Author Topic: NASA Notifies Congress About Space Station Contract Modification with Russia  (Read 63482 times)

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Senator Nelson has always been pro-commercial crew. However, Edwards (D) and Johnson (D) in the House are still opponents.

Do not believe what he says in public but behind "closed doors".  He is not a friend of commercial crew.  He could have done a lot more for Commercial Crew when he was the chairman and not the ranking member.

These are my perceptions of him.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Good reporting, Chris G. Now to the content. I find it immensely irritating that the party which always calls for private commerce in favor of government run programs practices the opposite with HSF. Of course, most politicians can be bought, and these play the pork game rather than practice what they claim to believe. And with every cut they make, we simply send more off to the Soviet Communists, er sorry.......Russians to subsidize them. Dang it's so frustrating.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
That logic doesn't work.

Quote from: Elon Musk
If this were just a matter of lobbying power we would have no chance. -source

If you really truly want to understand why the people in Congress act the way they do, listen to them. Making up theories that don't fit the facts really isn't helping anyone.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
So, basically, you agree with me. This NASA administration isn't interested in making whatever changes are necessary to placate Congress. I don't agree with you that downselecting to Boeing is what's required, but you obviously do, if Bolden fails again to get full funding for commercial crew. So when will you admit that this administration is more interesting in sticking it to Congress than they are in making the program work?


As I said, I don't agree with woods170 that downselecting to Boeing is what is needed to make this program work... I also don't think whining about the budget in the media and thumbing your nose at Congress is either.

You are skewing my words, again I might add.

My opionion is that this program can be succesfull, preferably with redundant providers. I'm also convinced the program can be succesfull when downselected to just one provider. I'm even convinced that it can be succesfull when downselected to SpaceX. However, I'm afraid US Congress sees things slightly different.

The picture I painted about downselecting to Boeing is my impression of what likely will happen once a downs-select becomes inevitable. It is not what I think should happen.

IMO there should be no down-select whatsoever. The NASA administrator holds a similar view, judging from his actions and words in public hearings.

Your assumption that, with the current under-funding situation AND sticking with two providers, will ultimately fail the CCP program is exactly that: an assumption. And your assumption is also not currently supported by facts.
Stretching a program in time to make up for funding shortfalls is a practice well applied in the aeronautics industry. Sometimes it leads to cancellation, and sometimes it doesn't. IMO, the latter will be the fate of CCP and we will eventually see a CST-100 and/or Dragon 2 bring astronauts to the ISS. If that goal requires to make US Congress look bad, then so be it.

And you are wrong Woods... Boeing absolutely should not be selected as the sole source for commercial crew.  Boeing is the #1 recipient for corporate welfare in America. 
@RocketEconomist327: is my above statement clear enough for you? Note the difference between 'will' and 'should'.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2015 09:05 am by woods170 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
I know he is trying to kill the sacred cow but QuantumG is being a realist. The Commercial Crew program has to live in its environment. As Congress sees it a single provider could fulfill the domestic ISS access requirement for billions less. The argument has not been made particularly well as to why another provider is worth the added cost and risk to NASA’s other budget priorities. Congress been funding the program more than needed for a single provider so there may be an argument Congress would buy. However the current one Bolden is using hasn’t worked. Saying it louder is not likely to get any better of a result. Though a few more missions were added to the Shuttle manifest Congress was okay with doing away with access to LEO, paying the Russians, and the loss of billions in associated pork. How is a congress that was okay with ending the Shuttle program going to be motivated by the same arguments now which should have preserved the Shuttle program then?

Answer: seven more dead astronauts. I know many of you will not like the answer, but to the politicians the space shuttle became a fully unacceptable vehicle when the crew of STS-107 bought the farm. That's why the plans of Bush jr., with regards to the space shuttle, got Congressional blessing with barely any opposition.
The fact that this entailed putting the Russians in the driver's seat was not much of problem back then (over a decade ago) because the ISS was planned to be ditched in 2016 (thus having to rely on the Russians for only a limited number of years) and Orion/Ares I was supposed to be operational even before that. How times have changed...
« Last Edit: 08/12/2015 09:05 am by woods170 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
You are skewing my words, again I might add.

You seem to think I'm talking about what you want to happen. I'm not.

Quote from: woods170
My opionion is that this program can be succesfull, preferably with redundant providers. I'm also convinced the program can be succesfull when downselected to just one provider. I'm even convinced that it can be succesfull when downselected to SpaceX. However, I'm afraid US Congress sees things slightly different.

Yes, exactly. A lot of things could be if reality was different, but it isn't.

Quote from: woods170
The picture I painted about downselecting to Boeing is my impression of what likely will happen once a downs-select becomes inevitable. It is not what I think should happen.

Why did you think I said anything about what should happen?

Quote from: woods170
Your assumption that, with the current under-funding situation AND sticking with two providers, will ultimately fail the CCP program is exactly that: an assumption. And your assumption is also not currently supported by facts.

How do you figure?

Quote from: woods170
Stretching a program in time to make up for funding shortfalls is a practice well applied in the aeronautics industry.

So now you disagree with Bolden too?

Quote from: Charlie Bolden
Reductions from the FY 2016 request for Commercial Crew proposed in the House and Senate FY 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bills would result in NASA’s inability to fund several planned CCtCap milestones in FY 2016 and would likely result in funds running out for both contractors during the spring/summer of FY 2016.  If this occurs, the existing fixed-price CCtCap contracts may need to be renegotiated, likely resulting in further schedule slippage and increased cost. -source

That's why we're here talking about this.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Quote from: woods170
My opionion is that this program can be succesfull, preferably with redundant providers. I'm also convinced the program can be succesfull when downselected to just one provider. I'm even convinced that it can be succesfull when downselected to SpaceX. However, I'm afraid US Congress sees things slightly different.
Yes, exactly. A lot of things could be if reality was different, but it isn't.

Reality is that Bolden is not giving in to US Congress despite you being of the opinion that he should. Your sense of reality might be slightly warped.
 

Quote from: woods170
The picture I painted about downselecting to Boeing is my impression of what likely will happen once a downs-select becomes inevitable. It is not what I think should happen.
Why did you think I said anything about what should happen?

Because you did. You're now trying to sweet-talk yourself out of a tight spot.


Quote from: woods170
Your assumption that, with the current under-funding situation AND sticking with two providers, will ultimately fail the CCP program is exactly that: an assumption. And your assumption is also not currently supported by facts.
How do you figure?

Have you seen Charlie throwing in the towel recently, with regards to CCP? I haven't. There is no down-select on the horizon and NASA is already taking measures to deal with the consequences of a right-shifting certification date for CCP. Both things are indicators of a willingness to carry the program forward to a succesfull end.


Quote from: woods170
Stretching a program in time to make up for funding shortfalls is a practice well applied in the aeronautics industry.
So now you disagree with Bolden too?
No I don't. You have a weird way of interpreting other peoples words. The NASA administrator didn't state that a later end-date of CCP is a bad thing. He didn't state that stretching the program is a bad thing. What he did state to be a possibly undesirable thing is the result of such a stretch: continued reliance on the Russians for human transportation to the ISS.


Quote from: Charlie Bolden
Reductions from the FY 2016 request for Commercial Crew proposed in the House and Senate FY 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bills would result in NASA’s inability to fund several planned CCtCap milestones in FY 2016 and would likely result in funds running out for both contractors during the spring/summer of FY 2016.  If this occurs, the existing fixed-price CCtCap contracts may need to be renegotiated, likely resulting in further schedule slippage and increased cost. -source

That's why we're here talking about this.

Yes. And judging from your posts in this thread this somehow classes as Charlie Bolden performing badly. Hell no it isn't. It's Charlie pointing out, to US Congress, the consequences of the actions of US Congress (or lack of such actions). Most specifically the 'increased cost' part. The NASA administrator is required by law to point out the results of legislative action to said legislators. Exactly that is what Bolden has been doing for the past five years.

By underfunding CCP it will eventually cost more to keep ferrying US astronauts to the ISS. You trying to rub that as ill-performance on the NASA adminstrator is a tad weird, particularly since US Congress was OK with the CCP program to begin with.
You either OK a program and then stick with that program by sufficiently funding it, or, if you don't like the cost-estimates, choose to not fund the program. US Congress has made that mistake before: CxP.

By initially funding the CCP program the US Congress gave the CCP program it's blessing. But from day 2 they have been trying to change the way the program is run by pulling the purse strings, simply because they don't like how some non-conformist entity is involved in the program. Pathetic.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2015 05:59 pm by woods170 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
One thing that NASA and Bolden are guilty of is to select the most expensive commercial crew provider under CCtCap. They could have maintained competition for CCtCap under a lower budget by selecting SNC instead of Boeing.

There has been other mistakes, for example, NASA should have required skin in the game for each round. They should have stuck to SAAs for CCtCap. The commercial crew program is a lot more expensive than it should have been. If commercial crew was really commercial, SpaceX and Blue Origin would have been the two providers.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2015 07:30 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
One thing that NASA and Bolden are guilty of is to select the most expensive commercial crew provider under CCtCap. They could have maintained competition for CCtCap under a lower budget by selecting SNC instead of Boeing.

There has been other mistakes, for example, NASA should have required skin in the game for each round. They should have stuck to SAAs for CCtCap. The commercial crew program is a lot more expensive than it should have been. If commercial crew was really commercial, SpaceX and Blue Origin would have been the two providers.

If you read the actual Source Selection statement for CCtCap you will see why Boeing was picked and not SNC.  It isn't some type of grand conspiracy as people make it out to be.  Deviations from the selection criteria (to deliberately pick on provider or another) would have resulted in lawsuits.
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
One thing that NASA and Bolden are guilty of is to select the most expensive commercial crew provider under CCtCap. They could have maintained competition for CCtCap under a lower budget by selecting SNC instead of Boeing.

There has been other mistakes, for example, NASA should have required skin in the game for each round. They should have stuck to SAAs for CCtCap. The commercial crew program is a lot more expensive than it should have been. If commercial crew was really commercial, SpaceX and Blue Origin would have been the two providers.

If you read the actual Source Selection statement for CCtCap you will see why Boeing was picked and not SNC.  It isn't some type of grand conspiracy as people make it out to be.  Deviations from the selection criteria (to deliberately pick on provider or another) would have resulted in lawsuits.
One of the main factors in SNC not being selected was the greater schedule uncertainty. There was no way they were going to meet 2016 even with full funding. Can't say for sure but it wouldn't have been unlikely for SpaceX to have been flying at least a year before them. It wasn't explicit in the CCtCap requirements (hence one of the protest's points) but quickest IOC was a major deciding factor. Had NASA know they would not get the funding they wanted the selection criteria and other aspects of the program could have been better aligned with cost in mind to preserve the soonest date for US crew launch. Based on previous year's CCP budgets they should have know this would happen.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
One thing that NASA and Bolden are guilty of is to select the most expensive commercial crew provider under CCtCap. They could have maintained competition for CCtCap under a lower budget by selecting SNC instead of Boeing.

There has been other mistakes, for example, NASA should have required skin in the game for each round. They should have stuck to SAAs for CCtCap. The commercial crew program is a lot more expensive than it should have been. If commercial crew was really commercial, SpaceX and Blue Origin would have been the two providers.
Emphasis mine.
How many times do I have to repeat this? NASA was forced out of SAA for CCtCAP by US Congress. Legislation was introduced that forced NASA to switch to FAR for CCtCAP.
If it had been up to NASA, they would have stuck with SAA. US Congress did not allow that.

Also, both Boeing and SpaceX do have skin in the game, just not as much (percentage-wise) as was the case in COTS/CRS (for SpaceX and Orbital). Your assumption that NASA failed to require skin in the game is an incorrect one.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2015 10:02 pm by woods170 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Emphasis mine.
How many times do I have to repeat this? NASA was forced out of SAA for CCtCAP by US Congress. Legislation was introduced that forced NASA to switch to FAR for CCtCAP.
If it had been up to NASA, they would have stuck with FAR. US Congress did not allow that.

What legislation are you talking about?

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Emphasis mine.
How many times do I have to repeat this? NASA was forced out of SAA for CCtCAP by US Congress. Legislation was introduced that forced NASA to switch to FAR for CCtCAP.
If it had been up to NASA, they would have stuck with FAR. US Congress did not allow that.

What legislation are you talking about?


The kind US Congress has a habit of inserting into appropriations-language when they pull the purse strings.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
The kind US Congress has a habit of inserting into appropriations-language when they pull the purse strings.

Or the kind you imagined... can you provide a source?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
The kind US Congress has a habit of inserting into appropriations-language when they pull the purse strings.

Or the kind you imagined... can you provide a source?

I would reference this letter to Bolden from Rep. Frank Wolf who Chaired the House appropriations subcommittee in in May 2012. 

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/pages/images/stories/Wolf%20to%20Bolden%20May%2031%202012.pdf

He basically lays it out in the letter that if NASA uses FAR based contracting he wouldn't object to continued implementation of the program.  I am not sure if there is specific legislation, however the Chairperson lays it out what he expects NASA to do, which is switched to FAR based contracting. 

Bolden's response - http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/pages/images/stories/Bolden%20to%20Wolf%20June%204%202012.pdf

« Last Edit: 08/12/2015 10:22 pm by brovane »
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
I can wait.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
One thing that NASA and Bolden are guilty of is to select the most expensive commercial crew provider under CCtCap. They could have maintained competition for CCtCap under a lower budget by selecting SNC instead of Boeing.

There has been other mistakes, for example, NASA should have required skin in the game for each round. They should have stuck to SAAs for CCtCap. The commercial crew program is a lot more expensive than it should have been. If commercial crew was really commercial, SpaceX and Blue Origin would have been the two providers.

If you read the actual Source Selection statement for CCtCap you will see why Boeing was picked and not SNC.  It isn't some type of grand conspiracy as people make it out to be.  Deviations from the selection criteria (to deliberately pick on provider or another) would have resulted in lawsuits.

I didn't say that it was a conspiracy and I have read the selection statement. But I do think that NASA splurged by choosing the most expensive option.
« Last Edit: 08/13/2015 02:17 am by yg1968 »

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
One thing that NASA and Bolden are guilty of is to select the most expensive commercial crew provider under CCtCap. They could have maintained competition for CCtCap under a lower budget by selecting SNC instead of Boeing.

There has been other mistakes, for example, NASA should have required skin in the game for each round. They should have stuck to SAAs for CCtCap. The commercial crew program is a lot more expensive than it should have been. If commercial crew was really commercial, SpaceX and Blue Origin would have been the two providers.

If you read the actual Source Selection statement for CCtCap you will see why Boeing was picked and not SNC.  It isn't some type of grand conspiracy as people make it out to be.  Deviations from the selection criteria (to deliberately pick on provider or another) would have resulted in lawsuits.

I didn't say that it was a conspiracy and I have read the selection statement. But I do think that NASA splurged by choosing the most expensive option.

NASA didn't choose Boeing, the selection criteria grading choose Boeing.  All the criteria categories are graded with points and then weighted and then the top two companies got the contract. 
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Yes I know but cost was supposed to be the most important factor but NASA fudged it by saying that Boeing provided the best value to the government which is the kind of thing that you tell yourself when you splurged. I am not saying that it is a consipary but I disagree with the selection. But I still prefer two providers than only one.
« Last Edit: 08/13/2015 04:09 am by yg1968 »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8196
That’s why Boeing, which was the most expensive option by far, actually costing more than the other two combined, in my opinion, was selected as a winner with Dream Chaser losing out.

Boeing's quote was not greater than the other two combined. According to the GAO at

http://www.gao.gov/press/pr_statement_sierra_nevada_bid_protest.htm

Boeing's quote was $3.01B, SNC $2.55B and SpaceX $1.75B. SNC and SpaceX combined is $4.3B, which is $1.29B more than Boeing. NASA awarded $4.2B to Boeing ($1.19B or 40% greater) and $2.6B to SpaceX ($0.85B or 49% greater). That's the maximum amount with up to six flights each. I don't know how many flights the original bids included in their price, but it could have been two flights, which is the minimum number of flights awarded.
« Last Edit: 08/13/2015 10:55 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Tags:
 

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