Author Topic: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement  (Read 67371 times)

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32

The 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
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32

The 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
Expound.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32

The 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
Expound.

You haven't listened to the last 15-20 minutes (~40:00) of the video. Briefly the NASA lawyers (OGC) are saying that an SAA will not give NASA sufficient grounds for requirements. Therefore CCP wants to go to contracts for remaining portion of Program. Industry lawyers say that other government lawyers (GAO & OIG) with purview say differently.

QED fireworks o.O

Edited to include lawyer organizations.
Edited to include time hack.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2011 08:00 pm by Norm Hartnett »
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
If I understand the presentation right, it's a modification to the SAA approach to allow for greater flexibility; i.e. allowing transfer of IP if desired, or allowing requirements to be fixed to payments.

Personally, I see it as good thing, as it means that NASA has done enough SAAs to actually know what the limitations to the original framework are.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
There are still other non FAR contracting mechanisms that can be used.  This isn't a big deal as some think. 

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Ideally, what NASA should pursue, rather than contracts or SAAs, are something called "tickets" for astronauts to fly on these new vehicles.


Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
There 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=0

Edit: CCDev3 and only two weeks to reply.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2011 07:58 pm by Norm Hartnett »
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Ideally, 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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
There 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=0

Edit: CCDev3 and only two weeks to reply.


No, that is a request for a statement of capability

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
The presentation talks about "small business subcontracting goals"...

While small businesses are great, doesn't this cut down on the potential for efficiency through vertical integration? Does this do anything to improve the cost of any bolt or valve that has the word "aerospace" on it, or is this intended to protect the existing aerospace parts supplier market?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #10 on: 07/21/2011 08:15 pm »
Ideally, 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.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #11 on: 07/21/2011 08:29 pm »
I agree with Robotbeat. I think this is going in the wrong direction. If anything it should be going the other way, loosening the grip on commercial. Let commercial develop and prove out their spacecraft the same way they would for any other commercial product, like a passenger aircraft for example, and present NASA with an accomplished flight rate and safety record. If NASA wants to buy seats on these spacecraft they can. If not let them pay triple to ride less often on a Soyuz. As long as Bigelow is able to fly several of his BA-330's, there will be enough business for these spacecraft manufacturers to realize a reasonable ROI on their own, without NASA thank you very much.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #12 on: 07/21/2011 08:30 pm »
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.

 
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #13 on: 07/21/2011 08:39 pm »

But 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.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2011 08:40 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #14 on: 07/21/2011 08:42 pm »
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.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #15 on: 07/21/2011 08:48 pm »

But 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.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #16 on: 07/21/2011 08:50 pm »

But 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.
It also feels like NASA anticipated this reaction from industry.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #17 on: 07/21/2011 08:52 pm »
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.

I'm just sorry I watched this video.  "Blue Orgin – flying blind".

Sorry its just the way I feel today.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #18 on: 07/21/2011 09:00 pm »
It 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.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #19 on: 07/21/2011 09:00 pm »
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.

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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #20 on: 07/21/2011 09:06 pm »
It 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.

It is still there

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPD&c=1050&s=1H

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/NPD_attachments/NAII_1050_1B.pdf
« Last Edit: 07/21/2011 09:07 pm by Jim »

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #21 on: 07/21/2011 09:17 pm »
Sorry Jim but Chapter 5 is missing.

I'll go through the language of the 2008 version and this 2011 version but I know that the lawyers for both SpaceX and Blue Origin were very concerned.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #22 on: 07/21/2011 09:24 pm »
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/289016main_Space%20Act%20Agreements%20Guide%202008.pdf
The 2008 Space Act Agreement had extensive language on Funded SAAs.

The 2011 Space Act Agreement says

1.8. FUNDED AGREEMENT
Funded SAA are agreements where appropriated funds are transferred to a domestic Partner to
accomplish an Agency mission. Funded SAAs should only be used when Agency objectives
cannot be achieved through any other agreement instrument, such as a Federal Acquisition
Regulation contract under the Armed Services Procurement Act, a Grant or Cooperative
Agreement under the Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act of 1977 (Chiles Act), or a
Reimbursable or Nonreimbursable agreement under the Space Act. Prior to using a funded SAA,
the Center Director or Mission Directorate Associate Administrator, or Assistant Administrator,
as appropriate must determine, in consultation with the Office of the General Counsel or Chief
Counsel, as appropriate, and the CFO, that a funded SAA is the appropriate legal instrument for
the activity. Additional guidance on Funded SAAs is under development and will be provided at
a later time.

This kind of change has got to be worrying when you are expecting to derive income from a Funded SAA.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #23 on: 07/21/2011 11:01 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2011 11:02 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #24 on: 07/21/2011 11:11 pm »
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.
No, that's not at all what this is about. This is about increasing the bureaucracy, since--according to the video--NASA doesn't feel SAA gives them enough authority to mandate specific requirements. According to slide 14, this increases the amount of NASA management. I'm concerned that this is NASA's crushing bureaucracy trying to get a foothold in Commercial Crew. I'd like to be proven wrong.
Quote
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.
You have it backwards.
Quote

Other than that, I think this is a positive thing for commercial crew.

Ross.
Did you watch the whole video? I don't see how that's the sort of impression you could get.

Maybe Jim is right (one can't do much better than to just follow all of his predictions!), and this is no big deal, but I'm not convinced, yet.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2011 11:13 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #25 on: 07/22/2011 12:11 am »
The fact that every person involved in commercial crew was very much opposed (to the point of being almost hostile) to the proposal of moving away from Space Act agreements is telling. It's like NASA is saying "this is in our best interest as it allows us more oversight over you. It's better for us as it allows us to the human rating requirements that we have imposed on you. We win with this proposal and we don't care if you lose." Very disapointing. Bobby Block almost called it a conspiracy.
« Last Edit: 07/22/2011 04:56 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #26 on: 07/22/2011 12:20 am »
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.

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.).
« Last Edit: 07/22/2011 12:30 am by yg1968 »

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #27 on: 07/22/2011 02:53 am »
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.

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.).

This is correct.  Moreover, this will dismantle what has made COTS and CCDev so successful to this point.  The FAR requirements add layer upon layer of bureaucracy and delay.   

I have been told that the old SAA model would have worked just fine.  I do agree with Jim that NASA needs to have the ability to impose requirements.  However, this can all be done on the front end with an SAA.  At least, this is how one incredibly brilliant lawyer explained it to me.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #28 on: 07/22/2011 04:50 pm »
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32

The 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

Here is the presentation from that forum converted into a PDF format:
« Last Edit: 07/22/2011 04:51 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #29 on: 07/23/2011 03:26 am »
SpaceNews has written an article about this:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110722-nasa-shifts-plan-ccdev.html

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #30 on: 07/23/2011 04:44 am »
Satellite Spotlight has also picked up on the story.

http://satellite.tmcnet.com/topics/satellite/articles/199626-post-shuttle-nasa-commercial-sectors-differ-timetable-means.htm

They also pointed out something I'd overlooked.

Quote
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.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #31 on: 07/23/2011 05:27 am »
I admit that I know little about the mechanics of NASA contracting, despite having worked under them for decades, but this "Commitment to Industry" from slide 15 concerns me:

"Allowing flexibility in design solutions below Program level 2 type requirements"

The inverse of this means that there should be no "flexibility in design solutions" for "Program level 2 type requirements" and above.

How does no flexibility in design solutions for the most critical aspects, which could be anything that involves crew safety, differ from a traditional NASA contract?
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #32 on: 07/23/2011 06:09 am »
They also pointed out something I'd overlooked.

The schedule slide is labeled "Notional" so I didn't read much into it.  I expect the details won't be known until well into IDC (if not later).  And as always, schedule will depend on funding; good reasons for NASA to remain conservative/pessimistic with regards to schedule at this point.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #33 on: 07/23/2011 12:40 pm »
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.

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

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #34 on: 07/23/2011 12:53 pm »
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.

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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #35 on: 07/23/2011 01:14 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 07/23/2011 01:16 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #36 on: 07/23/2011 01:31 pm »


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.

No, they can be funded.  COTS is a funded SAA

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #37 on: 07/23/2011 01:32 pm »
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.

FAA has no certification requirementsvfor NASA

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #38 on: 07/23/2011 01:46 pm »


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.

No, they can be funded.  COTS is a funded SAA

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.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #39 on: 07/23/2011 01:58 pm »
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.

FAA has no certification requirements for NASA

They will after December 2012.

http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11/IG-11-022.pdf

Quote
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

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #40 on: 07/23/2011 02:32 pm »
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.

Huh?  So what is your point?  NASA isnt adding more than what is in the SAA

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #41 on: 07/23/2011 02:35 pm »
These parts of the NASA OIG Report are relevant for the purpose of the discussion:

See p. 12 of the report (p. 24 of the PDF):
Quote
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.

See also p. 17 of the report (p. 30 of the PDF):
Quote
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.

http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11/IG-11-022.pdf
« Last Edit: 07/23/2011 02:39 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #42 on: 07/23/2011 02:44 pm »
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.

Huh?  So what is your point?  NASA isnt adding more than what is in the SAA

Perhaps, one way around the problem is to have NASA provide advice and oversight services relating to the certification requirements be done through unfunded SAAs (as was done in the case of ULA). Non-CCDev companies would be eligible for these agreements in order to avoid the conflicts of interests that are mentionned by the NASA OIG. The development of the spacecraft or LV would continue to be done through funded SAAs.

This May 20, 2011 RFI seems to be going in that direction:
http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=146443
« Last Edit: 07/23/2011 03:30 pm by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #43 on: 09/04/2011 12:32 am »
A bit late; this was published Aug 17 but haven't seen it posted... NASA's written response to questions raised during the July 20 forum as to why the move from SAA to FAR for CCDev-3, and why COTS could be done under SAA and CCDev-3 can not.  In brief...

COTS SAA's are not models for CCDev-3.  Under COTS, NASA did not impose any requirements other than normal and prudent management requirements present in any SAA.  Also, NASA didn't buy anything (take ownership of an item) under COTS.  If the COTS participants wanted to use the ISS as part of their capability demonstrations, they would have to meet the ISS interface requirements (SSP 50808) to ensure the safety of the ISS, just as would be required of any SAA partner using NASA facilities.

The choice to use ISS by COTS participants to demonstrate resupply capabilities (and thus meet SSP 50808) was not mandated, as "Participants may propose an alternative orbital test bed for the capability demonstrations.”  I.e., COTS SAA's were intended and constructed to develop and demonstrate [generic] commercial resupply capabilities, not ISS resupply capabilities.  (Of course if they wanted a CRS contract they would have to meet SSP 50808 requirements, but CRS is FAR, not 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.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2011 12:40 am by joek »

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #44 on: 09/04/2011 05:41 pm »
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.

Thanks for the update joek. I was initially surprised that there was not more public outcry from the industry about this but realized that "don't bite the hand that feeds you" still applies even though it is going to add massive costs to the CCDEV program. <sigh>

I certainly question the theory that the COTS Funded SAA was not for developing supply capability for the ISS, typical lawyer hairsplitting hogwash IMO.

It is interesting that, once again, NASA's response focused on the cost accounting and Intellectual Property aspects of FAR while it appeared that most of industry was far more worried on all the fair hiring practices, small business requirements, and etc. as drivers of increased costs under FAR.

There is no doubt that the desire to bring all of the requirements you referenced from the other thread into the development process early was the primary motivation for switching from Funded SAA's to a FAR based contract process but I can't help but wonder if the additional costs both in requirement compliance and in limiting innovation are going to offset the supposed savings in money and time you suspect they seek.

I remain far less hopeful about America developing commercial crewed capability than I was six months ago.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #45 on: 09/04/2011 06:53 pm »

I remain far less hopeful about America developing commercial crewed capability than I was six months ago.

The sky is not falling.  This is not going to change things.  The companies have FAR contracts and so it is not like they will have to learn to do anything.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #46 on: 09/04/2011 07:31 pm »
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?


COTS were development agreements and CRS are operational contracts.
CCDev are development agreements, the equivalent operational contracts may need a name.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #47 on: 09/04/2011 08:03 pm »

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?



Yes, it does and this is obvious to those with a clue.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #48 on: 09/04/2011 11:35 pm »
I remain far less hopeful about America developing commercial crewed capability than I was six months ago.

I remain optimistic as everyone appears to be working hard to make this work (per the NASA OIG report linked to in yg1968's previous post and the FAA's COMSTAC efforts).  Also, the funding profile for commercial crew has changed substantially since it was originally envisioned, and Congress is pushing hard for NASA to come up with an acquisition strategy ASAP.

While we may not get the originally envisioned broad-based commercial capabilities soon, I expect we'll at least get ISS crew capability.  The trick will be ensuring balance between NASA requirements and FAA regulations so potential not-just-NASA commercial offerings have a chance.  That IMHO is still a big challenge and a much more significant factor in the ultimate success of those commercial offerings than specific contract mechanisms.

CCDev are development agreements, the equivalent operational contracts may need a name.

At the moment it is referred to as "Commercial Crew Transportation" (CCT).
« Last Edit: 09/04/2011 11:36 pm by joek »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #49 on: 09/16/2011 06:39 pm »
Looks like the Senate doesn't like Space Act Agreements either, See the FY2012 CJS Legislative Report:

Quote
NASA Policy Directive 1050.1I states that funded Space Act
Agreements may be used only when the Agency’s objective cannot
be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant,
or cooperative agreement. The Committee believes that the current
practice by NASA has gone beyond what is cited under NASA’s
own policy directive. Such misuse of these authorities undermines
the oversight of NASA in the procurement process and threatens
crew safety. For future rounds of commercial crew competitions
and acquisitions, NASA shall limit the use of funded Space Act
Agreements as stated in the directive in order to preserve critical
NASA oversight of Federal funds provided for spacecraft and
launch vehicle development.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26787.msg808000#msg808000
« Last Edit: 09/16/2011 06:40 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #50 on: 09/16/2011 06:40 pm »
Looks like the Senate doesn't like Space Act Agreements either:

Quote
NASA Policy Directive 1050.1I states that funded Space Act
Agreements may be used only when the Agency’s objective cannot
be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant,
or cooperative agreement. The Committee believes that the current
practice by NASA has gone beyond what is cited under NASA’s
own policy directive. Such misuse of these authorities undermines
the oversight of NASA in the procurement process and threatens
crew safety. For future rounds of commercial crew competitions
and acquisitions, NASA shall limit the use of funded Space Act
Agreements as stated in the directive in order to preserve critical
NASA oversight of Federal funds provided for spacecraft and
launch vehicle development.
WTF?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #51 on: 09/16/2011 06:41 pm »
WTF as in "Win The Future?" ;)
« Last Edit: 09/16/2011 06:47 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #52 on: 09/16/2011 06:47 pm »
WTF 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!!!
« Last Edit: 09/16/2011 06:51 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #53 on: 09/16/2011 06:48 pm »
WTF 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 agree.

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #54 on: 09/16/2011 06:56 pm »
When I see something come out of Congress on the subject of NASA that doesn't reek of undue lobbyist interference, it'll be a wondeful day.
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #55 on: 09/16/2011 07:09 pm »
Seriously, it seems that as soon as something good, efficient, and effective is happening with NASA HSF, Congress has to screw it up.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #56 on: 09/16/2011 07:22 pm »
Still, this is ridiculous that Congress is micro-managing like this.

Chris, Congress is not micromanaging in this case. They are required by the Constitution to provide oversight of the funds it passes to agencies to execute the nation's business. 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 and is simply pulling in the reigns to ensure compliance with the intent of the SAA's.

If you are held responsible for your mother's money and you allow your trusted friend some latitude in helping you use it with the expectation that he will be careful with it, and 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.

Whether NASA is or is not playing loose with the SAA's is not the issue. NASA doesn't have any inherent right to write those SAA's themselves, except as the Congress has delegated to them. 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.

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 so now Congress is taking corrective action. There is nothing cynical happening here. If anything, it will keep NASA out of trouble by mandating compliance with the SAA Act.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2011 07:25 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #57 on: 09/16/2011 07:28 pm »
WTF 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!!!

It was inadvisable for a lobbyist to high light this.  Congressmen many not know anything about rockets but they can read.  The suspicion that one of the reasons SAA projects are cheaper than FAR projects is that Congress has been tricked into mandating unnecessary paperwork.  On a cost plus contract the contractors charge the government by the word.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #58 on: 09/16/2011 07:34 pm »
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.

When we were teenagers, my brother got a part-time job as a cleaning guy at a hospital.  They gave him a list of tasks, which he had difficulty stretching out to 3 hours of work, but had an 8 hour shift to fill.  The union guys physically threatened him for making them look bad. 

My take is that congress doesn't want the SAA milestone-based approach to make their Swine Launch System look rediculously bad in terms of bang for buck (even more) or more importantly become unpopular in their districts so they are burdening a more efficient process.  "Cool it with SAA's.  We are adding a mandatory snout requirement." 
« Last Edit: 09/16/2011 07:36 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #59 on: 09/16/2011 07:48 pm »
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

How? What makes them think this? If they're going to place restrictions on certain procurement mechanisms, they could at least explain precisely what NASA did wrong that prompted this.

Quote
Whether NASA is or is not playing loose with the SAA's is not the issue.

It should be. What are the indications that they have?

Quote
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

Evidence please. "The Committee says so" doesn't count.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #60 on: 09/16/2011 07:54 pm »
{snip}
Quote
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

Evidence please. "The Committee says so" doesn't count.

Congress is a court.  For what sounds like a criminal offence the standard of evidence is "Beyond reasonable doubt".
« Last Edit: 09/16/2011 07:55 pm by A_M_Swallow »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #61 on: 09/16/2011 08:22 pm »
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.

The House language isn't as proscriptive, but they clearly intended to limit additional CCDev funds until NASA provides a commercial crew "acquisition strategy", and acquisition means using FAR:
Quote from: House CJS markup
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.

Why the Senate insisted on including more proscriptive language is debatable.  Maybe NASA is still considering using funded SAA's for some elements of CCDev-3 and the Senate language is intended to preclude that and force NASA to move towards acquisition sooner rather than later, and specifically to focus future funds on NASA/ISS-specific crew transportation acquisition, not generic commercial crew development.

In an ideal world there would be a more demonstrable and immediate need for generic commercial transportation; there would be time to develop generic commercial transportation capabilities; there would be time to tailor those generic commercial transportation capabilities to NASA/ISS-specific transportation requirements; and there would be budget to support those efforts.  Unfortunately, that's not the world today.

IF CCDev/CCT were to proceed along the same lines as COTS/CRS, we would potentially see some CCDev funded SAA's awarded with no requirement to satisfy NASA/ISS-specific requirements.  The House and Senate language appear to make it clear that is not how they want the funds used, and NASA appears to have previously concluded that time and budget do not support such an approach.

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #62 on: 09/16/2011 09:04 pm »
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.

Consider though that when NASA weighed in, they were asking for input from industry, meaning it wasn't a final decision. I watched the conference dealing with that and the response wasn't what I would call positive. Since then, I'm not sure what happened with that issue.

Congress is a court.  For what sounds like a criminal offence the standard of evidence is "Beyond reasonable doubt".

What do you call a verdict without a justification? "We believe" is not evidence, it's an opinion. We have the materials to verify that party A did/tried to do thing B which lead/could lead to consequence C, so we believe action D should be taken. This is what I would like to see. So far, there's only the "we believe action D should be taken" part.

Perhaps I've missed something, because I haven't watched recent hearings in their entirety, but did they ever bring up additional restrictions on SAAs during one of them as a result of misconduct? I would think if NASA misused them, it would have come up and caused a ruckus in the hearing threads over here.

That's another thing, NASA itself said that SAAs aren't the way to go, yet the senate claims NASA has tried to abuse that contracting mechanism by using it to do things beyond it's scope. They've done no such thing as far as I can tell. Am I missing something?
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #63 on: 09/16/2011 09:05 pm »
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
Evidence please. "The Committee says so" doesn't count.

The rules are NASA policy; per NASA Policy Directive 1050.11 section 1(c):
Quote
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.

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #64 on: 09/16/2011 09:20 pm »
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.

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.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #65 on: 09/16/2011 09:56 pm »
The passage on the SAA is in the report but not in the legislation (see pages 74-75):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1572pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1572pcs.pdf
« Last Edit: 09/16/2011 09:58 pm by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #66 on: 09/16/2011 09:56 pm »
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.
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.

With respect to funded CCDev SAA's, 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.

At some point in the past CCDev was probably envisioned as starting at (1) then moving to (2) (nominally similar to COTS/CRS).  Time and budget constraints changed some time ago, and require skipping (1) and moving directly to (2).

edit: Whether you believe NASA has previously broken the rules depends on how long ago you believe the landscape changed and CCDev became focused on (2).
« Last Edit: 09/16/2011 10:09 pm by joek »

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #67 on: 09/16/2011 10:13 pm »
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!!!


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?



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.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2011 10:15 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #68 on: 09/16/2011 10:20 pm »
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!!!


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?



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.
An SAA is NOT the same as what Swallow is saying. Mischaracterization.

Do we want spaceflight to become more inexpensive, less tied to just government, and more frequent (and thus much safer)? Or do we want to keep things the same way it has been since the start, namely very expensive, government-as-only-real-HSF-customer, infrequent, and very dangerous?

I want improvement. I don't know exactly which contracting approach is right for each specific program, but I do know that this meddling by Congress smells very fishy.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2011 10:28 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #69 on: 09/16/2011 10:26 pm »
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.

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.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #70 on: 09/16/2011 10:40 pm »
I seriously think this meddling from Congress happened earlier, before the conference in this video:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32

I just get the feeling that the NASA folk were chastised by Congress and that's what led to the move away from SAA. They seemed rather sheepish in the conference, apologetic in some ways.

I just have a bad feeling about this. Why is there such tremendous dissatisfaction with this from many of the potential commercial crew providers? Why is Congress stepping in? I don't have a lot of information on the answers to these questions. EDIT:But I'm listening to the conference held today, so that might answer some of those questions. http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32
« Last Edit: 09/16/2011 10:50 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #71 on: 09/16/2011 10:52 pm »
Looks like there's a recent status update on the CCP page you linked to. Gonna watch it when I have the time.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #72 on: 09/16/2011 10:54 pm »
Yeah, there was a conference today about it. You can watch the video here: (the sept 16th one)
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #73 on: 09/16/2011 11:25 pm »
I watched it. Nothing answers why Congress decided to get involved. That part still smells to me.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #74 on: 09/17/2011 01:05 am »
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.
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.

Agree there's room for lawyerly interpretation and the word "commercial" in CCDev is there for a reason--NASA as a customer, not necessarily the only customer, and NASA market as a subset of the larger commercial market.  The operative question is not whether there is a non-NASA use for these vehicles--NASA is proceeding on the assumption is that there will be--but whether NASA has the time and money to fund development for non-NASA use indepedently of NASA-specific needs.

If this was a serial (1) then (2) process, NASA could continue to use SAA's for (1), then proceed to (2).  However, time argues against that approach.  The alternative is to do (2) then (1), or do them simultaneously.  The current NASA strategy is to try and do them simultaneously; specifically, ensure (2) and not preclude (1).  That assumes NASA can get what they need without imposing requirements that make the result too NASA-specific and expensive to be useable for a broader commercial market.  That work is in progress and involves collaboration with the FAA as well as CCDev participants.

I watched it. Nothing answers why Congress decided to get involved. That part still smells to me.

Likely because Congress wants to ensure that *all* additional CCDev funds are used for efforts that are directly traceable to satisfying NASA/ISS crew transportation requirements by 2015/2016.  The result is likely to be a down-select sooner rather than later, and no CCDev money for generic or long term commercial efforts for the foreseeable future.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #75 on: 09/17/2011 01:42 am »
The rules are NASA policy; per NASA Policy Directive 1050.11 section 1(c):
Quote
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2011 01:48 am by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #76 on: 09/17/2011 01:44 am »
whether 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? 
« Last Edit: 09/19/2011 03:28 am by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #77 on: 09/17/2011 01:45 am »
The rules are NASA policy; per NASA Policy Directive 1050.11 section 1(c):
Quote
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2011 01:51 am by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #78 on: 09/17/2011 01:56 am »
The rules are NASA policy; per NASA Policy Directive 1050.11 section 1(c):
Quote
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.

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.

It's the only explanation that makes any sense to me and when I saw it, it was like a light going on. I have to deal with contracts all the time and the hardest part of it all is making sure that this or that activity is funded from the correct bucket of money. It has nothing to do with the project or activity itself. It has everything to do with how it is *supposed* to be funded. If I am right then there is nothing cynical going on here at all, like I said previously. It's Congress doing its job properly, not micromanaging.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2011 01:59 am by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #79 on: 09/17/2011 02:01 am »
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. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #80 on: 09/17/2011 02:02 am »
The rules are NASA policy; per NASA Policy Directive 1050.11 section 1(c):
Quote
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.

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.

Interesting.

Congress gave NASA $270 million for the 4 CCDev2 companies.  Possible defence - would they have accepted ordinary contracts paying so little for the work?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCDev
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/ccdev2award.html

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #81 on: 09/17/2011 02:03 am »
whether 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? 

Anything developed under CCDev-1 and CCDev-2; the participants are under no obligation to meet NASA crew transportation requirements (same was true for COTS development).


p.s. the quote is from me.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #82 on: 09/17/2011 02:10 am »
p.s. the quote is from me.
  Fixed.  sorry 'bout that.
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #83 on: 09/17/2011 02:53 am »
SAA's are designed specifically to allow projects to move forward that would not have otherwise made the cut thru normal procurement channels.

Correct. That is why NASA's charter specifically provides for "other transaction authority", which includes the various flavors of SAA's.  For details, see:  The Space Act Agreement Guide - NASA. and funded SAA update.

Quote
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.

Again, that depends on whether you believe the intent of the CCDev SAA's was for NASA to acquire NASA crew transport services.  CCDev certainly didn't start out out that way--at least as its only intent--and previous language is open to interpretation.  Correction: Reviewed the old legislation and while the FY2008 language doesn't same much about commercial crew, starting with FY2010 it's clear Congress viewed ISS crew transportation as the focus and priority for CCDev.

In any case, I believe the current legislative language has more to do with how Congress wants *all* the funds to be used in the future--specifically, developing and acquiring NASA/ISS crew transportation services (and nothing else), which precludes an SAA.

NASA could still choose to execute funded SAA's that did not involve NASA acquiring anything, per its charter to foster commercial use of space.  Congress obviously wants to preclude such use of CCDev funds in the future, and ensure all funds go towards, at minimum, meeting NASA's ISS crew transportation requirements.


edit: other half of post; update SAA guide link to current rev and update.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2011 06:05 am by joek »

Offline Geron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 229
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #84 on: 09/17/2011 04:17 am »
Ideally, 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.

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...

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #85 on: 09/17/2011 04:51 am »
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. 

what?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #86 on: 09/17/2011 05:13 am »
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. 

what?
Just smile and nod, trust me.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Diagoras

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #87 on: 09/17/2011 06:08 am »
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. 

what?

I think the use of "the internet" in quotes tops it off. And yes, what Downix said.

Quote
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...

That seems a tad bit conspiratorial. It's the Senate that crafted the requirement, right?
"It’s the typical binary world of 'NASA is great' or 'cancel the space program,' with no nuance or understanding of the underlying issues and pathologies of the space industrial complex."

Offline Geron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 229
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #88 on: 09/17/2011 06:27 am »
the senate just loves to clip wings nasa or new space for pork

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #89 on: 09/17/2011 08:19 am »
the senate just loves to clip wings nasa or new space for pork

No.  One can not accomplish the goal by clipping wings.  The secret to making a pig fly is the application of copious amounts of glue and a large booster.  Ergo, the need for SLS.

Hey, if nothing else, think of the entertainment value; "when pigs fly" takes on a whole new meaning.  Oink.  Oink.  Flap. Flap.  SRB ignition in 3-2-1 Barrooom!  Look Ma!  Pigs really can fly!

Ummm...sploosh!  Ok, maybe not, at least for very long.  But heck, we got pulled pork in every pot for miles around!
« Last Edit: 09/17/2011 08:42 am by joek »

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #90 on: 09/17/2011 11:54 am »
Ideally, what NASA should pursue, rather than contracts or SAAs, are something called "tickets" for astronauts to fly on these new vehicles.



But they need money during the development phase.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2011 11:55 am by Danny Dot »
Danny Deger

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #91 on: 09/17/2011 01:21 pm »
Haha.  I told you all that this was coming.  Welcome to "commercial".  Guess it sucks when "the internet" and their ideology is proven wrong. 


What was proven wrong?

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #92 on: 09/18/2011 05:49 pm »
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…
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #93 on: 09/18/2011 07:42 pm »
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. 

..i award you no points..
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #94 on: 09/18/2011 07:45 pm »
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…


Who do you think will win???  Boeing???

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #95 on: 09/18/2011 08:44 pm »
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 think it's a bit early to get so depressed.  The draft RFP is due soon and that should answer quite a few questions about the acquisition process and FAR-related contract burdens.

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.)

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 655
  • Liked: 481
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #96 on: 09/18/2011 08:59 pm »
..i award you no points..

Concur, no points for predicting rain, we remember the ark as an example of problem resolution.
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #97 on: 09/18/2011 09:36 pm »
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…


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.

Not everything is a dark consipiracy.

I will wait to see what industry says - so far most seem ok, but the jury is still out.

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #98 on: 09/19/2011 03:11 am »
John Elbon of Boeing stated before hand that this is not that big of a deal:

Quote
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.

http://www.newspacejournal.com/2011/08/13/boeing-on-test-pilots-far-vs-saa-and-more/
« Last Edit: 09/19/2011 03:12 am by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #99 on: 09/19/2011 03:37 am »
John Elbon of Boeing stated before hand that this is not that big of a deal:

Quote
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.

http://www.newspacejournal.com/2011/08/13/boeing-on-test-pilots-far-vs-saa-and-more/
Boeing is not one of those most excited about using an SAA-type contract. No surprise there.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #100 on: 09/19/2011 05:02 pm »
The new contracting mechanism in the works isn't a SAA, but it's not a traditional FAR either. Key things I took away:

- still has fixed price, milestone based approach.
- contractor has IP rights to what they develop under the contract.
- they've had input from industry on the parts of the FAR that drive up their costs needlessly and are looking into ways to avoid that.
- they won't mess with requirements below level two.

Incidentally, does anyone know what a level two requirement is?
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline OpsAnalyst


Incidentally, 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 - systems

There are additional levels - systems, subsystems, etc - usually managed by the contractors.

Offline OpsAnalyst

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…


First, ULA's unfunded SAA is a continuation of an existing SAA.  ULA did not complete work within the timeframe of the first SAA so an unfunded SAA was put in place to enable completion.  In principle this is no different than an unfunded extension on a standard contract.

Second, ATK's unfunded SAA is an agreement for ATK to spend ATK's money but to work with NASA in developing capabilities for "commercial" crew.  So what is your point there?

Third, when the original discussions re: CRS and CCT were in play it was pointed out by NASA's own lawyers that the use of the SAA's was questionable, since in fact specs were going to have to enter into this somewhere and secondly, the existing mechanisms to enable contracting already existed and SAA's are used when those mechanisms don't cover something NASA wants to do in relation to some other entity. 

OMB pressed and we ended up with the SAA's.  OK, fine.  That was two years ago, folks.  Those of us following the bouncing ball knew this day was coming; it's about contracting mechanisms and the legal boundaries of same, period.  It has nothing to do with NASA wanting to kill anything.  All this dark conspiratorial stuff is misplaced.

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #103 on: 09/19/2011 09:28 pm »

Incidentally, 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 - systems

There are additional levels - systems, subsystems, etc - usually managed by the contractors.

You are correct when discussing org structures, and in general, the WBS 

Level 2 requirements are slightly different, imho.

For example, "level zeros" (level 0 reqts) are basically the outcome of your vision or goals.  They are as broad as can be.  Borderline ambiguous.  Think soundbytes. 

That tends to feed even more goals/objectives/needs.  They are just slightly more specific.  You start to get concepts.  Typically at the concept and rationale stage you're talking Level 1 requirements.  Still very high level.

Level 2 are system level requirements.  IIRC correctly, level 2's are typically defined and approved somewhere around SRR. 

The best cut/paste I can give is this:

Level 0 – Top Level Agency Requirements controlled by the Administrator and Associate Administrators
Level 1 Requirements - Mission Drivers controlled by a NASA Mission Directorate and serve as the basis for mission assessment during development. These are NASA requirements and standards - latest versions apply
Level 2 Requirements - System/Segment (Mission Requirements Document– to be baselined at System Requirements Review)
Level 3 Requirements - Element (Instruments, Spacecraft, etc.)
Level 4 Requirements - Subsystem (Instrument Subsystem, Spacecraft Subsystem, etc.)
Level 5 Requirements - Component (Instrument Component, Spacecraft Component,
etc.)

I  used to have some decent flow charts and diagrams but I can't find em so that'll have to do.  Maybe google it...

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.

FWIW, those of us who know, expected this day to come for quite awhile.  And to be honest, I kind of side with OV on this. (although I see his post as removed, grammar and such aside, he was going in the right direction) 

As I have always said, and will say again for no particular reason - it is the acquisition strategy that matters.  That acq strat will be the way you save money, not "going commercial".  We've always been commercial.  What was new was the SAA acq strat.  Now that it's run out and we're back to the FAR, the only thing we can do is try to tailor it.  But we have many forces working against that - lack of clearly defined goals, visions, etc.  Not to mention the politics. 

I'll wait to see what the industry says, but from my cost knot-hole I can tell you this is an estimate upper.  Some of that benefit you had with the SAA is now gone.  Period.  End of debate.  How much can you still salvage is now the question.  And at least there they are trying. 

And yes, when doing an estimate, a good analyst should be considering the acq strategy.  For the most part, we (the estimating community) had actually come up with considerably new methodologies for dealing with SAA's, particularly down at KSC.  Bottom-line, acq strat matters just as much, if not more so, then tech (mass, power, data rate, etc.)  Since I can feed the same tech into two different acq strats and get two entirely diff costs out... 
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #104 on: 09/19/2011 09:34 pm »
Thanks, that was very informative!  :)

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.

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.

I would be surprised if, given this change, the next step of CCDEV can be competed as leanly and efficiently. I know that I give very preferential rates to clients who are willing to finalize & sign off on job specifications before I begin work.  ;)
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #105 on: 09/19/2011 09:42 pm »
Thanks, that was very informative!  :)

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.

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.
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #106 on: 09/20/2011 01:01 am »
Thanks, that was very informative!  :)

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.

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.

Yes, there will be a few intyegrated milestones that all are required but then generally it will be milestones that depends on teh maturity of the project and what is needed.

You will see solid requirements.  The 1100 series of requirements were released today as well in draft form.  The intent is to have them less restrictive than say Orion (ok, not ahrd there) but detailed enough to provide NASA assurances for their crews.  I won't defend or debate if the right balance is there.  The partners are then expected to meet these rquirements as best they can.  NASA will deepen insight from CDev2 most likely but not in a huge difference that would be noticed by most people - I predict.  It will be a little more like the Russian saying "trust but verify".  :)

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #107 on: 09/20/2011 06:13 am »
The 1100 series of requirements were released today as well in draft form.

Can they be downloaded from somewhere?  :)
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #108 on: 09/20/2011 07:23 am »
The 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

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #109 on: 09/20/2011 03:18 pm »
Who do you think will win???  Boeing???

Oh yes, Lockheed/Boeing. (or ULA/Boeing if you prefer)

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.)

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?

Does 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?
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #110 on: 09/20/2011 03:39 pm »
The 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

Those are not Level 2 requirements.  From a cursory read, those appear to be Level 1 at best.

"This document defines the evaluation processes for investment performance, Crew Transportation System (CTS) certification, and CTS Flight Readiness and works in conjunction with supporting documents that address the top-level CTS requirements and standards (reference Figure 1 1)."

emphasis mine.

IMHO, you will not see fixed Level 2 requirements, which is how I was trying to respond to the poster who asked the question of fixed reqts/fixed milestones. 

There will be a process where NASA/Gov is involved with the contractor(s) in developing, defining and levying the level 2 requirements.  Which again,  is what we (NASA) seem to want - more involvement in the requirement definition and assignment role. 
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #111 on: 09/23/2011 01:13 am »
Who do you think will win???  Boeing???

Oh yes, Lockheed/Boeing. (or ULA/Boeing if you prefer)

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.)

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?

Does 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?

Believe what you want but you are completely incorrect.  First of all, I like how you just make up "15".  based on what data? The other points you debate in this thread may or may not be true (not my area and I don't try to contribute opinion, leave that to you guys) but having been involved in the SAAs, there is no tie.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #112 on: 09/25/2011 08:10 pm »

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.


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

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #113 on: 09/26/2011 03:55 pm »
The following documents explain why NASA is moving away from Space Act agreements for commercial crew:
See slides 4 to 9:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/580729main_6%20-McAlister_COTS%20CRSNAC_508.pdf
See page 11:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/582570main_NACEXP-SpaceopsminutesAugust2-32011_508.pdf

« Last Edit: 09/26/2011 04:02 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #114 on: 09/26/2011 05:10 pm »

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.


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

While I absolutely agree that NASA cannot just give away money (although too many on here think that's how it should be with respect to "commercial") Norm's basic point is valid I believe. 

Nobody can really argue that the goal posts have not shifted from how this was originally advertised.  I believe it was done so in a way to give the impression that "commercial" was here and operational and it was NASA and specifically the shuttle program that was standing in the way.  Those who sold it that way I believe did so intentionally to make others fall into the trap, and too many did so with absolute brilliance, thinking everyone would be able to buy tickets as if it was Southwest Airlines in just a few years time. 

Some can call that a deep, dark conspiracy if they wish but there are several other things relative to NASA as a whole and circumstantial evidence that when added together and looked at objectively from the bigger picture begin to paint a certain picture itself. 

For me relative to commercial crew it is the fact that everything is terribly inconsistent.

So NASA didn't realize the SAA was limited?  We've been discussing commercial crew for 4 to 5 years now.  Nobody figured that out until now?

Is there or is there not a business case?  NASA does not really seem to think so and even suggests that themselves in the link that yg references but then you have the CSF suggesting it is an absolute.

COTS is fine for SAA but not commercial crew.  There excuse seems to try to suggest there are no NASA-levied requirements for CRS flights but at the same time suggest it was done this way to create a market that NASA can take advantage of.  Was that not the goal for commercial crew too?

NASA suggests it is because commercial crew requires "deep verification" and somehow uses the authorization act as rationale for this but according to the NASA administrator commercial companies have built every NASA spacecraft to date.  So does industry have the experience or does it require NASA looking over their shoulder doing "deep verification" of requirements. 

The list could go on.  But the real problem is NASA has not done anything to really stimulate the market (other than words backed up by inconsistent action) and some have suggested how that could have been done much better so that companies really can begin to see a market emerge and then be willing to place more of their capital into the project. 

In playing politics with all of this, ("10,000 jobs will be created!") NASA set expectations so high that if and whatever comes to operation it will look like a failure compared to original expectations and I believe you are seeing that in Norm's post.  The reason is because the one, maybe two, that do emerge from "commercial" will be government financed under a government FAR contract.   
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #115 on: 09/26/2011 05:31 pm »
It seemingly boils down to NASA not trusting the FAA to produce the regulations for commercial HSF that includes all of the certification for flight requirements that NASA wants. NASA wants to be the regulating authority for commercial HSF but by law it is not a regulating authority. So the only option is to do it through a FAR FFP contract. That’s the legal issue.

Plus since NASA is providing funds for completion of milestones this problem with not being a regulating authority also stops them from determining fulfillment of NASA certification requirements related to the milestones. NASA is a public spaceflight developer not a spaceflight regulator. NASA itself should be regulated by the same FAA regulations that commercial has to follow. One set of regulations for all.

Then there is the IP issue which for commercial if the ownership is not NASA 0% and provider 100% they may not accept the contract. If you are using your own money then you don’t want someone later coming along and using the IP you developed to low bid you. It’s a commercial competitive thing that NASA doesn’t seem to understand. Of the four Boeing will probably be the least touchy about ownership, but that is not saying that they would accept significant IP ownership by NASA.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #116 on: 09/26/2011 05:39 pm »
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:

Quote
The proposed strategy is a firm fixed price contract instrument based on milestones. This will maximize industry retention of intellectual property rights.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2011 05:49 pm by yg1968 »

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #117 on: 09/26/2011 07:29 pm »
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:

Quote
The proposed strategy is a firm fixed price contract instrument based on milestones. This will maximize industry retention of intellectual property rights.

The closer ties with the FAA is a good sign.

The IP issue, if NASA didn't want any ownership of IP they would have said so. The IP negotiable sounds as if NASA is atempting to retain some sort of IP ownership as a result of being funded. The more funds the more NASA ownership. For NASA this would be good because it can be a risk reducer for the program overall, but for a specific provider trying to close his business case commercially it would be bad.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #118 on: 09/26/2011 10:26 pm »
I thought that NASA could not "own" any IP?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement
« Reply #119 on: 09/27/2011 01:51 am »
I thought that NASA could not "own" any IP?

Normally the government owns anything produced for it.  However, for CCP, NASA is only exerting limited data rights.  Essentially (as I understand it - not a lawyer) that the companies will retain IP unless they can't meet the contract by a certain time limit or if NASA declares a critical need (but then there is a process to try to work it with the company) sort of like eminent domain (but not easy to invoke).  So for practical purposes the companies will retain IP.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1