SAA-based CCDev-2 award Boeing currently is working out. http://www.newspacejournal.com/2011/08/13/boeing-on-test-pilots-far-vs-saa-and-more/
Incidentally, does anyone know what a level two requirement is?
Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 09/19/2011 05:02 pmIncidentally, does anyone know what a level two requirement is?NASA's WBS's (Work Breakdown Structures) define three levels of organization that NASA controls. Short and sweet:Level 1 - the entire program (for example, Constellation)Level 2 - specific projects (for example, Orion, Ares, etc.)Level 3 - systemsThere are additional levels - systems, subsystems, etc - usually managed by the contractors.
IMHO, stopping at level 2 is nice but I can tell you right now that will have NASA significantly "more involved" in what the contractors are doing than was done under the SAA. Which, as I understand it, is what we are going for in the first place (to be more involved in setting requirements). Whether that's a good thing or bad thing, well that's yet to be seen and basically opinion anyway.
Thanks, that was very informative! Quote from: BeanEstimator on 09/19/2011 09:28 pmIMHO, stopping at level 2 is nice but I can tell you right now that will have NASA significantly "more involved" in what the contractors are doing than was done under the SAA. Which, as I understand it, is what we are going for in the first place (to be more involved in setting requirements). Whether that's a good thing or bad thing, well that's yet to be seen and basically opinion anyway.Can you comment on the extent to which the fixed requirements/fixed milestones approach will be continued? As someone who has worked as an engineering contractor, I've found that even small change requests can wreak havoc with a project schedule and costs.
Quote from: peter-b on 09/19/2011 09:34 pmThanks, that was very informative! Quote from: BeanEstimator on 09/19/2011 09:28 pmIMHO, stopping at level 2 is nice but I can tell you right now that will have NASA significantly "more involved" in what the contractors are doing than was done under the SAA. Which, as I understand it, is what we are going for in the first place (to be more involved in setting requirements). Whether that's a good thing or bad thing, well that's yet to be seen and basically opinion anyway.Can you comment on the extent to which the fixed requirements/fixed milestones approach will be continued? As someone who has worked as an engineering contractor, I've found that even small change requests can wreak havoc with a project schedule and costs.well...from talking to and listening to phil & co. "as much as possible".that being said, i expect you will see solid fixed milestones (easy to lay down imho).you will not see solid requirements. thats why we want more involvement. typically requirements are developed in what some might call a "joint" fashion between the gov and the ctr. what you will have, imho, is nasa jointly developing system level reqts (if i interpret their video and level 2 info correctly). that will add time, overhead, people, and processes into the equation. I will not comment on the good/bad/indifferent of this. but it doesn't take a genius to see this is what nasa wants/thinks it needs - more involvement in requirements setting and development. will they try to fix the requirements, yup. 'as much as possible' when you have the gov/nasa in at least to level 2 on the reqts, you essentially have gov/nasa in on design. read into that what you will. is the sky falling? no. is this ideal for cutting costs? no. does it seem like nasa is trying to split the difference? yes. will nasa be more involved in requirement setting and levying on the contractors? you betcha.
The 1100 series of requirements were released today as well in draft form.
Quote from: erioladastra on 09/20/2011 01:01 amThe 1100 series of requirements were released today as well in draft form.Can they be downloaded from somewhere?
Who do you think will win??? Boeing???
Not sure what you're getting at with respect to ULA and ATK? Are you suggesting that NASA will change the acquisition process to allow separate bidding/acquisition of launch vehicles and spacecraft? (Everything NASA has said argues against that, but I guess we'll see.)
Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 09/18/2011 05:49 pmDoes anyone think it was a coincidence that ULA and ATK both entered into unfunded SAA’s once NASA changed the CCP rules? Yes it is a coincidence - the unfunded SAA's were in the works for many months even before the decision on how to administer the next round.
Does anyone think it was a coincidence that ULA and ATK both entered into unfunded SAA’s once NASA changed the CCP rules?
Quote from: peter-b on 09/20/2011 06:13 amQuote from: erioladastra on 09/20/2011 01:01 amThe 1100 series of requirements were released today as well in draft form.Can they be downloaded from somewhere? Unfortunately the most recent are behind a firewall. For the last publicly accessible doc's, see this thread
Quote from: HIP2BSQRE on 09/18/2011 07:45 pmWho do you think will win??? Boeing???Oh yes, Lockheed/Boeing. (or ULA/Boeing if you prefer)Quote from: joek on 09/18/2011 08:44 pmNot sure what you're getting at with respect to ULA and ATK? Are you suggesting that NASA will change the acquisition process to allow separate bidding/acquisition of launch vehicles and spacecraft? (Everything NASA has said argues against that, but I guess we'll see.)There are drivers to the possibility of NASA changing the acquisition process, the need for a quick backup for the Soyuz being the primary, NASA's foredoomed BFR being another. However, more likely NASA will continue to push requirements that preclude any serious innovation while creating an unfavorable investment environment for new startups. When the regulatory environment is susceptible to changes of the magnitude of the change we are discussing here how many venture capitalists are going to be willing to provide funding?Quote from: erioladastra on 09/18/2011 09:36 pmQuote from: Norm Hartnett on 09/18/2011 05:49 pmDoes anyone think it was a coincidence that ULA and ATK both entered into unfunded SAA’s once NASA changed the CCP rules? Yes it is a coincidence - the unfunded SAA's were in the works for many months even before the decision on how to administer the next round.Nope, it is not. McAlister and Jett both stated during their July 16th presentation that NASA had been considering changes to the CCP for many months (15?). Further the date the OIG changed the Space Act Agreement Guide was June 2011 and the draft was issued in May 2011, no doubt those changes were in work for many months. So the development of ULA’s and ATK’s unfunded SAAs paralleled the changing regulations and, once enacted, was acted upon by both. Was it a conspiracy? No. Was it business as usual? Yes. Was it a coincidence? Not a chance.Look I don’t think this is a deep, dark conspiracy, I do think this was another NASA cultural failure. NASA had a chance to really change the way they do business and achieve some real changes in how we get to LEO (with multiple providers). Instead we will end up with one provider at a high cost both to the taxpayer and to America’s spaceflight capabilities.Mr. Musk once estimated that NASA overhead had added about 25% to the cost of the Falcon 9. How much is the overhead from this change going to add to the cost of development of the CCT? What do we get for all that added cost?
Look I don’t think this is a deep, dark conspiracy, I do think this was another NASA cultural failure. NASA had a chance to really change the way they do business and achieve some real changes in how we get to LEO (with multiple providers). Instead we will end up with one provider at a high cost both to the taxpayer and to America’s spaceflight capabilities.
Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 09/20/2011 03:18 pmLook I don’t think this is a deep, dark conspiracy, I do think this was another NASA cultural failure. NASA had a chance to really change the way they do business and achieve some real changes in how we get to LEO (with multiple providers). Instead we will end up with one provider at a high cost both to the taxpayer and to America’s spaceflight capabilities.It isn't that. NASA has constraints it must live within and it just can't give money away willynilly. It was silly for people to think otherwise
The proposed strategy is a firm fixed price contract instrument based on milestones. This will maximize industry retention of intellectual property rights.
Concerning the regulations aspects of things, I believe that Ed Mango said that they were working jointly with the FAA in order to have common regulations. Apparently the FAA division that is in charge of this and the NASA commercial crew program share office space in order to be able to work together in order to provide a common approach. Also the presentation that I linked says that the IP will be negotiable in a non-traditional FAR contract. The minutes to the NAC meeting also say the following on the ownership of IP:QuoteThe proposed strategy is a firm fixed price contract instrument based on milestones. This will maximize industry retention of intellectual property rights.
I thought that NASA could not "own" any IP?