Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/18/2011 06:38 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 06:26 pmThere's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.In my view, this is true. t/Space showed this by analysis during the CE&R contract extension in 2005, but the then NASA management ignored the analysis. Once part of the NASA COTS/CCDEV culture, it was impossible to dislodge the "skin" notion from their minds. It will come back to bite them.Was there any skin in the game requirement for CCDev-1 and CCDev-2?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 06:26 pmThere's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.In my view, this is true. t/Space showed this by analysis during the CE&R contract extension in 2005, but the then NASA management ignored the analysis. Once part of the NASA COTS/CCDEV culture, it was impossible to dislodge the "skin" notion from their minds. It will come back to bite them.
There's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 06:26 pmThere's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.How do you arrive at that conclusion? How can anyone then be justified in calling it "commercial"? How will spending someone else's money, assuming you will just keep getting it, lead to the "most economical solution"? How is it justified that someone can be able to pay for everything, but you own it and can do as you will with it, keeping all future profits, etc for years to come?What about your house? Do you think you will be successful in getting someone else to pay for it, but you retain absolute authority over it and then someday you sell it for a lot more money and then get to keep the amount you made, even though you didn't pay for it to begin with?Not a perfect analogy obviously but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that.
It'sATrap!_mod.pdf <--- That is brilliant
Give ATK money to let them prove their claims. Not too much, as they told, that they want to develop Liberty also without funding. Best way to get ATK silent.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/18/2011 07:07 pmIt'sATrap!_mod.pdf <--- That is brilliant High praise from you, Chris. Thanks.
Quote from: billh on 04/18/2011 06:31 pmI wouldn't fund USA or ATK because commercializing shuttle and building an Ares I clone just seem like they are going to cost a lot more than the alternatives. Cost efficiency needs to be driving the commercial space efforts, because we are hoping these folks can make a buck off someone else other than NASA when they're done.I realize everyone has and is entitled to an opinion. However, "just seems" makes it hard to take seriously. Cost efficiency was exactly what the CSTS was about. Providing a bridge where none currently exists and the freedom to get additional customers, who are there, along the way reducing the cost to NASA.
I wouldn't fund USA or ATK because commercializing shuttle and building an Ares I clone just seem like they are going to cost a lot more than the alternatives. Cost efficiency needs to be driving the commercial space efforts, because we are hoping these folks can make a buck off someone else other than NASA when they're done.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/18/2011 07:08 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 04/18/2011 07:07 pmIt'sATrap!_mod.pdf <--- That is brilliant High praise from you, Chris. Thanks.Your criticism of the "skin in the game" was that:a) It was biased towards the big contracts and thus against disruptive techs.b) It was biased towards the big contracts and thus crowded out the smaller players.c) The rate of loan for a private company is higher and, given that it would have to later get a bigger return, it would turn some project nonviable.d) It was biased towards big relative investment (as a percentage) irrespective of the general return to the government.e) Otherf) Some combination of the above?
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 06:34 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 06:26 pmThere's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.How do you arrive at that conclusion? How can anyone then be justified in calling it "commercial"? How will spending someone else's money, assuming you will just keep getting it, lead to the "most economical solution"? How is it justified that someone can be able to pay for everything, but you own it and can do as you will with it, keeping all future profits, etc for years to come?What about your house? Do you think you will be successful in getting someone else to pay for it, but you retain absolute authority over it and then someday you sell it for a lot more money and then get to keep the amount you made, even though you didn't pay for it to begin with?Not a perfect analogy obviously but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that. In my opinion, the "commercial" part of the idea is the way the contract is written and managed (Space Act/"other transactions") and not the investment from private sources (for reasons I discuss in the attachment). DARPA doesn't require investment for its other transactions contracts for smaller firms and this was the message I gave NASA during the CE&R contract in 2004-5. As I also noted above, we showed that requiring investment from a company will dramatically increase the cost to the government once firms get to the stage of commercial operations.There are also ways to mitigate your concern about firms profiting, without requiring up front investment that closes out the options for start-up companies. For example, NASA could take a preferred stock position with its cash.
It'sATrap!_mod.pdf
Can today's losers have any chance of being selected in the future rounds?
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/18/2011 07:04 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 04/18/2011 06:34 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/18/2011 06:26 pmThere's a pretty good argument that the "skin in the game" requirement isn't entirely a positive thing and won't lead to the best, most economical solution. It's worth considering, at least.How do you arrive at that conclusion? How can anyone then be justified in calling it "commercial"? How will spending someone else's money, assuming you will just keep getting it, lead to the "most economical solution"? How is it justified that someone can be able to pay for everything, but you own it and can do as you will with it, keeping all future profits, etc for years to come?What about your house? Do you think you will be successful in getting someone else to pay for it, but you retain absolute authority over it and then someday you sell it for a lot more money and then get to keep the amount you made, even though you didn't pay for it to begin with?Not a perfect analogy obviously but I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that. In my opinion, the "commercial" part of the idea is the way the contract is written and managed (Space Act/"other transactions") and not the investment from private sources (for reasons I discuss in the attachment). DARPA doesn't require investment for its other transactions contracts for smaller firms and this was the message I gave NASA during the CE&R contract in 2004-5. As I also noted above, we showed that requiring investment from a company will dramatically increase the cost to the government once firms get to the stage of commercial operations.There are also ways to mitigate your concern about firms profiting, without requiring up front investment that closes out the options for start-up companies. For example, NASA could take a preferred stock position with its cash.I certainly respect the work you have done in the past, and your opinions, but what you are saying is "commercial-in-name-only". Without any skin-in-the-game, actively discouraging investors (or maybe more appropriately not wanting them to avoid complications), etc and making this purely a government-funded activity I just don't see how that, in reality, is going to change anything. It still gives all the power to NASA (granted they are needed but, in my opinion, the best way to make them cooperate is to show them they are not the gate-keepers to everything). It also seems this flies in the face of "opening up an entirely new sector of the economy", "creating 1000's of jobs, etc" because you are always tied to the wishes, and funding, of NASA.Also, DARPA is an agency for the DOD that funds pathfinder, high risk, etc projects that may find a use in the DOD someday, somewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge these have never been for full-up, operational capabilities that DOD will then use in the field routinely or that these providers can then sell to other customers. So, to me, that seems a bit different.
My fault, but I'm actually thinking it might be a good idea to change this into a pre-announcement thread and open a new one just before the telecon.
Who is chosen also says a lot about who was doing the evaluations (grunts and Center-level management) and selections (HQ-level management). The competitors have several levels of history with NASA: decades-long, years-long and next to none. It will be interesting to see if both the good and the bad were considered and how much faith the evaluators and selectors put into mere assurances.
