The funding mechanism also has an impact on cost and schedule.If you down-select to one provider now, they are going to have to allow plenty of margin in price and schedule to cover their risks through to the end of development. NASA will also impose additional requirements to monitor and mitigate these risks.With multiple providers and limited, near-term milestones, (whether by SAA or FAR), the providers and NASA have gretly reduced risk (and hence cost) in each contract.There has to be a break-even point after which it will be cheaper & faster to down-select to one. I don't know if we've reached it yet.
Why? COTS & CRS never downselected to one - do you think they would've benefited from it?
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 05/16/2012 03:32 amWhy? COTS & CRS never downselected to one - do you think they would've benefited from it? COTS no, because it was a one-off with a relatively short time frame.CRS seemed a bit premature to me, with neither provider having a demonstrated capability yet, but I guess they needed early funding to start ramping up to an operational capability. Perhaps if NASA had paid for that through another COTS program then awarded the whole contract to one provider, it would have cost less overall.On the other hand, since they wanted two providers for more assured access, maybe not.I don't know think NASA intends to have two Commercial Crew providers in the long term.
Quote from: kkattula on 05/16/2012 03:20 amThe funding mechanism also has an impact on cost and schedule.If you down-select to one provider now, they are going to have to allow plenty of margin in price and schedule to cover their risks through to the end of development. NASA will also impose additional requirements to monitor and mitigate these risks.With multiple providers and limited, near-term milestones, (whether by SAA or FAR), the providers and NASA have gretly reduced risk (and hence cost) in each contract.There has to be a break-even point after which it will be cheaper & faster to down-select to one. I don't know if we've reached it yet.Why? COTS & CRS never downselected to one - do you think they would've benefited from it?
If you read the CRS selection statement, down selection to one cargo provider was actually considered by NASA but in the end, Gerst decided to opt for two contractors because he believed that the assured timely access to the ISS outweighted the downside of spreading budget across multiple contractors. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15518.0
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/16/2012 03:55 pmIf you read the CRS selection statement, down selection to one cargo provider was actually considered by NASA but in the end, Gerst decided to opt for two contractors because he believed that the assured timely access to the ISS outweighted the downside of spreading budget across multiple contractors. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15518.0But you have to recognise that NASA did not have as much insight into the integrated sc/lv and the providers had much more freedom in COTS/CRS as NASA only cared about cargo delivery and ISS operations. CC will require significantly greater NASA insight in all phases in flight. That should be more assuring to NASA management that a single provider can provide assured access.
But you have to recognise that NASA did not have as much insight into the integrated sc/lv and the providers had much more freedom in COTS/CRS as NASA only cared about cargo delivery and ISS operations. CC will require significantly greater NASA insight in all phases in flight. That should be more assuring to NASA management that a single provider can provide assured access.
Quote from: kkattula on 05/16/2012 05:34 amQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 05/16/2012 03:32 amWhy? COTS & CRS never downselected to one - do you think they would've benefited from it? COTS no, because it was a one-off with a relatively short time frame.CRS seemed a bit premature to me, with neither provider having a demonstrated capability yet, but I guess they needed early funding to start ramping up to an operational capability. Perhaps if NASA had paid for that through another COTS program then awarded the whole contract to one provider, it would have cost less overall.On the other hand, since they wanted two providers for more assured access, maybe not.I don't know think NASA intends to have two Commercial Crew providers in the long term.two comments on that1. Why do you think NASA intends to only have 1 CCrew provider in the long term? Then you are back to having only 1 way to access space.2. If nothing else, getting to a fly-off for commercial crew may prove to be very interesting, and push further the development of a LEO marketplace (I can just imagine a discussion of "we've developed this hardware, and built one, and NASA's isn't buying it? Can we sell it to anyone else?")
Quote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 05/16/2012 01:40 pmQuote from: kkattula on 05/16/2012 05:34 amQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 05/16/2012 03:32 amWhy? COTS & CRS never downselected to one - do you think they would've benefited from it? COTS no, because it was a one-off with a relatively short time frame.CRS seemed a bit premature to me, with neither provider having a demonstrated capability yet, but I guess they needed early funding to start ramping up to an operational capability. Perhaps if NASA had paid for that through another COTS program then awarded the whole contract to one provider, it would have cost less overall.On the other hand, since they wanted two providers for more assured access, maybe not.I don't know think NASA intends to have two Commercial Crew providers in the long term.two comments on that1. Why do you think NASA intends to only have 1 CCrew provider in the long term? Then you are back to having only 1 way to access space.2. If nothing else, getting to a fly-off for commercial crew may prove to be very interesting, and push further the development of a LEO marketplace (I can just imagine a discussion of "we've developed this hardware, and built one, and NASA's isn't buying it? Can we sell it to anyone else?")No the it is written in the law, that Orion is the backup. Also the Russian seats would still be avail.
Quote from: Prober on 05/16/2012 11:27 pmQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 05/16/2012 01:40 pmQuote from: kkattula on 05/16/2012 05:34 amQuote from: Political Hack Wannabe on 05/16/2012 03:32 amWhy? COTS & CRS never downselected to one - do you think they would've benefited from it? COTS no, because it was a one-off with a relatively short time frame.CRS seemed a bit premature to me, with neither provider having a demonstrated capability yet, but I guess they needed early funding to start ramping up to an operational capability. Perhaps if NASA had paid for that through another COTS program then awarded the whole contract to one provider, it would have cost less overall.On the other hand, since they wanted two providers for more assured access, maybe not.I don't know think NASA intends to have two Commercial Crew providers in the long term.two comments on that1. Why do you think NASA intends to only have 1 CCrew provider in the long term? Then you are back to having only 1 way to access space.2. If nothing else, getting to a fly-off for commercial crew may prove to be very interesting, and push further the development of a LEO marketplace (I can just imagine a discussion of "we've developed this hardware, and built one, and NASA's isn't buying it? Can we sell it to anyone else?")No the it is written in the law, that Orion is the backup. Also the Russian seats would still be avail.Soyuz is backup in that law. Orion is backup to Soyuz.cheers, Martin
Let's get Orion on a delta launcher and get it done.
NASA's been doing that for 50 years. We've all seen the results.
Quote from: QuantumG on 05/26/2012 10:00 amNASA's been doing that for 50 years. We've all seen the results.Yes and I want more of what NASA gives us, not what Elon Musk gives us ...
When the US Secret Service needed a Limousine for the President, they had General Motors build it, then hand over the keys and the transaction was, by and large finished. General Motors doesn't operate and own the Presidential Limo, the US Government does.Now I understand that there is a huge difference between an automobile (even one as fancy as the Presidential Cadillac) and a Space Vehicle/Rocket system, but I believe NASA's COTS and CCDev programs should function in more or less the same way that the US Air Force bought two Boeing 747s to function as Air Force One and the way the US Secret Service bought a fleet of Limousines for presidntial transportation.