Author Topic: Commercial Crew Program backs away from Space Act Agreement (Read 68505 times)

Norm Hartnett · « **on:** 07/21/2011 06:43 pm »

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32

The video is rather long but worth watching all the way through.

Rumors have been floating around for the last month that now appear true. I expect fireworks.

o.o

Robotbeat · « **Reply #1 on:** 07/21/2011 06:58 pm »

Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 07/21/2011 06:43 pm

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32

The video is rather long but worth watching all the way through.

Rumors have been floating around for the last month that now appear true. I expect fireworks.

o.o

Expound.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #2 on:** 07/21/2011 07:14 pm »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/21/2011 06:58 pm

Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 07/21/2011 06:43 pm
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32

The video is rather long but worth watching all the way through.

Rumors have been floating around for the last month that now appear true. I expect fireworks.

o.o
Expound.

You haven't listened to the last 15-20 minutes (~40:00) of the video. Briefly the NASA lawyers (OGC) are saying that an SAA will not give NASA sufficient grounds for requirements. Therefore CCP wants to go to contracts for remaining portion of Program. Industry lawyers say that other government lawyers (GAO & OIG) with purview say differently.

QED fireworks o.O

Edited to include lawyer organizations.
Edited to include time hack.

simonbp · « **Reply #3 on:** 07/21/2011 07:21 pm »

If I understand the presentation right, it's a modification to the SAA approach to allow for greater flexibility; i.e. allowing transfer of IP if desired, or allowing requirements to be fixed to payments.

Personally, I see it as good thing, as it means that NASA has done enough SAAs to actually know what the limitations to the original framework are.

Jim · « **Reply #4 on:** 07/21/2011 07:31 pm »

There are still other non FAR contracting mechanisms that can be used. This isn't a big deal as some think.

Danderman · « **Reply #5 on:** 07/21/2011 07:31 pm »

Ideally, what NASA should pursue, rather than contracts or SAAs, are something called "tickets" for astronauts to fly on these new vehicles.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #6 on:** 07/21/2011 07:43 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 07/21/2011 07:31 pm

There are still other non FAR contracting mechanisms that can be used. This isn't a big deal as some think.

But CCP has already begun the FAR contracting process.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=fa0fa4228c7a32be80bd35443336d33a&tab=core&_cview=0

Edit: CCDev3 and only two weeks to reply.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #7 on:** 07/21/2011 07:45 pm »

Quote from: Danderman on 07/21/2011 07:31 pm

Ideally, what NASA should pursue, rather than contracts or SAAs, are something called "tickets" for astronauts to fly on these new vehicles.

I believe this is going in the opposite direction, from what I can tell.

It sounds disappointing and like some in management want things to stay the same as other NASA HSF efforts (i.e. NASA taking a more central role in designing the service... i.e., specifying exactly what kind of bolts to use and how exactly to tighten them... if everyone has to follow NASA's way of doing things, aren't we going to get the same results?). But I do not have enough information to have a strong opinion. Does give me a kind of sick feeling, though.

Jim · « **Reply #8 on:** 07/21/2011 08:00 pm »

Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 07/21/2011 07:43 pm

Quote from: Jim on 07/21/2011 07:31 pm
There are still other non FAR contracting mechanisms that can be used. This isn't a big deal as some think.

But CCP has already begun the FAR contracting process.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=fa0fa4228c7a32be80bd35443336d33a&tab=core&_cview=0

Edit: CCDev3 and only two weeks to reply.

No, that is a request for a statement of capability

Robotbeat · « **Reply #9 on:** 07/21/2011 08:04 pm »

The presentation talks about "small business subcontracting goals"...

While small businesses are great, doesn't this cut down on the potential for efficiency through vertical integration? Does this do anything to improve the cost of any bolt or valve that has the word "aerospace" on it, or is this intended to protect the existing aerospace parts supplier market?

Jim · « **Reply #10 on:** 07/21/2011 08:15 pm »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/21/2011 07:45 pm

Quote from: Danderman on 07/21/2011 07:31 pm
Ideally, what NASA should pursue, rather than contracts or SAAs, are something called "tickets" for astronauts to fly on these new vehicles.

I believe this is going in the opposite direction, from what I can tell.

It sounds disappointing and like some in management want things to stay the same as other NASA HSF efforts (i.e. NASA taking a more central role in designing the service... i.e., specifying exactly what kind of bolts to use and how exactly to tighten them... if everyone has to follow NASA's way of doing things, aren't we going to get the same results?). But I do not have enough information to have a strong opinion. Does give me a kind of sick feeling, though.

No, the contracting mechanism for unmanned vehicles is not an SAA and it does fine.

Remember, the SAA's are only for CCP development, actual procure of rides or launches for crew would still be done via a FAR contact, similar to CRS and NLS.

clongton · « **Reply #11 on:** 07/21/2011 08:29 pm »

I agree with Robotbeat. I think this is going in the wrong direction. If anything it should be going the other way, loosening the grip on commercial. Let commercial develop and prove out their spacecraft the same way they would for any other commercial product, like a passenger aircraft for example, and present NASA with an accomplished flight rate and safety record. If NASA wants to buy seats on these spacecraft they can. If not let them pay triple to ride less often on a Soyuz. As long as Bigelow is able to fly several of his BA-330's, there will be enough business for these spacecraft manufacturers to realize a reasonable ROI on their own, without NASA thank you very much.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #12 on:** 07/21/2011 08:30 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 07/21/2011 08:15 pm

No, the contracting mechanism for unmanned vehicles is not an SAA and it does fine.

Remember, the SAA's are only for CCP development, actual procure of rides or launches for crew would still be done via a FAR contact, similar to CRS and NLS.

But Jim this is a proposed contract for CCP development. In fact this replaces CCDev3 SAA with a Integrated Design Contract.

Jim · « **Reply #13 on:** 07/21/2011 08:39 pm »

Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 07/21/2011 08:30 pm

But Jim this is a proposed contract for CCP development. In fact this replaces CCDev3 SAA with a Integrated Design Contract.

CCDev3 was going to be an SAA for an integrated design. IDC does the same thing. The issues isn't the requirements. It is how the requirements are levied. And apparently, this is not feasible with an SAA.

Jim · « **Reply #14 on:** 07/21/2011 08:42 pm »

Geesh, let this work out. If NASA is going to pay out some money for development, it has the right to have some of its requirements met.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #15 on:** 07/21/2011 08:48 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 07/21/2011 08:39 pm

Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 07/21/2011 08:30 pm

But Jim this is a proposed contract for CCP development. In fact this replaces CCDev3 SAA with a Integrated Design Contract.

CCDev3 was going to be an SAA for an integrated design. IDC does the same thing. The issues isn't the requirements. It is how the requirements are levied. And apparently, this is not feasible with an SAA.

I agree that that is NASA OGC's position. Industries' contention is that the IDC imposes potentially huge costs and that current SAA authorization permits requirements certification. It may all be a tempest in a teapot but the Industry is scared right now. You can hear it in the lawyers' voices.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #16 on:** 07/21/2011 08:50 pm »

Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 07/21/2011 08:48 pm

Quote from: Jim on 07/21/2011 08:39 pm
Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 07/21/2011 08:30 pm

But Jim this is a proposed contract for CCP development. In fact this replaces CCDev3 SAA with a Integrated Design Contract.

CCDev3 was going to be an SAA for an integrated design. IDC does the same thing. The issues isn't the requirements. It is how the requirements are levied. And apparently, this is not feasible with an SAA.

I agree that that is NASA OGC's position. Industries' contention is that the IDC imposes potentially huge costs and that current SAA authorization permits requirements certification. It may all be a tempest in a teapot but the Industry is scared right now. You can hear it in the lawyers' voices.

It also feels like NASA anticipated this reaction from industry.

Prober · « **Reply #17 on:** 07/21/2011 08:52 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 07/21/2011 08:42 pm

Geesh, let this work out. If NASA is going to pay out some money for development, it has the right to have some of its requirements met.

I'm just sorry I watched this video. "Blue Orgin – flying blind".

Sorry its just the way I feel today.

Norm Hartnett · « **Reply #18 on:** 07/21/2011 09:00 pm »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/21/2011 08:50 pm

It also feels like NASA anticipated this reaction from industry.

There have been rumors for the last month, ever since the Space Act Agreement Authority was rewritten a month ago to eliminate Sec 5 which authorized Funded Space Act Agreements. Now there is no such thing.

clongton · « **Reply #19 on:** 07/21/2011 09:00 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 07/21/2011 08:42 pm

Geesh, let this work out. If NASA is going to pay out some money for development, it has the right to have some of its requirements met.

NASA's requirements cost far too much in time and money. If we let NASA requirements govern the airline industry we would still be watching barnstormers from the 1930's as representing state of the art air travel.

People seem to think that the commercial companies are stupid and don't know what to do. People forget that it was commercial companies who built every spacecraft NASA has ever flown. NASA needs to let them alone and let them do what they know how to do. They are not going to field an unsafe spacecraft. NASA needs to identify its need and let them fill it. If NASA wants to do cost sharing then let them but NASA doesn't get to muck this up like everything else it has touched lately.

Let NASA do with these guys what the Air Force does; set the needed specs, oversee the development (hands off) and get out of the way.