Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/21/2011 08:50 pmIt 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.
It also feels like NASA anticipated this reaction from industry.
I'm with Jim on this. I think this is actually a fairly good thing.It seems intended to significantly reduce the amount of bureaucracy that was involved in the SAA process and with the normal FAR contracting methods too.
Assuming that this new contracting method actually gets approved, it will create a new means for the agency to fund commercial crew activities with lower overheads than are possible today -- which is especially helpful given the loss of SAA Chapter 5.The only aspect I'm a little concerned about, is the change from SAA's "Minimal Cost Reporting" approach to "No Cost Reporting". Zero cost reporting just sounds like an invitation for abuse of the system to me.
Other than that, I think this is a positive thing for commercial crew.Ross.
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.
Quote from: Jim on 07/21/2011 08:42 pmGeesh, 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.The point that was made by Bigelow, Blue Origin, SpaceX and others was that such requirements can be imposed through a Space Act Agreement (like it was under COTS). They also made the point that with a FAR contract comes a lot of additionnal requirements that are cumbersome and that are not useful either for NASA or for the commercial crew company (regional development requirements, etc.).
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=32The 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
A point not addressed in the forum is a target on a Powerpoint slide to run to run the first ISS commercial crew delivery mission by the end of FY 2016 - September 30, 2016. Boeing, Sierra Nevada, and SpaceX have all said they are capable of conducting manned test flights in 2014 and fly the first ISS commercial crew flights in 2015.
They also pointed out something I'd overlooked.
Quote from: Jim on 07/21/2011 08:42 pmGeesh, 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.
Quote from: clongton on 07/21/2011 09:00 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/21/2011 08:42 pmGeesh, 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.That is the whole point, whether SAA's can have specs
SAA's are unfunded are they not? If that is true then it's the golden rule. The one with the gold sets the rules. If NASA wants to set the rules then they have to come up with the cash. Otherwise NASA can tell the commercial companies what they want and the commercial companies set the rules.Setting specs to meet is fine because that's telling the commercial companies what NASA, the *customer* would like and the companies can then choose whether or not to participate with their own money, but imposing *anything* else is outside the scope of an unfunded SAA.
Only the SAA with ULA is unfunded. All the other CCDev-2 SAAs are funded. But can't the human requirements be imposed through the FAA or else through the certification requirements. I am not sure why the certification process has to be tied to the SAA. The only company that said that they did not intend to follow the NASA certification requirements is Blue Origin.
Quote from: clongton on 07/23/2011 12:53 pmSAA's are unfunded are they not? If that is true then it's the golden rule. The one with the gold sets the rules. If NASA wants to set the rules then they have to come up with the cash. Otherwise NASA can tell the commercial companies what they want and the commercial companies set the rules.Setting specs to meet is fine because that's telling the commercial companies what NASA, the *customer* would like and the companies can then choose whether or not to participate with their own money, but imposing *anything* else is outside the scope of an unfunded SAA.No, they can be funded. COTS is a funded SAA
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/23/2011 01:14 pmOnly the SAA with ULA is unfunded. All the other CCDev-2 SAAs are funded. But can't the human requirements be imposed through the FAA or else through the certification requirements. I am not sure why the certification process has to be tied to the SAA. The only company that said that they did not intend to follow the NASA certification requirements is Blue Origin. FAA has no certification requirements for NASA
However, in December 2012 the FAA is authorized to begin proposing regulations concerning the safety of passengers and crew involved in commercial spaceflight. As previously discussed, NASA plans to impose its own set of requirements, standards, and processes that commercial partners must meet to obtain a certification before transporting Agency personnel. Accordingly, NASA must coordinate with the FAA to avoid an environment of conflicting requirements and multiple sets of standards for commercial companies seeking to transport Government and non-Government passengers to low Earth orbit. Toward that end, the FAA and NASA have expressed a spirit of cooperation, and both groups have agreed that the goal is FAA licensing of commercially developed vehicles used to transport NASA personnel. Additionally, the agencies are co-locating personnel at NASA Headquarters, FAA field offices, and Johnson and Kennedy Space Centers to optimize Government oversight of commercial partners through compatible requirements, standards, and processes
