Thanks! Yeah, very strange timing. And RS - no chance the ISS will be deorbited in 2020. They just need to make 2025 or 2028 official.
Seems fine to me.NASA isn't allowed to "keep" money. They're not a bank.Having to pay later would be very bad for NASA.I think the report being referenced is hogwash.
So from sdsds question, is the problem with Antares issues, or with potential Cygnus issues?
And RS - no chance the ISS will be deorbited in 2020. They just need to make 2025 or 2028 official.
Good article, Chris! The timing of this OIG investigation/report seems strange. With the next F9 still in qualification testing, having a nice Antares inventory of seems like a good thing!The article states, 'OIG claimed they have concerns the next launch still holds the “possibility” of incurring issues.' Is the OIG concerned with Antares issues, or with potential Cygnus issues? The latter interpretation is at least understandable. If future Dragon missions are delayed by its launcher's teething pains, a lot might hinge on the early success of Cygnus!
It's just NASA rewarding failure.. as usual.Oh, you're behind schedule? Here's some more money.SpaceX got the same deal.
Quote from: QuantumG on 06/18/2013 02:41 amIt's just NASA rewarding failure.. as usual.Oh, you're behind schedule? Here's some more money.SpaceX got the same deal.It has nothing to do with failure. It's something similar to a percentage of completion contract.
Quote from: QuantumG on 06/18/2013 02:41 amIt's just NASA rewarding failure.. as usual.Oh, you're behind schedule? Here's some more money.SpaceX got the same deal.The CRS program has several goals that are hit without a launch, achieving them trigger some payments. This has nothing to do with failure.It's a simple reminiscent of the real sweetheart cost plus funding structure that most military development contracts get. We (NASA) are asking you (SpaceX/Orbital) to go through all of those hoops to satisfy us that you're on the right track, and as you manage to jump each hoop, here's some money.The opposite would have been to only pay them per payload actually delivered to the ISS, requiring each CRS contractor to invest in the ballpark of a billion USD plus before getting any payment back.Doing that would make it so much easier for ULA to get those contracts since they have deep pockets.The amounts paid to SpaceX for all the benchmarks plus 3 CRS missions amount to far less than the real costs of a single shuttle launch. With money left to send 3 astronauts with the Russians in the meantime, and there's still money left.
Here's NASA scoring an own goal it seems:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/06/nasa-told-slow-down-crs-payment-orbitals-cargo-runs/
From the article"the company is on track to receive up to 70 percent of the funds associated with six of its eight CRS missions prior to having flown a demonstration flight.”What???They are going to bank 70% of the cash for 75% of their contract without delivering a single Kg of payload to the ISS?
in the event the contract needs to be terminated for cause, all CRS payments are recoverable.
It's a simple reminiscent of the real sweetheart cost plus funding structure that most military development contracts get. We (NASA) are asking you (SpaceX/Orbital) to go through all of those hoops to satisfy us that you're on the right track, and as you manage to jump each hoop, here's some money.
The opposite would have been to only pay them per payload actually delivered to the ISS, requiring each CRS contractor to invest in the ballpark of a billion USD plus before getting any payment back.
Doing that would make it so much easier for ULA to get those contracts since they have deep pockets.The amounts paid to SpaceX for all the benchmarks plus 3 CRS missions amount to far less than the real costs of a single shuttle launch. With money left to send 3 astronauts with the Russians in the meantime, and there's still money left.