The rules are NASA policy; per NASA Policy Directive 1050.11 section 1(c):QuoteFunded Agreements are Agreements under which appropriated funds are transferred to a domestic Agreement Partner to accomplish an Agency mission. Funded Agreements may be used only when the Agency's objective cannot be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.I have highlighted what I *suspect* might be the offense. SAA's take Congressional oversight out of the funding that Congress made available. Realizing that, Congress required a very narrow interpretation of when these funds may be used and when they may not. It's not a matter of whether or not the cause is a worthy one or not. It's a matter of whether or not the agency could have funded the project thru normal channels. SAA's are designed specifically to allow projects to move forward that would not have otherwise made the cut thru normal procurement channels. Apparently the Congress feels that in this instance, the use of the SAA was not legally allowed per the language of the funding authorization. In other words, while the project was worthy, NASA overstepped its bounds in the use of these funds. This project should have gone thru the normal procurement route, not a SAA. If true, this is a clear misappropriation of funds. In response, we notice that NASA did not object to the Congressional inquiry, but quietly complied. YMMV.
Funded Agreements are Agreements under which appropriated funds are transferred to a domestic Agreement Partner to accomplish an Agency mission. Funded Agreements may be used only when the Agency's objective cannot be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement.
Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 09/16/2011 10:26 pmwhether NASA has the time and money to fund development for non-NASA use indepedently of NASA-specific needs.I don't understand the difference. What would be an example of "non-NASA use" hardware that is paid for by CCDev?
whether NASA has the time and money to fund development for non-NASA use indepedently of NASA-specific needs.
p.s. the quote is from me.
SAA's are designed specifically to allow projects to move forward that would not have otherwise made the cut thru normal procurement channels.
Apparently the Congress feels that in this instance, the use of the SAA was not legally allowed per the language of the funding authorization. In other words, while the project was worthy, NASA overstepped its bounds in the use of these funds. This project should have gone thru the normal procurement route, not a SAA. If true, this is a clear misappropriation of funds. In response, we notice that NASA did not object to the Congressional inquiry, but quietly complied. YMMV.
Quote from: Danderman on 07/21/2011 07:31 pmIdeally, 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.
Ideally, what NASA should pursue, rather than contracts or SAAs, are something called "tickets" for astronauts to fly on these new vehicles.
Haha. I told you all that this was coming. Welcome to "commercial". Guess it sucks when "the internet" and their ideology is proven wrong. This is what you get when you have no strategy for anything moving forward on anything. When "the internet" and "space advocates" demand more government money for "commercial" without thinking anything through just the demand for more money and the actual NASA employees needing to find a program to latch onto. More or the same amount of money but nothing else equals the bigger stick for NASA. Many of you "advocates" are in some degree responsible for this. Relish the bed you have made through your advocacy.
Quote from: OV-106 on 09/17/2011 02:01 amHaha. I told you all that this was coming. Welcome to "commercial". Guess it sucks when "the internet" and their ideology is proven wrong. This is what you get when you have no strategy for anything moving forward on anything. When "the internet" and "space advocates" demand more government money for "commercial" without thinking anything through just the demand for more money and the actual NASA employees needing to find a program to latch onto. More or the same amount of money but nothing else equals the bigger stick for NASA. Many of you "advocates" are in some degree responsible for this. Relish the bed you have made through your advocacy. what?
Somebody has to clip the wings of SpaceX and ULA or SLS will look even worse than Constellation. While NASA is figuring out how to not cross the 60 billion mark on the first SLS test flight, SpaceX and ULA could be on the moon and have spent 6 billion, if I worked at NASA I would be figuring out a way to slow them down as well...
the senate just loves to clip wings nasa or new space for pork
Haha. I told you all that this was coming. Welcome to "commercial". Guess it sucks when "the internet" and their ideology is proven wrong.
September 16th 2011, another dark day for American spaceflight.Does anyone think it was a coincidence that ULA and ATK both entered into unfunded SAA’s once NASA changed the CCP rules? The CCP is now on track to follow in the footsteps of all previous NASA manned space programs, massively over budget and months, if not years, late. Innovation will be buried under tons of paperwork and “requirements” from the last century. Affordability and flexibility will take a backseat to purported safety while the usual suspects feed at the NASA trough.Based on these changes I am pretty sure who is going to win the “competition” for a “commercial” crew contract. The fix is in and I was naive to ever believe that the leopard could change its spots.Maybe in another fifty years…
September 16th 2011, another dark day for American spaceflight.Does anyone think it was a coincidence that ULA and ATK both entered into unfunded SAA’s once NASA changed the CCP rules?
..i award you no points..
Elbon took a more nuanced view to the debate. “I think it’s unfortunate that the debate is centered around the contract mechanism and is not focused on the attributes that whatever mechanism is put in place needs to have,” he said, adding that he believes an SAA-based or FAR-based approach can be successful if those attributes are there. The biggest issue, he said, is who is responsible for design decisions: “The design decisions in this current environment rest with us as the developer,” he said, referring to the SAA-based CCDev-2 award Boeing currently is working out.
John Elbon of Boeing stated before hand that this is not that big of a deal:QuoteElbon took a more nuanced view to the debate. “I think it’s unfortunate that the debate is centered around the contract mechanism and is not focused on the attributes that whatever mechanism is put in place needs to have,” he said, adding that he believes an SAA-based or FAR-based approach can be successful if those attributes are there. The biggest issue, he said, is who is responsible for design decisions: “The design decisions in this current environment rest with us as the developer,” he said, referring to the SAA-based CCDev-2 award Boeing currently is working out. http://www.newspacejournal.com/2011/08/13/boeing-on-test-pilots-far-vs-saa-and-more/
