There was almost no questions from reporters... I tried to phone-in to ask a question but it didn't work.
To provide an incentive to any commercial provider who is successful in achieving CTS Certification, the Phase 2 contract will include, as options, a nominal number of crewed missions to the ISS following successful CTS Certification. NASA believes that having up to two contractors through Phase 2 would provide significant advantages for insuring a safe and affordable CTS through competition. The ultimate number of awards will be driven by technical maturity, funding availability, and mission needs.
CCP Strategy White Paper:http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docID=637QuoteTo provide an incentive to any commercial provider who is successful in achieving CTS Certification, the Phase 2 contract will include, as options, a nominal number of crewed missions to the ISS following successful CTS Certification. NASA believes that having up totwo contractors through Phase 2 would provide significant advantages for insuring a safe and affordable CTS through competition. The ultimate number of awards will be driven by technical maturity, funding availability, and mission needs.
To provide an incentive to any commercial provider who is successful in achieving CTS Certification, the Phase 2 contract will include, as options, a nominal number of crewed missions to the ISS following successful CTS Certification. NASA believes that having up totwo contractors through Phase 2 would provide significant advantages for insuring a safe and affordable CTS through competition. The ultimate number of awards will be driven by technical maturity, funding availability, and mission needs.
I also noticed that the "ISS Services Contract", which provides for missions every 6 months and is the long-term contract, is marked as "likely single award" in figure 2.
Phase I of certification will start on February 2013. Phase 2 of certification will include at least one ISS commercial crew flight. Phase I of the certification period will have 2 to 4 companies. Phase II will only have 1 or 2 companies. Not clear to me what happens to the CCiCap optional milestones period.
To provide an incentive to any commercial provider who is successful in achieving CTS Certification, the Phase 2 contractw ill include, as options, a nominal number of crewed missions to the ISS following successful CTS Certification.
Or to put it another way: After the Certification Products Contracts ("Phase 1") are completed, which run concurrently with CCiCap base period; which is a prerequisite to the Certification Contracts ("Phase 2"), which will run concurrently with CCiCap optional period, and which will overlap the ISS Services Contract. The latter is interesting given...QuoteTo provide an incentive to any commercial provider who is successful in achieving CTS Certification, the Phase 2 contractw ill include, as options, a nominal number of crewed missions to the ISS following successful CTS Certification....which could help maintain and extend competitive pressure through mid-2017 even if there is a down-select to one provider for the ISS Service Contract in early 2016.p.s. Thanks all for posting the notices and docs.
The elephant in the room is the cost of that if there are not any other customers or even a significant number of other customers.
Quote from: joek on 08/09/2012 05:34 amOr to put it another way: After the Certification Products Contracts ("Phase 1") are completed, which run concurrently with CCiCap base period; which is a prerequisite to the Certification Contracts ("Phase 2"), which will run concurrently with CCiCap optional period, and which will overlap the ISS Services Contract. The latter is interesting given...QuoteTo provide an incentive to any commercial provider who is successful in achieving CTS Certification, the Phase 2 contractw ill include, as options, a nominal number of crewed missions to the ISS following successful CTS Certification....which could help maintain and extend competitive pressure through mid-2017 even if there is a down-select to one provider for the ISS Service Contract in early 2016.p.s. Thanks all for posting the notices and docs.On this topic, it is not clear if the optional ISS missions under phase 2 of the certification period would carry NASA astronauts.
Quote from: AnalogMan on 08/08/2012 08:58 pmI also noticed that the "ISS Services Contract", which provides for missions every 6 months and is the long-term contract, is marked as "likely single award" in figure 2.I hadn't noticed that. I can't say that I like that. NASA has a lot of time to change their mind but I would prefer if they would have combined cargo and crew (giving each provider a better business case) instead of downselecting to only one commercial crew provider. If they don't want to combine both cargo and crew contract, they could first award the CRS-2 contracts prior to the CTS one(s). NASA is likely to get better prices for the CTS contract(s) from companies that also win a CRS-2 contract.
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/08/2012 05:23 pmPhase I of certification will start on February 2013. Phase 2 of certification will include at least one ISS commercial crew flight. Phase I of the certification period will have 2 to 4 companies. Phase II will only have 1 or 2 companies. Not clear to me what happens to the CCiCap optional milestones period. Answering my own question, Gerst explains how the certification part and the CCiCap (base period and optional) work at the 52 and 54 minutes mark of the audio of the August 3rd press conference (see the link to the audio here):http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29587.msg937056#msg937056Essentially, CCiCap (base and optional phases) and the certification period (phase I and II) are concurrent activities. It is now a lot easier to understand what Gerst meant in his answers on August 3rd now that we know what he means by "contract part" (he meant the certification part). It is easy to guess that only the companies that are chosen for phase 2 of the certification will get their CCiCap optional selections exercised in 2014. In a Nutshell, NASA will downselect to 1 or 2 providers in 2014 after the CCiCap base period ends. NASA might downselect again to one provider when it awards the CTS contract.
erioladastra,Thanks for your answers. I have a couple more questions about CCiCap and the certification process. -I noticed that there is a test flight to the ISS for phase 2 of the certification period. I also noticed in the SAAs that some companies such as Boeing and SpaceX have a test flight to the ISS as part of their CCiCap optional milestones. How will that work? Will the company be paid twice for the same flight to the ISS? -Will phase 2 of the certification process also have very little money attached to it (except for the optional ISS flights)?Thanks.
This is today at 1 p.m. (local, Eastern time). See the following link for the webcast:http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32&CFID=138024&CFTOKEN=31246015
Thanks, erioladastra . I have a few more questions: -My first question is about the CCiCap optional milestones phase. Ed Mango said at the August 8th forum that it was originally put in place in case that the certification period was late. But he didn't say why it was there now. What is the purpose of CCiCap optional milestones now that we know that certification starts in February 2013? -Do we know for sure that there will be a CCiCap optional milestones phase?-It is also obvious from the summary in each of the SAAs (and from comments from Gerst and McAlister on August 3rd) that only the optimal CCicap optional milestones were included as part of the agreements. Why were fixed funding ($400M per year) CCiCap optional milestones not included in the SAAs?
@erioladastra -- Thanks very much for your insight. A couple questions that arise after some additional examination of the strategy as described in the recent forum presentations and documents...It appears that mid-CY-2014 is something of a make-or-break or confluence for down-select? Presumably...1. Progress at the end of the CCiCap base period will provide NASA sufficient insight into who are likely to be viable contenders for certification?2. Completion of Certification Phase 1 will provide NASA sufficient insight into certification costs, schedule, and readiness?3. The above should also provide NASA sufficient insight into selection of CCiCap optional milestones needed to complete/accelerate development work [necessary for certification] under CCiCap optional milestones (?) in parallel with certification work?Thanks again.
Did anyone besides me see the CTS ISS services contract period start Q4 2015?
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/13/2012 04:19 pmDid anyone besides me see the CTS ISS services contract period start Q4 2015?Last time I saw 2015 mentioned for start of ISS commercial crew service was a May 2010 OMB report. In Jun 2011 a NASA OIG report showed it late-CY2016 (note additional Soyuz seats had recently been purchased through mid-CY2016). Then there was another (CCiDC presentation I think) which showed mid-FY2017/early-CY2017. Latest CCiCap presentation shows Q4-FY2017/Q1-CY2018 Q4-CY2017/Q1-FY2018. (Caveat: they're shown as "notional".)
I found this July 24th presentation by Phil McAlister that also relates to the same topic:http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672219main_3%20-%2020120724%20McAlister%20-%20Commercial%20Status_20120724_508.pdf
Mr. Holloway commented that to certify a vehicle requires a verification testing program to test the components on the ground and then a limited flight test program. Mr. McAlister replied that that is what is planned; it will be done under a FAR-based contract. In response to a question, Mr. McAlister stated that the program has not yet determined whether the certification for parts will be at the subsystem level or the total vehicle level. He said he would talk to the committees about that at a later date.
Synopsis Released 8/10/12 Request for Proposals Released 9/12/12 Pre-Proposal Conference 9/19/12 Initial Proposals Due 10/12/12 Contract Award 2/7/13
One interesting note about the CPC award is that it will end in July 2014 whereas the CCiCap base period ends in May 2014. There is a gap of a couple of months between the end of the two programs for some reason.
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/24/2012 11:52 pmOne interesting note about the CPC award is that it will end in July 2014 whereas the CCiCap base period ends in May 2014. There is a gap of a couple of months between the end of the two programs for some reason. No real gap. First recall the iCAP base period is through April. Optional can go past. Plus CPC is not starting the same day as iCAP did so some delay there. Plus CPC is to help bridge the gap to certification int he next phase. No issue here.
Quote from: erioladastra on 08/25/2012 03:37 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 08/24/2012 11:52 pmOne interesting note about the CPC award is that it will end in July 2014 whereas the CCiCap base period ends in May 2014. There is a gap of a couple of months between the end of the two programs for some reason. No real gap. First recall the iCAP base period is through April. Optional can go past. Plus CPC is not starting the same day as iCAP did so some delay there. Plus CPC is to help bridge the gap to certification int he next phase. No issue here.I didn't think that it was an issue. I just thought that it was interesting. I think that it could be a positive aspect especially if it allows NASA to exercise a few additional optional milestones for all three companies prior to making another down selection. Hopefully, this will give Dream Chaser enough time to get to CDR.
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/26/2012 02:30 amQuote from: erioladastra on 08/25/2012 03:37 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 08/24/2012 11:52 pmOne interesting note about the CPC award is that it will end in July 2014 whereas the CCiCap base period ends in May 2014. There is a gap of a couple of months between the end of the two programs for some reason. No real gap. First recall the iCAP base period is through April. Optional can go past. Plus CPC is not starting the same day as iCAP did so some delay there. Plus CPC is to help bridge the gap to certification int he next phase. No issue here.I didn't think that it was an issue. I just thought that it was interesting. I think that it could be a positive aspect especially if it allows NASA to exercise a few additional optional milestones for all three companies prior to making another down selection. Hopefully, this will give Dream Chaser enough time to get to CDR. Unless SNC find a lot of money to pony up it is very unlikely they can get to CDR. They are already well behind the others and getting half the funding for a complicated vehicle just doesn't make it likely. They have been put on the back burner should Boeing and SpaceX flame out.
Not necessary for Boeing to "flame out". SNC could offer a significant enough cost per seat savings over Boeing that they would receive second place position even if they are a year behind Boeing schedule wise.
I can't think of any other explanations.
But it still begs the question: why does SNC continue to invest in DC if NASA sees them as a third wheel.
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/29/2012 01:43 amBut it still begs the question: why does SNC continue to invest in DC if NASA sees them as a third wheel.We don't know what this is costing SNC or what SNC figures the resulting IP is likely to be worth.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/26/2012 06:11 pmNot necessary for Boeing to "flame out". SNC could offer a significant enough cost per seat savings over Boeing that they would receive second place position even if they are a year behind Boeing schedule wise.For the record, I do not believe SNC is significantly behind either Boeing or SpaceX with respect to crewed vehicles.
Quote from: joek on 08/29/2012 02:11 amQuote from: yg1968 on 08/29/2012 01:43 amBut it still begs the question: why does SNC continue to invest in DC if NASA sees them as a third wheel.We don't know what this is costing SNC or what SNC figures the resulting IP is likely to be worth.We kind of know what they have invested through an interview with Sierangelo that is posted on L2. The IP is only worth something if you can find a buyer. In their situation, I suspect that they would be looking more for a partner than a buyer.
Quote from: Go4TLI on 08/29/2012 12:13 amQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/26/2012 06:11 pmNot necessary for Boeing to "flame out". SNC could offer a significant enough cost per seat savings over Boeing that they would receive second place position even if they are a year behind Boeing schedule wise.For the record, I do not believe SNC is significantly behind either Boeing or SpaceX with respect to crewed vehicles. They are definitely behind and why they were not fully funded. They only got a half because HQ wanted a buffer. You will note that on the iCAP announcement Jett even comment on the maturity of Boeing and SpaceX.
So which is it? They have a chance or CCDev/CCiCap, etc is a districation and a waste of funds?
Quote from: Go4TLI on 08/30/2012 03:32 amSo which is it? They have a chance or CCDev/CCiCap, etc is a districation and a waste of funds?Everyone has a chance, even ATK. It depends how much the companies want to put it. The 1/2 that SNC got makes them like a "hot backup".
So what happens if both Boeing and SpaceX, which are implied to be the shoe-ins, don't work out for whatever reason but SNC doesn't see the business case to inject massive capital funds? Even more government money for something called commercial?So I go back to my original question. Do they have a chance, on a level-playing field, or is this a waste of funds and someone should just be selected now, or even money diverted to the other two instead, so that we have the necessary capability that much sooner instead of pretending this is something that it is not?
So what happens if both Boeing and SpaceX, which are implied to be the shoe-ins, don't work out for whatever reason
Quote from: Go4TLI on 08/30/2012 03:54 amSo what happens if both Boeing and SpaceX, which are implied to be the shoe-ins, don't work out for whatever reasonNot a credible scenario.
Why not, because they received significant government funds? Or is it something else? If something else, what exactly? Is it significant other customers that are providing capital to gain this capability?
And still couldn't both of those other vehicles be accelerated with more money from someone who is not a serious contender because they are "behind"? And if what e-adastra has suggested is true in the past about there ever being only one ultimate provider, and what you and he both implied about them only being a "hot-backup" and therefore not a real contender at this point, I still ask what is the central point then? Should we not accelerate just one at the expense of others if that is all that is really ever going to be selected?
Quote from: Jim on 08/30/2012 04:10 amQuote from: Go4TLI on 08/30/2012 03:54 amSo what happens if both Boeing and SpaceX, which are implied to be the shoe-ins, don't work out for whatever reasonNot a credible scenario. Why not, because they received significant government funds? Or is it something else? If something else, what exactly? Is it significant other customers that are providing capital to gain this capability?And still couldn't both of those other vehicles be accelerated with more money from someone who is not a serious contender because they are "behind"? And if what e-adastra has suggested is true in the past about there ever being only one ultimate provider, and what you and he both implied about them only being a "hot-backup" and therefore not a real contender at this point, I still ask what is the central point then? Should we not accelerate just one at the expense of others if that is all that is really ever going to be selected?After all, you suggested last night what you know is reality and I don't know anything. So I am looking for that insight to answer my logic-based questions.
Jim? erioladastra?
Quote from: Go4TLI on 08/30/2012 12:30 pmJim? erioladastra?All good questions. Yes, you could make an argument that if you took all the money and put it on one company you might get there faster. Or if you took the SNC money and put on 1 or 2, you would likely get there faster. One issue with going to 1 is that if there is a problem (e.g., SpaceX flames out or has failures or decides to focus elsewhere or...just examples, not picking on them) you are screwed. Boeing would likely say forget it with no money and fold up shop - you are not going to restart easily. SNC might continue but who knows if they would survive on their own or keep slowly cooking in the background. Plus having a competition has the companies trying to keep their costs down and schedule tight. But in the end there will only be one (people can ergue otherwise but if we want to get there before 2020 we have to focus on 1 in the current budget climate on 1 around 2014). So will the end result be cheaper than if threw the money at only one? In my opinion, no. That is because NASA is specifying the requirements - it is not a case where the companies are building their vehicle and then seeing which NASA prefers. NASA has laid out detailed requirements that are going to be VERY pricey to meet. So in the end you wont end up with much savings. So your only benefit is to have a fall back for a longer time frame.
Quote from: erioladastra on 08/31/2012 01:28 amQuote from: Go4TLI on 08/30/2012 12:30 pmJim? erioladastra?All good questions. Yes, you could make an argument that if you took all the money and put it on one company you might get there faster. Or if you took the SNC money and put on 1 or 2, you would likely get there faster. One issue with going to 1 is that if there is a problem (e.g., SpaceX flames out or has failures or decides to focus elsewhere or...just examples, not picking on them) you are screwed. Boeing would likely say forget it with no money and fold up shop - you are not going to restart easily. SNC might continue but who knows if they would survive on their own or keep slowly cooking in the background. Plus having a competition has the companies trying to keep their costs down and schedule tight. But in the end there will only be one (people can ergue otherwise but if we want to get there before 2020 we have to focus on 1 in the current budget climate on 1 around 2014). So will the end result be cheaper than if threw the money at only one? In my opinion, no. That is because NASA is specifying the requirements - it is not a case where the companies are building their vehicle and then seeing which NASA prefers. NASA has laid out detailed requirements that are going to be VERY pricey to meet. So in the end you wont end up with much savings. So your only benefit is to have a fall back for a longer time frame.Interesting but very worrisome comments. It also confirms what I feared might happen, commercial crew is becoming less and less commercial and more and more like any other government program with very detailed requirements and no competition among providers. The pricey requirements that you mention (which likely relate to a very involved certification program) might also explain why Blue Origin dropped out and why SpaceX is less enthusiastic about the program than you would normally expect. The opponents of commercial crew (such as chairman Wolf) lost the initial battle (with the passage of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act) but will have won the war (if only one expensive provider remains in 2014). If this happens, commercial crew will have been a lost opportunity. Hopefully, it's not to late to reverse course before 2014. For one thing NASA should refuse to down select to one commercial provider for CTS regardless of the funding levels from Congress. Secondly, CTS and CRS2 should be either combined or awarded at the same time in order to benefit from economies of scale. Thirdly, NASA should go ahead with the CCiCap optional milestones and a lite certification phase (i.e., stick to the COTS model).
Quote from: erioladastra on 08/31/2012 01:28 amQuote from: Go4TLI on 08/30/2012 12:30 pmJim? erioladastra?All good questions. Yes, you could make an argument that if you took all the money and put it on one company you might get there faster. Or if you took the SNC money and put on 1 or 2, you would likely get there faster. One issue with going to 1 is that if there is a problem (e.g., SpaceX flames out or has failures or decides to focus elsewhere or...just examples, not picking on them) you are screwed. Boeing would likely say forget it with no money and fold up shop - you are not going to restart easily. SNC might continue but who knows if they would survive on their own or keep slowly cooking in the background. Plus having a competition has the companies trying to keep their costs down and schedule tight. But in the end there will only be one (people can ergue otherwise but if we want to get there before 2020 we have to focus on 1 in the current budget climate on 1 around 2014). So will the end result be cheaper than if threw the money at only one? In my opinion, no. That is because NASA is specifying the requirements - it is not a case where the companies are building their vehicle and then seeing which NASA prefers. NASA has laid out detailed requirements that are going to be VERY pricey to meet. So in the end you wont end up with much savings. So your only benefit is to have a fall back for a longer time frame.Interesting but very worrisome comments. It also confirms what I feared might happen, commercial crew is becoming less and less commercial and more and more like any other government program with very detailed requirements and no competition among providers. The pricey requirements that you mention (which likely relate to a very involved certification program) might also explain why Blue Origin dropped out and why SpaceX is less enthusiastic about the program than you would normally expect. The opponents of commercial crew (such as chairman Wolf) lost the initial battle with the passage of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act but will have won the war if only one expensive provider remains in 2014. If this happens, commercial crew will have been a lost opportunity. Hopefully, it's not to late to reverse course before 2014. For one thing, NASA should refuse to down select to one commercial provider for certification and CTS regardless of the funding levels from Congress. Secondly, CTS and CRS2 should be either combined or awarded at the same time in order to benefit from economies of scale. Thirdly, NASA should go ahead with the CCiCap optional milestones and a lite certification phase (i.e., stick to the COTS model).
Commercial was never commercial. You should have learned that long ago. Sure, there is some capital funding but the majority always has and always will be government funded, including development and operations. If it was something different than just a government program,
No this round is still being run under an SAA and is milestone based which limits NASA 'oversight' to more partnership arrangements (my understanding!).I haven't heard of any of the companies involved being dissatisfied with these arrangements. When it looked like a FAR agreement, yes there was signficant disquiet.I don't believe NASA wants only a single provider and by the time we get toward the end of this round, I think there'll be sufficient evidence (opportunities!) to support 2. JM2CWyg1968 If you think that SAA's are just another dressed up program, think again and check the dollars that have flowed to COTS and CCDev, CCiCap compared to say Cx, Orion/MPCV, and what has been achieved, delivered. NASA are paying for development of a capability, but commercial is putting in their own funds as well. If you can't see the difference well that's probably 'cause you don't want to see.
Quote from: Go4TLI on 08/31/2012 02:46 amCommercial was never commercial. You should have learned that long ago. Sure, there is some capital funding but the majority always has and always will be government funded, including development and operations. If it was something different than just a government program, For NASA, commercial is not defined as where the money comes from and how much but how the services are procured. For commercial procurements, NASA buys a service vs hardware. The service is also available "commercially" in a similar form to other agencies, organizations, companies, persons, etc. NASA is not involved in the day to day/nuts and bolts working of the project but at a much higher level. Spacecraft launch services is an example of a commercial procurement.
That is semantics Jim and you know it. You also are aware of the "creating a whole new industry", "we need multiple providers", the "vast market", etc spin that was given for so long....which contrasts NASA just ultimately using a *slightly* different method of procurement.
Quote from: Go4TLI on 08/31/2012 12:04 pmThat is semantics Jim and you know it. You also are aware of the "creating a whole new industry", "we need multiple providers", the "vast market", etc spin that was given for so long....which contrasts NASA just ultimately using a *slightly* different method of procurement. Not really. It is sort of the difference between building your own car or renting a taxi/limo. NASA can set requirements, but does not own the product and it is up to the company to decide how to meet said requirements. With Orion, if NASA determines what the best way is and implements it (say requiring a seat be made of Corinthian leather). With commercial NASA could set say flammability and safety requirement but the company would need to meet them (i.e. other materials could be used if they meet this requirement).In addition this can be much cheaper than building and maintaining your own rocket, and its workforce since you are utilizing commercial rockets that already have other customers. Atlas and Falcon 9 have users other than NASA HSF. This also is easier for the companies to change suppliers and procedures. Boeing decided who supplied the thrusters for the CST-100, not NASA. NASA has input, but not total control. It also makes it possible for a company to risk developing their own spacecraft in the future (i.e. They could get a NASA contract) and reduces the hassle of improving existing spacecraft (the company can invest its own money instead of being forced to ask Congress “may I?”).
September 12, 2012 Release of RFP for CPC [i.e., phase 1 of certification]:http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=48
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/13/2012 02:46 amSeptember 12, 2012 Release of RFP for CPC [i.e., phase 1 of certification]:http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=48Interesting documents. I'm either not reading this correctly or something very strange is happening.IIRC NASA talked a lot that while development had up till now been been by funded SAA certification would be under FAR 23 yet (certainly for phase 1) the RFP makes no obvious reference to FAR 23 but FAR 48 instead. The contract is also a Firm Fixed Price. It was my understanding that given the level of control FAR 23 gives NASA they are normally set up as Cost Plus Award contracts because of the (potentially unlimited) amount of work the contractor could end up doing if NASA compels them to meet a requirement.Not sure what this means.*if* I'm reading this right NASA may have found a middle ground with *enough* control to ensure safety with enough limitations to not strangle the companies concerned.No doubt Jim or 51dMascot can confirm or deny this idea but without a fairly strong background in reading the FAR's (all 2000 pages) I can't be sure.I think it looks quite hopeful.
Certification Products ContractList of Interested Parties1. Apogee Systems2. ARES Corporation3. ATDL, Inc.4. ATK5. Blue Origin6. Boeing7. M&B Engineering8. Orbital Commerce Project9. Sierra Nevada Corporation10. Spacedesign Corporation11. SpaceX12. Space and Defense Engineering Services Company, LLC13. Special Aerospace Services, LLC14. 4W Solutions, Inc.
Here is a link to the September 19 Presentation on CPC (phase 1 of certification):http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=651I have also attached the file in PDF format.