Author Topic: NASA Awards Commercial Crew Program Certification Products Contracts (CPC)  (Read 47661 times)

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 4
NASA should be very interested in nurturing a private space industry with many comparably low cost options to choose from.

They are. But their charter is really more along the lines of developing the technology and then gifting it to industry rather than being essentially venture capitalists.

While I may agree that the SLS is unnecessary, I'd rather see that money go into development of spacecraft that can be lofted by existing EELVs.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062

But their charter is really more along the lines of developing the technology and then gifting it to industry rather than being essentially venture capitalists.

While I may agree that the SLS is unnecessary, I'd rather see that money go into development of spacecraft that can be lofted by existing EELVs.
Well, I think that NASA should be developing new state of the art technologies that can be licensed by the industry providing NASA with launchers and spacecraft. I do however not think that NASA should be directly developing launchers and spacecraft.

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 4
I do however not think that NASA should be directly developing launchers and spacecraft.

Launchers, no. Spacecraft, yes. Private industry is going to develop LEO spacecraft, not BEO (despite what Elon says). NASA needs to be working on the technology to actually get somewhere. Astronauts are not going to be stuffed in an Orion for 6 month stretches. They're going to need a habitat module. If we go NEA, they're going to need an exploration vehicle. If we intend to land on Mars, then we need an ascent/descent vehicle. Lost of juicy design work that doesn't involve bolting old SSME's to the bottom of an ET sandwiched between two giant roman candles.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
If there are already spacecraft available, NASA should use them. But not otherwise. NASA certainly shouldn't just develop their own launcher, IMHO, because of the enormous infrastructure costs and fact that such infrastructure WILL do most of its time rusting in the elements if it is a NASA-developed launcher (since NASA doesn't do commercial payloads anymore nor military ones and since NASA's budget is minimal).

Even if NASA does develop its own spacecraft when others are available, though, that's a much smaller infrastructure burden than a launch vehicle.

NASA needs to be building that SEV and a lander and a Deep Space Hab and a large propulsion module. That is stuff that will take longer for the private sector to have available. And even now, there still isn't a private manned capsule available, though that will hopefully change soon.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Launchers, no. Spacecraft, yes. Private industry is going to develop LEO spacecraft, not BEO (despite what Elon says).

And you have thought about this more carefully and with better support than Elon Musk because.....

Let's all please show some modesty.  And stay on topic.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3431
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1602
  • Likes Given: 50
... The only possible surprise is maybe that ATK did not get an award after they said they would compete.  The only mystery is whether ATK did not submit, or were rejected.  In any case, a topic for a different thread.

The only proposals received by the deadline were from the three companies that were awarded contracts.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
NASA should be very interested in nurturing a private space industry with many comparably low cost options to choose from.

No. That is not part of the NASA Charter. Any interest NASA has in commercial capabilities is to fulfill a very specific and narrow NASA need. Nurturing a private industry along is totally beyond what NASA is tasked to do. Might as well insist that a shipbuilder help a housing contractor get his business underway.

NASA specific needs and a totally separate commercial industry are 2 completely different animals. Commercial companies outside the NASA needs scope need to put their own money into their business ventures, or seek venture capital, just like every other startup in history. Government money is not for business development.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
No. That is not part of the NASA Charter. Any interest NASA has in commercial capabilities is to fulfill a very specific and narrow NASA need. Nurturing a private industry along is totally beyond what NASA is tasked to do.

Have you even read the space act?

Quote
(c) Commercial Use of Space.--Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the Administration seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html

Quote
NASA specific needs and a totally separate commercial industry are 2 completely different animals.

Agreed.

Quote
Commercial companies outside the NASA needs scope need to put their own money into their business ventures, or seek venture capital, just like every other startup in history. Government money is not for business development.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, the beloved geniuses in Congress don't agree and have chartered NASA with "nurturing" private industry.. this never ends well.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
No. That is not part of the NASA Charter. Any interest NASA has in commercial capabilities is to fulfill a very specific and narrow NASA need. Nurturing a private industry along is totally beyond what NASA is tasked to do.

Have you even read the space act?

Quote
(c) Commercial Use of Space.--Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the Administration seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html

Quote
NASA specific needs and a totally separate commercial industry are 2 completely different animals.

Agreed.

Quote
Commercial companies outside the NASA needs scope need to put their own money into their business ventures, or seek venture capital, just like every other startup in history. Government money is not for business development.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, the beloved geniuses in Congress don't agree and have chartered NASA with "nurturing" private industry.. this never ends well.

The problem is that this only works when there is not unfair competition from cost plus government projects like the SLS.
It makes investment into private space very risky for a venture capitalist, if there is the chance for a government subsidized competition.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
The problem is that this only works when there is not unfair competition from cost plus government projects like the SLS.
It makes investment into private space very risky for a venture capitalist, if there is the chance for a government subsidized competition.

Indeed, and the solution is not to "fight fire with fire", it's to put out the bonfire of taxpayer money.

mmm.. metaphor.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

The problem is that this only works when there is not unfair competition from cost plus government projects like the SLS.
It makes investment into private space very risky for a venture capitalist, if there is the chance for a government subsidized competition.

More nonsense from the same source.  The contracting mechanism has no bearing on SLS competition for CCP funds nor is SLS competing with CCP for missions.  SLS is not going to be used for ISS servicing.  Changing SLS to fixed price would not free up any real amount of money
« Last Edit: 12/15/2012 02:20 am by Jim »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he meant the psychological competition. Whether we like it or not, people see the commercial crew providers as "competing" with SLS and the rest of the government program.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he meant the psychological competition. Whether we like it or not, people see the commercial crew providers as "competing" with SLS and the rest of the government program.
Exactly! Plus certain public figures like to spin things in an unfavorable way for private companies (and startups in particular) in the space industry. They have deliberately tried to the sell the SLS to the public as a "backup for commercial crew" (even though that cant be for so many reasons).
All this makes it much harder to get private investment in an industry that is already very hard to be successful in and that requires A LOT of money invested up front.
« Last Edit: 12/15/2012 02:52 am by Elmar Moelzer »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
I agree with QuantumG, I wish commercial crew had followed the COTS-D model. COTS-D was underfunded but it didn't have a certification phase. If a certification phase is absolutely necessary, it should be as light as possible. As far as politics, there is already a government option as a back up if required. Commercial crew should remain "as commercial" as possible with NASA having as little oversight as possible. I get the feeling that the CPC phase qualifies as a light certification phase. But phase 2 of certification worries me as it seems a lot more intrusive. Incidentally, I don't think that DOD contracts are a model for effeciency and should not be the model for defining what commercial crew should be.
I agree with that as well.

Something to keep in mind is that the environment is a bit different between commercial crew and COTS.  Right now you have a very strong political influence (hence why we have 2.5 companies in iCAP vice 2.0 or 1.0) and you also have a very, VERY uncertain funding situation.  Therefore the current SAA, CPC and future planning ar being structure for maiximum flexibility within the constraints of politics, desires of NASA, desires of the companies...

Yes that's a good point (about the process being flexible) and it's also a point that you have made in the past. There is still time to adopt a lite certification second phase (without development) and continue with the CCiCap optional milestones for the remaining development. But the only problem is that the proposals for phase 2 of certification are currently projected to be due in November 2013 which isn't that far away. 
« Last Edit: 12/15/2012 05:09 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
« Last Edit: 12/22/2012 02:12 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Here are the highlights from the CPC selection statement.

-NASA only received proposals for CPC from Boeing, SNC and SpaceX.

-Boeing, SNC and SpaceX received ratings of acceptable for Technical Acceptability.

-Boeing, SNC and SpaceX received ratings of reasonable for Price.

-Boeing and SpaceX got high level of confidence ratings for Past Performance.

-SNC got a moderate level of confidence rating for Past Performance.

-On SNC, Gerst says that he "concluded that although some of SNC's past performance was in system-level work and more was in element-level work, it was pertinent to the CPC requirements and was effectively performed. The rating of moderate for SNC was appropriate and directly supported by the findings."

-See pages 5 and 8 of the CPC Selection Statement for the discussion on Past Performance for each company.
« Last Edit: 12/22/2012 03:09 pm by yg1968 »

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Here are the highlights from the CPC selection statement.

-NASA only received proposals for CPC from Boeing, SNC and SpaceX.

-Boeing, SNC and SpaceX received ratings of acceptable for Technical Acceptability.

-Boeing, SNC and SpaceX received ratings of reasonable for Price.

-Boeing and SpaceX got high level of confidence ratings for Past Performance.

-SNC got a moderate level of confidence rating for Past Performance.

-On SNC, Gerst says that he "concluded that although some of SNC's past performance was in system-level work and more was in element-level work, it was pertinent to the CPC requirements and was effectively performed. The rating of moderate for SNC was appropriate and directly supported by the findings."

-See pages 5 and 8 of the CPC Selection Statement for the discussion on Past Performance for each company.
I don't understand the term moderate in this context, did SNC perform poorly in documenting there analysis?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
The moderate rating is explained on page 4. I think that it has more to do with whether SNC's past experiences are relevant for the CPC work.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
I don't understand the term moderate in this context, did SNC perform poorly in documenting there analysis?

I think "past performance" in this context means building a vehicle that survived reentry. Boeing (and it's predecessor companies) and Spacex have, SNC AFAIK have not (in a complete system. I'm sure they have supplied sub-systems for various reentry applications).
« Last Edit: 12/24/2012 08:27 pm by john smith 19 »
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.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Here are the highlights from the CPC selection statement.

-NASA only received proposals for CPC from Boeing, SNC and SpaceX.

-Boeing, SNC and SpaceX received ratings of acceptable for Technical Acceptability.

-Boeing, SNC and SpaceX received ratings of reasonable for Price.

-Boeing and SpaceX got high level of confidence ratings for Past Performance.

-SNC got a moderate level of confidence rating for Past Performance.

-On SNC, Gerst says that he "concluded that although some of SNC's past performance was in system-level work and more was in element-level work, it was pertinent to the CPC requirements and was effectively performed. The rating of moderate for SNC was appropriate and directly supported by the findings."

-See pages 5 and 8 of the CPC Selection Statement for the discussion on Past Performance for each company.
I don't understand the term moderate in this context, did SNC perform poorly in documenting there analysis?

There have been issues during CCDEv2.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1