NASA Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services: RFI for Round 2

[yg1968]

There's already language for extensions they don't want to re-compete that.  They always planned another round of crew just they did with cargo.  These are two different things one is an extension for Dragon the Starliner flights NASA already bought, the other is for new services.

Not sure what you mean by "There's already language for extensions..."? Can't find anything in the contract to suggest that, and a couple items which indicate otherwise. In the case where missions have been ordered (as in task orders issued), there is an automatic extension, so no need to change anything for those. Otherwise, per Steve Stich's comment: "We’re in the process of going through those contract actions and figuring out how to add additional flights, likely to both contracts, at some point".

Although he could have been clearer in his choices of words, Steve Stich may have been talking about this RFI. That is my guess (and my hope also).

[yg1968]

The problem is that NASA doesn't know what they will actually need in 2027, and a new entrant might begin operational missions in that timeframe. Committing to X missions that may happen in 7 or 8 years from now doesn't look optimal to me.
There could be like 2 guaranteed development missions(like for SpaceX and Boeing) so that at the end of the development contract all the development expenses are payed and only then flights should be awarded on an as-needed basis.

Unless something drastic changes with the ISS, NASA should have a very good idea of what they will need. In nay case, if the CCtCap contract model is followed, the operational missions (post-DDTE or PCM's) are not actually authorized until certain milestones are reached. Also, there were no guaranteed development missions under CCtCap; those were requirements to reach certification prior to operational flights. The two "guaranteed" missions are operational; but again, not guaranteed unless Boeing and SpaceX completed certification.

Under CCtCap, you had to have one crewed demo flight before being certified. The uncrewed demo flight wasn't mandatory but strongly encouraged.

[ThomasGadd]

There's already language for extensions they don't want to re-compete that.  They always planned another round of crew just they did with cargo.  These are two different things one is an extension for Dragon the Starliner flights NASA already bought, the other is for new services.

Not sure what you mean by "There's already language for extensions..."? Can't find anything in the contract to suggest that, and a couple items which indicate otherwise. In the case where missions have been ordered (as in task orders issued), there is an automatic extension, so no need to change anything for those. Otherwise, per Steve Stich's comment: "We’re in the process of going through those contract actions and figuring out how to add additional flights, likely to both contracts, at some point".

Although he could have been clearer in his choices of words, Steve Stich may have been talking about this RFI. That is my guess (and my hope also).

Damn... I just hit refresh while in profile mode and lost my edit.  It takes me a along time to compose things these days.
This attempt won't be laid out as well let's if I can main points. 
What I'm missing is how we got here with Commercial Crew.  Main points moving ahead. 

SpaceX was suppose fly for five years now it's two and a half. 
The strain SpaceX and the NASA team must be incredible. 
NASA needs Boeing and SpaceX flying alternating six month missions
Do you trust Boeing back to back missions for a while? 

[NaN]

There's already language for extensions they don't want to re-compete that.  They always planned another round of crew just they did with cargo.  These are two different things one is an extension for Dragon the Starliner flights NASA already bought, the other is for new services.

Not sure what you mean by "There's already language for extensions..."? Can't find anything in the contract to suggest that, and a couple items which indicate otherwise. In the case where missions have been ordered (as in task orders issued), there is an automatic extension, so no need to change anything for those. Otherwise, per Steve Stich's comment: "We’re in the process of going through those contract actions and figuring out how to add additional flights, likely to both contracts, at some point".

Although he could have been clearer in his choices of words, Steve Stich may have been talking about this RFI. That is my guess (and my hope also).

Damn... I just hit refresh while in profile mode and lost my edit.  It takes me a along time to compose things these days.
This attempt won't be laid out as well let's if I can main points. 
What I'm missing is how we got here with Commercial Crew.  Main points moving ahead. 

SpaceX was suppose fly for five years now it's two and a half. 
The strain SpaceX and the NASA team must be incredible. 
NASA needs Boeing and SpaceX flying alternating six month missions
Do you trust Boeing back to back missions for a while?

Most likely they will give both providers new awards at the same time, and SpaceX will simply get more new missions to balance them out. Then they switch to alternating missions as soon as Starliner is operational, meaning Boeing will continue flying out the initial contract while SpaceX starts flying the round 2. So, there is no need to treat the "extra" Dragon missions as a special case.
Similar things happened in cargo, where providers had different mission counts and switched from CRS-1 to CRS-2 at different times. It is not an issue.
I think that's what you were asking. Also, I don't think a 6 month cadence would be a "strain", though non-overlapping missions let you apply lessons learned to the very next mission so it is preferable for an immature vehicle.

[ThomasGadd]

There's already language for extensions they don't want to re-compete that.  They always planned another round of crew just they did with cargo.  These are two different things one is an extension for Dragon the Starliner flights NASA already bought, the other is for new services.

Not sure what you mean by "There's already language for extensions..."? Can't find anything in the contract to suggest that, and a couple items which indicate otherwise. In the case where missions have been ordered (as in task orders issued), there is an automatic extension, so no need to change anything for those. Otherwise, per Steve Stich's comment: "We’re in the process of going through those contract actions and figuring out how to add additional flights, likely to both contracts, at some point".

Although he could have been clearer in his choices of words, Steve Stich may have been talking about this RFI. That is my guess (and my hope also).

Damn... I just hit refresh while in profile mode and lost my edit.  It takes me a along time to compose things these days.
This attempt won't be laid out as well let's if I can main points. 
What I'm missing is how we got here with Commercial Crew.  Main points moving ahead. 

SpaceX was suppose fly for five years now it's two and a half. 
The strain SpaceX and the NASA team must be incredible. 
NASA needs Boeing and SpaceX flying alternating six month missions
Do you trust Boeing back to back missions for a while?

Most likely they will give both providers new awards at the same time, and SpaceX will simply get more new missions to balance them out. Then they switch to alternating missions as soon as Starliner is operational, meaning Boeing will continue flying out the initial contract while SpaceX starts flying the round 2. So, there is no need to treat the "extra" Dragon missions as a special case.
Similar things happened in cargo, where providers had different mission counts and switched from CRS-1 to CRS-2 at different times. It is not an issue.
I think that's what you were asking. Also, I don't think a 6 month cadence would be a "strain", though non-overlapping missions let you apply lessons learned to the very next mission so it is preferable for an immature vehicle.

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now. 
Even if the next Starliner flight goes perfectly is possible a Crewed Starliner a year from now? 
The Crewed Commercial is designed to fly two alternating providers every six months. 
NASA needs to continue flying Crew Dragon until Starliner is complete. 

Also this round 2 is many years before any award. 

[abaddon]

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now.

Incorrect, in fact Crew-5 has already been assigned to SpaceX for Fall 2022 (currently September).  Crew-6 is the last currently contracted SpaceX mission and would take place in Spring of 2023 if Starliner has not been certified for operational use by that time (or more correctly however much before that flight is required for planning purposes).

This means the first gap that would need filling, if Starliner is not yet available by sometime early-mid 2023, is Fall of 2023.

[ThomasGadd]

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now.

Incorrect, in fact Crew-5 has already been assigned to SpaceX for Fall 2022 (currently September).  Crew-6 is the last currently contracted SpaceX mission and would take place in Spring of 2023 if Starliner has not been certified for operational use by that time (or more correctly however much before that flight is required for planning purposes).

This means the first gap that would need filling, if Starliner is not yet available by sometime early-mid 2023, is Fall of 2023.

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete. 

[litton4]

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now.

Incorrect, in fact Crew-5 has already been assigned to SpaceX for Fall 2022 (currently September).  Crew-6 is the last currently contracted SpaceX mission and would take place in Spring of 2023 if Starliner has not been certified for operational use by that time (or more correctly however much before that flight is required for planning purposes).

This means the first gap that would need filling, if Starliner is not yet available by sometime early-mid 2023, is Fall of 2023.

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete. 

Would the hypothetical extra flights come as part of CRS-1 or 2?
I'd like to see them claw money from the Boeing overpayment to pay SpaceX under CRS-1 on the grounds that Boeing has failed to deliver, but without knowing contract terms, I guess we won't know.....

[deadman1204]

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete.

More than this, NASA will need to keep flying dragon once starliner is operational. NASA won't let 1-2years go by without flying a dragon because of operational knowledge loss. They will continue using it each year to ensure spaceX stays in practice.

[ThomasGadd]

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete.

More than this, NASA will need to keep flying dragon once starliner is operational. NASA won't let 1-2years go by without flying a dragon because of operational knowledge loss. They will continue using it each year to ensure spaceX stays in practice.

This is exactly what I meant I mistyped.  I mean't Starliner missions. 
NASA wants to fly two providers alternating every six months, just the reasons you just said, proficiency and redundancy. 

[yg1968]

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now.

Incorrect, in fact Crew-5 has already been assigned to SpaceX for Fall 2022 (currently September).  Crew-6 is the last currently contracted SpaceX mission and would take place in Spring of 2023 if Starliner has not been certified for operational use by that time (or more correctly however much before that flight is required for planning purposes).

This means the first gap that would need filling, if Starliner is not yet available by sometime early-mid 2023, is Fall of 2023.

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete. 

Would the hypothetical extra flights come as part of CRS-1 or 2?
I'd like to see them claw money from the Boeing overpayment to pay SpaceX under CRS-1 on the grounds that Boeing has failed to deliver, but without knowing contract terms, I guess we won't know.....

No, CRS is for cargo only. CCtCap and CCSTS is for crew. The contracts must follow the terms of the RFP (and we have those). I believe that some of the contracts are available in redacted form.

[yg1968]

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete.

More than this, NASA will need to keep flying dragon once starliner is operational. NASA won't let 1-2years go by without flying a dragon because of operational knowledge loss. They will continue using it each year to ensure spaceX stays in practice.

Steve Jurczyk said as much a few months ago. At the time, I didn't understand what he meant but it makes more sense now that we know more about CCSTS.

[ThomasGadd]

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete.

More than this, NASA will need to keep flying dragon once starliner is operational. NASA won't let 1-2years go by without flying a dragon because of operational knowledge loss. They will continue using it each year to ensure spaceX stays in practice.

Steve Jurczyk said as much a few months ago. At the time, I didn't understand what he meant but it makes more sense now that we know more about CCSTS.

Right I saw the same briefing.   Like most things NASA and SpaceX we will have to be patient and wait...

[lrk]

The recent announcement of Blue Origin's Orbital Reef space station, using Starliner for crew transport, seems to imply that Boeing is committed to continuing to fly Starliner missions after flying out their Atlas boosters.  So I fully expect Boeing to bid for additional NASA missions. 

The question is who will be funding the human-rating of Vulcan - Blue Origin?  Or will Blue want to launch Starliner on New Glen? 

[litton4]

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now.

Incorrect, in fact Crew-5 has already been assigned to SpaceX for Fall 2022 (currently September).  Crew-6 is the last currently contracted SpaceX mission and would take place in Spring of 2023 if Starliner has not been certified for operational use by that time (or more correctly however much before that flight is required for planning purposes).

This means the first gap that would need filling, if Starliner is not yet available by sometime early-mid 2023, is Fall of 2023.

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete. 

Would the hypothetical extra flights come as part of CRS-1 or 2?
I'd like to see them claw money from the Boeing overpayment to pay SpaceX under CRS-1 on the grounds that Boeing has failed to deliver, but without knowing contract terms, I guess we won't know.....

No, CRS is for cargo only. CCtCap and CCSTS is for crew. The contracts must follow the terms of the RFP (and we have those). I believe that some of the contracts are available in redacted form.

D'oh.
Sorry, I meant the crew contract, not the resupply ones.

Would any extra SpaceX flights come out of the current crew contract or the new one, that is still a way, down the line, apparently.....?

[ThomasGadd]

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now.

Incorrect, in fact Crew-5 has already been assigned to SpaceX for Fall 2022 (currently September).  Crew-6 is the last currently contracted SpaceX mission and would take place in Spring of 2023 if Starliner has not been certified for operational use by that time (or more correctly however much before that flight is required for planning purposes).

This means the first gap that would need filling, if Starliner is not yet available by sometime early-mid 2023, is Fall of 2023.

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete. 

Would the hypothetical extra flights come as part of CRS-1 or 2?
I'd like to see them claw money from the Boeing overpayment to pay SpaceX under CRS-1 on the grounds that Boeing has failed to deliver, but without knowing contract terms, I guess we won't know.....

No, CRS is for cargo only. CCtCap and CCSTS is for crew. The contracts must follow the terms of the RFP (and we have those). I believe that some of the contracts are available in redacted form.

D'oh.
Sorry, I meant the crew contract, not the resupply ones.

Would any extra SpaceX flights come out of the current crew contract or the new one, that is still a way, down the line, apparently.....?

I've been assuming that NASA has language in the existing contracts to handle adding missions in case one both providers have issues along the way. 
The existing situation is an extreme edge case of  that foresight on NASA's part.

[yg1968]

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now.

Incorrect, in fact Crew-5 has already been assigned to SpaceX for Fall 2022 (currently September).  Crew-6 is the last currently contracted SpaceX mission and would take place in Spring of 2023 if Starliner has not been certified for operational use by that time (or more correctly however much before that flight is required for planning purposes).

This means the first gap that would need filling, if Starliner is not yet available by sometime early-mid 2023, is Fall of 2023.

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete. 

Would the hypothetical extra flights come as part of CRS-1 or 2?
I'd like to see them claw money from the Boeing overpayment to pay SpaceX under CRS-1 on the grounds that Boeing has failed to deliver, but without knowing contract terms, I guess we won't know.....

No, CRS is for cargo only. CCtCap and CCSTS is for crew. The contracts must follow the terms of the RFP (and we have those). I believe that some of the contracts are available in redacted form.

D'oh.
Sorry, I meant the crew contract, not the resupply ones.

Would any extra SpaceX flights come out of the current crew contract or the new one, that is still a way, down the line, apparently.....?

As I have said previously, the RFP for CCtCap provides for a maximum of 6 post-certification missions. My understanding is that the contracts have to follow the RFP, so I don't think that CCtCap can be extended past the SpaceX Crew 6 missions. Some have challenged me on that but I stand by what I previously said about this. To me the fact that NASA is releasing this RFI shows that either NASA cannot extend the CCtCap contracts because of the language in the RFP or it doesn't want to do so. Even if NASA could extend CCtCap, I don't think that it should, I would prefer that they proceed with CCSTS instead.

[yg1968]

SpaceX flights  are done with end of Crew-4 a year from now.

Incorrect, in fact Crew-5 has already been assigned to SpaceX for Fall 2022 (currently September).  Crew-6 is the last currently contracted SpaceX mission and would take place in Spring of 2023 if Starliner has not been certified for operational use by that time (or more correctly however much before that flight is required for planning purposes).

This means the first gap that would need filling, if Starliner is not yet available by sometime early-mid 2023, is Fall of 2023.

You're right of course my stupid. 
NASA still needs add Dragon flights until Starliner is complete. 

Would the hypothetical extra flights come as part of CRS-1 or 2?
I'd like to see them claw money from the Boeing overpayment to pay SpaceX under CRS-1 on the grounds that Boeing has failed to deliver, but without knowing contract terms, I guess we won't know.....

No, CRS is for cargo only. CCtCap and CCSTS is for crew. The contracts must follow the terms of the RFP (and we have those). I believe that some of the contracts are available in redacted form.

D'oh.
Sorry, I meant the crew contract, not the resupply ones.

Would any extra SpaceX flights come out of the current crew contract or the new one, that is still a way, down the line, apparently.....?

I've been assuming that NASA has language in the existing contracts to handle adding missions in case one both providers have issues along the way. 
The existing situation is an extreme edge case of  that foresight on NASA's part.

The issue isn't the contract since contracts can be modified if both parties agree to the changes. The issue is with the CCtCap RFP which provides for a maximum of 6 post certification missions. In terms of foresight, I think that NASA had the foresight to cap CCtCap at 6 post-certification missions. A new contract allows new entrants and it also allows NASA to get better prices. In the case of CRS2, it allowed NASA to ask for more capable spacecrafts. CCtCap was always meant to have a phase after it (in 2015, they called the next round, the commercial crew transportation services, they have only slightly changed the name of the round by adding the word "space").

[ThomasGadd]

I've been thinking about who will be the future Commercial Crew  under this program?
Falcon/Dragon will continue.
Atlas/Starliner will continue but they are out Atlas after this batch is   done.  Has Boeing said they are going to Starliner on Vulcan when it's ready?
The BE-4 has been delayed, both New Glenn and Vulcan will use the BE-4.
As flight engines start to  come available the production rate will be slow ad d the new engines that will have to be corrected causing more delays,

New Glenn and Vulcan will have a lot of successful flights to complete before being trusted with any valuable cargo.

Antares has been carrying cargo to the ISS for years.  Is there a reason it cannot be crew qualified?
Having  systems that can fly on multiple launch vehicles is a good thing.

[kevinof]

I presume you mean Cygnus. It has no LAS so big job to develop and test one plus the booster would also have to be crew rated and probably have to fly without a fairing. Don't see it ever being turned into a crew vehicle and maybe cheaper to start from scratch.

...
Antares has been carrying cargo to the ISS for years.  Is there a reason it cannot be crew qualified?
Having  systems that can fly on multiple launch vehicles is a good thing.