Author Topic: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012  (Read 39988 times)

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1599
  • Likes Given: 50
Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« on: 08/03/2012 06:52 pm »
As mentioned in today's CCiCAP press conference, here is the announcement of the forum to discuss CCP strategy for certification and future procurements.

Commercial Crew Program Forum
Synopsis - August 03, 2012
Solicitation Number:   CCP-FORUM-STATUS-AUGUST-2012

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=152839
https://www.fbo.gov/spg/NASA/KSC/OPDC20220/CCP-FORUM-STATUS-AUGUST-2012/listing.html

Description
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will present an updated status of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) strategy on Wednesday, August 8, 2012. The Forum will be held at the Press Site at Kennedy Space Center from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

The Program Forum’s topics will include:

  • An update from Program Forum held February 7, 2012
  • Overview of Commercial Crew Certification Strategy
  • Commercial Crew Program’s (CCP) intentions for future procurement opportunities
      - Two Phase Acquisition Approach for Certification
      - Phase 1 - Certification Products Contract (CPC) Procurement Summary
  • Short clarification question and answer session

The Commercial Crew Program will accept clarification questions during the forum webcast from attendees and via teleconference:

United States Toll Free: 888-397-7821 Passcode: 3180825

Webcast and teleconference participation is encouraged. However, individuals may attend the forum by pre-registering online. Seating is limited and badging will be required. Carefully review the badging instructions below if you will need a temporary access badge. There is no fee to attend.

WEBCAST: NASA will broadcast the Program Forum online via webcast. Pre-registration is not required for webcast participation. Interested parties are encouraged to participate via webcast. An unlimited number of participants can view the live webcast with an ability to ask real-time questions via teleconference. For webcast details visit the Program Forum tab on the following page on the day of the event: http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #1 on: 08/08/2012 01:43 pm »
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
« Last Edit: 08/08/2012 01:45 pm by yg1968 »

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1599
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #2 on: 08/08/2012 04:23 pm »
Presentation to go with the forum webcast has been posted (note its in .pptx format):

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=636

[pdf version attached]

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1599
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #3 on: 08/08/2012 04:45 pm »
VLC compatible link for webcast:

mms://ks-kdc-wm-p.ndc.nasa.gov/ch7

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #4 on: 08/08/2012 05:23 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 08/09/2012 03:01 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #5 on: 08/08/2012 05:35 pm »
There was almost no questions from reporters... I tried to phone-in to ask a question but it didn't work.
« Last Edit: 08/08/2012 05:40 pm by yg1968 »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #6 on: 08/08/2012 06:09 pm »
There was almost no questions from reporters... I tried to phone-in to ask a question but it didn't work.
I'm really curious about NDS, although I've heard they've made a lot of progress on it but I haven't seen any hardware pictures since 2009.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2012 06:14 am by manboy »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #7 on: 08/08/2012 06:12 pm »
What's NDS?

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #8 on: 08/08/2012 06:35 pm »
NASA Docking System

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #9 on: 08/08/2012 08:39 pm »
CCP Strategy White Paper:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docID=637

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 08/08/2012 08:55 pm by yg1968 »

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1599
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #10 on: 08/08/2012 08:58 pm »
CCP Strategy White Paper:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docID=637

Quote
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.

You beat me to it!

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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #11 on: 08/08/2012 09:03 pm »
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 08/08/2012 09:19 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #12 on: 08/09/2012 02:43 am »
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

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #13 on: 08/09/2012 04:50 am »
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.

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#msg937056

Essentially, 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.
« Last Edit: 08/09/2012 02:43 pm by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #14 on: 08/09/2012 05:34 am »
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...
Quote
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.
...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.
« Last Edit: 08/09/2012 05:35 am by joek »

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #15 on: 08/09/2012 05:39 am »
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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #16 on: 08/09/2012 01:47 pm »
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...
Quote
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.
...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.
« Last Edit: 08/09/2012 02:04 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #17 on: 08/09/2012 02:12 pm »
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.

That's why I would expect that a company that doesn't get a CTS award might decide to drop out of phase 2 of the certification. Although, NASA could offer optional certification ISS missions as a consolation price to the second place finisher.
« Last Edit: 08/09/2012 02:30 pm by yg1968 »

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #18 on: 08/09/2012 02:13 pm »
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...
Quote
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.
...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.

Officially it will NOT be NASA astronauts until it is certified.  reality may be different, but we will see.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #19 on: 08/09/2012 02:15 pm »
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.

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.

There are a lot of issues here, not the least that there is still concern with the impressive, but upstart Space-X being able to provide and not be over confident.  The path forward actually provides the most options.  NASA could combine cargo and crew.  Or not.  There is, as you note, lots of time, but the reality is that one company will likely only be selected for crew.  It could be SpaceX (crew + cargo) or Boeing (crew only, though CST can do cargo as well).  But the fund are not likely to support both.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #20 on: 08/09/2012 02:17 pm »
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.

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#msg937056

Essentially, 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.

Correct, though the competition in 2014 will be open to anyone.  The odds that anyone not in Phase 1 and 2 could be selected is slim, but it will be competed that way.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #21 on: 08/09/2012 02:35 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 08/09/2012 02:40 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #22 on: 08/09/2012 11:48 pm »
Here is an article on the certification forum briefing:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120809-comm-crew-safety-certification.html

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #23 on: 08/10/2012 03:26 am »
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.

- No, the company will not be paid twice.  A flight to the ISS for certification will be required for a services contract.  If they do it under iCAP it might help them towards certification, but they can't cash in twice.

- TBD


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #24 on: 08/10/2012 02:18 pm »
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?
« Last Edit: 08/10/2012 02:33 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #25 on: 08/10/2012 09:17 pm »
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

The video of the webcast is now archived. The transcript is also available. See link above.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #26 on: 08/10/2012 09:25 pm »
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?

Good questions:

- Some of the rationale is historical.  It was initially envisioned to provide flexibility in a variable and unpredictable funding profile from congress.  It also addressed the certification timing.  But by the time it all got rolled out, people got smarter and were able to overlap CPC and iCAP.  And it still provides flexibility.

- No, but it is highly highly likely.  But it does depend on what congress funds CCP at.

-  Since I was not involved in the selection process I can't answer that, sorry.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #27 on: 08/11/2012 08:45 pm »
@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.
« Last Edit: 08/11/2012 09:14 pm by joek »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #28 on: 08/12/2012 03:16 pm »
A couple more items now available at the CCP forum:
August 8 webcast archive
August 8 webcast transcript

edit: pdf of transcript attached.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2012 03:28 pm by joek »

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #29 on: 08/12/2012 05:19 pm »
@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.

1.  In theory.  But since the selection board takes a long time, and something will have to be selected at the end of iCAP (TBD if at the end of 21 months or after option but the preferred is at the end of 21 months), a decision will have to be based on progress to that point.  But that is all being thought about still.

2 & 3.  Likely.  Hopefully.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #30 on: 08/13/2012 04:19 pm »
Did anyone besides me see the CTS ISS services contract period start Q4 2015?

Edited for clarity.
« Last Edit: 08/13/2012 04:21 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #31 on: 08/14/2012 01:56 am »
Did 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".)
« Last Edit: 08/14/2012 02:48 am by joek »

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #32 on: 08/14/2012 04:24 pm »
Did 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".)

My bad that was RFP start Q4 CY 2015.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #33 on: 08/16/2012 02:12 am »
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

The minutes to the July 23-24 NAC Commercial Space Committee discuss certification on pages 10 and 11:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/677122main_NAC%20CSC%20Meeting%20Report_July%2023-24_2012_508.pdf

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 08/16/2012 02:15 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #34 on: 08/17/2012 09:15 pm »
Here is an article on certification on NASA's website:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/ccp_certification_rollout.html

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #35 on: 08/24/2012 11:25 pm »
August 13 2012 Certification Products Contract (CPC) Synopsis:
http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=153061

A special website has been created for CPC:
http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/ccpcpc/

Here is the schedule for CPC:

Quote
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
« Last Edit: 08/24/2012 11:34 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #36 on: 08/24/2012 11:52 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 08/24/2012 11:58 pm by yg1968 »

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #37 on: 08/25/2012 03:37 pm »
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.

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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #38 on: 08/26/2012 02:30 am »
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 08/26/2012 02:31 am by yg1968 »

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #39 on: 08/26/2012 05:05 pm »
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.

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.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #40 on: 08/26/2012 06:11 pm »
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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #41 on: 08/26/2012 07:45 pm »
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.

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.

Why is SNC continuing then?
« Last Edit: 08/27/2012 02:45 am by yg1968 »

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #42 on: 08/29/2012 12:13 am »
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.

Problem with these type statements is anyone who is significantly behind anyone else and says "I can do it better and cheaper, pick me" just has not got to the point where the design is well enough understood to have an accurate cost estimate. 

For the record, I do not believe SNC is significantly behind either Boeing or SpaceX with respect to crewed vehicles. 

Offline tigerade

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Low Earth Orbit
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #43 on: 08/29/2012 01:29 am »
Now now guys, play nice.  Most of us are not concerned about the man behind the curtain.  Let's just focus on what's important - getting Americans back in space.  We have 3 great companies working towards that goal.  If one of them is behind, fine, NASA is probably only going to pick one or two for ISS crew services anyway.  We'll still get the capability we need. 

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #44 on: 08/29/2012 01:43 am »
But it still begs the question: why does SNC continue to invest in DC if NASA  sees them as a third wheel. The answer must be that SNC thinks that it has a business case even if they are not awarded a CTS contract. I can't think of any other explanations. Sierangelo has indicated that they had a plan B for DC if they stopped receiving funding from NASA. What that plan B is, nobody on this forum knows or is willing to tell.
« Last Edit: 08/29/2012 01:50 am by yg1968 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #45 on: 08/29/2012 01:50 am »
I can't think of any other explanations.

I can.. they have a team that has been obsessed with getting this vehicle into space since long before CCDev. Dreamchaser is the legacy of a hero, they feel they owe it to him to finish it.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #46 on: 08/29/2012 02:11 am »
But 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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #47 on: 08/29/2012 12:39 pm »
But 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.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #48 on: 08/29/2012 05:16 pm »
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.

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.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #49 on: 08/30/2012 02:00 am »
But 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.

SNC has more going on than commercial crew.  They don't necessarily need a buyer or a partner to extract value from the IP.  There is also other tangible and intangible value that SNC may accrue.  In short, very difficult to divine their motivation without knowing their broader and longer term strategy and their risk-reward appetite.

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #50 on: 08/30/2012 03:32 am »
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.

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.

A couple of things here.  First note how I said "significantly behind".  None of these vehicles are at CDR-level so proclaiming how some are more "mature" than others is somewhat subjective. 

While "significantly" can also be subjective, I think anyone would have to acknowledge that SNC is also in the hardware development and testing phase, culminating in approach-and-landing style testing hopefully this year. 

Boeing and SpaceX also have the advantage of working the vehicles somewhat earlier than SNC, even before CCDev was announced under various other efforts.  While true the DC is based off the HL-20 and there were various efforts to produce DC with SpaceDev, it never really had the appropriate funding. 

So, all-in-all, I don't believe the playing field is as stacked as you would like to suggest, and if it is, then perhaps the money being spent is being wasted on something that has no chance where it instead could be put to better use.

So which is it?  They have a chance or CCDev/CCiCap, etc is a districation and a waste of funds?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #51 on: 08/30/2012 03:47 am »

So 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".

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #52 on: 08/30/2012 03:54 am »

So 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?

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #53 on: 08/30/2012 04:06 am »


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?

It really isn't a good idea to select now. Honestly the funds keep SNC moving foward. If Space X or Boeing goofs, overprices, or is unable to carry out the duty then SNC is't that far behind. Selecting two now would just lock you in early(which has risks too).

I like Space X and think they have the least amount to do, but they also have one heavy launch manifest. Boeing is perhaps safer in that regard but who wants to be limited to just one company unless absolutly forced to.
« Last Edit: 08/30/2012 04:07 am by pathfinder_01 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #54 on: 08/30/2012 04:10 am »

So what happens if both Boeing and SpaceX, which are implied to be the shoe-ins, don't work out for whatever reason

Not a credible scenario.

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #55 on: 08/30/2012 04:29 am »

So what happens if both Boeing and SpaceX, which are implied to be the shoe-ins, don't work out for whatever reason

Not 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. 

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #56 on: 08/30/2012 04:36 am »

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?

Boeing isn't a small company and can throw more of it's own internal funds than Space X or SNC. CCDEV isn't 100% government funded.

Quote
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?

Perhaps, but at the risk of locking you into Space X and/or Boeing not a good idea to lock yourself in too early.  IMHO it would work against the idea of commercail crew which is that the companies should invest some of their own money.

The risk of selecting early is that boeing could allow delays to mount(rightnow they have competion with Space X and SNC). The other risk is that Space X has too much on it's plate. It would be like calling two guys over to esitmate your roof. In general you want three or more choices. ATK could get in the last round too but they would have to dump such an amount of money that it is very unlikely they would.
« Last Edit: 08/30/2012 04:39 am by pathfinder_01 »

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #57 on: 08/30/2012 12:30 pm »

So what happens if both Boeing and SpaceX, which are implied to be the shoe-ins, don't work out for whatever reason

Not 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?

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #58 on: 08/31/2012 01:28 am »

Jim?  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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #59 on: 08/31/2012 01:55 am »

Jim?  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 too 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).
« Last Edit: 08/31/2012 03:23 am by yg1968 »

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #60 on: 08/31/2012 02:46 am »

Jim?  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).

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, you would have multiple external customers who are also paying.  If there was truly a vast market that the special interests cited in trying to get their piece of the government pie (all the while trying to shame and suggest that is all "old space" is interested in) they would have been doing it themselves and on a much quicker timetable because of the potential of the market. 

NASA, when picking up so much of the tab for development and operations has every right to levy the requirements *they* believe are valid. 

It is time you and everyone else saw reality and accepted it.  This always has been just another program dressed as something different and one that senior NASA officials could never clearly define.  It is not the fault of congress, that is a failure of NASA by not communicating what this was and up until very recently openly advertising mutually exclusive reasons for the existance of the program and playing to that audience. 

There was ever only going to be one at the end and the claims of competition, etc doing something for this is also just another show.  Competition could have still happened early and up to a point, just like every other program, and other incentives could have provided what "competition" is now be used to justify.  However, the result would have been that one provider much sooner. 

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #61 on: 08/31/2012 02:53 am »

Jim?  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).

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.  JM2CW

yg1968  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.
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #62 on: 08/31/2012 02:58 am »

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,

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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #63 on: 08/31/2012 03:07 am »
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.  JM2CW

yg1968  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.

Yes I know and agree with all of that. I am not concerned about the CCiCap base period and CPC (i.e., phase 1 of certification). But I am concerned of what will happen in 2014. For one thing, the CCiCap optional milestones (which are under SAAs) aren't a given and might not be exercised at all in 2014 and later. Ed Mango made that clear during the August 8th forum. Secondly, I don't think that phase 2 of the certification (which will be under FAR) in 2014 is projected to be a lite certification as was originally hoped and expected. I believe that NASA is currently leaning towards a much more involved phase 2 of certification. In a nutshell, what worries me is what happens in 2014 and later. Like I said, there is still time to reverse course since I don't believe that the current plans for commercial crew development in 2014 are set in stone.
« Last Edit: 08/31/2012 05:45 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #64 on: 08/31/2012 12:04 pm »

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,

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. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #65 on: 08/31/2012 12:13 pm »

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. 


Not really.  Those are just side benefits.  It doesn't change the fact that commercial crew procurement is vastly different from MPCV.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #66 on: 08/31/2012 05:18 pm »


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. 


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?”).

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #67 on: 08/31/2012 08:28 pm »
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. 
It's a whole different method. The requirements are defined in the beginning. No changing of goal post. No specific solutions dictated. The commercial is to prevent feature/requirement creep and specific solutions from NASA side.

Offline DaveH62

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #68 on: 09/01/2012 03:25 am »


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. 


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?”).

It's the difference between building your own car versus buying one from GM. Look at the cost difference to NASA vs Ares.
Build your own car or have someone build you a car to your specs or buy a car that works well for most consumers. No offense, but I wouldn't buy a Pathfinder car, no matter how well you designed it. The cost would be many times a GM and the quality would not be as high.
As for not commercial, the rocket service provider for CRS-1 has 25 commercial payload flights, besides their 12 NASA flights. How many commercial SLS flights are in the works? It is a difference that makes a difference.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #69 on: 09/13/2012 02:46 am »
September 12, 2012 Release of RFP for CPC [i.e., phase 1 of certification]:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=48

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #70 on: 09/13/2012 10:04 am »
September 12, 2012 Release of RFP for CPC [i.e., phase 1 of certification]:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=48

Interesting 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.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #71 on: 09/13/2012 03:47 pm »
This effort is a paper only contract. But one of the reports is very interesting. The Alternate Standards report. This seems to be the "this is our requirements that meet the intent of the NASA requirements and why they would be just as good or better". Other items are mainly the plans to do certification and the reviews and other data products to support the reviews in the plans. It should be easily a fixed price for all of this.


Edit :fixed typo
« Last Edit: 09/13/2012 03:48 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #72 on: 09/14/2012 12:51 am »
September 12, 2012 Release of RFP for CPC [i.e., phase 1 of certification]:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=48

Interesting 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.

CPC will be a fixed price contract.  The intent is to have the partners deliver some key documents for initial review to jump start the certification process.  For example, they will deliver their certification plan.  NASA will review and say "this good", "that bad".  A key thing, since this is under a contract, that the "this good" they can carry that into future phases as done and agreed.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #73 on: 09/27/2012 04:02 am »
Here is a link to the September 19 Presentation on CPC (phase 1 of certification):

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=651

I have also attached the file in PDF format.
« Last Edit: 09/27/2012 04:05 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #74 on: 09/27/2012 04:07 am »
List of interested parties in CPC is interesting. It includes Blue Origin and ATK.

Quote
Certification Products Contract
List of Interested Parties

1.   Apogee Systems
2.   ARES Corporation
3.   ATDL, Inc.
4.   ATK
5.   Blue Origin
6.   Boeing
7.   M&B Engineering
8.   Orbital Commerce Project
9.   Sierra Nevada Corporation
10.   Spacedesign Corporation
11.   SpaceX
12.   Space and Defense Engineering Services Company, LLC
13.   Special Aerospace Services, LLC
14.   4W Solutions, Inc.

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/ccpcpc/
« Last Edit: 09/27/2012 04:33 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #75 on: 09/27/2012 04:17 am »
Here is a link to the September 19 Presentation on CPC (phase 1 of certification):

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=651

I have also attached the file in PDF format.

Of interest is that phase 2 of certification would start in May 2014.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #76 on: 10/05/2012 02:13 pm »
An article on NASA.gov on the September 19th CPC conference:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/cpc-conference.html

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew Program Forum - Aug 8, 2012
« Reply #77 on: 10/16/2012 05:30 pm »
CPC proposals were due last Friday (October 12, 2012). CPC award should be February 7th 2013.
http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/ccpcpc/schedule.asp

Here is the updated timeline from Amendment 4 of the RFP for phase 1 and 2 of certification. Proposals for phase 2 should be due in November 2013. The award for phase 2 of certification should be in May 2014.
« Last Edit: 10/16/2012 05:45 pm by yg1968 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0