CCDev/CCP updates

[Lurker Steve]

{snip}
So, proposals due this month, expected award in late summer this year.

Election year politics and history tells us a CR is very likely for FY13.  Which means they can def plan on having less than their request. 

That NASA is going to be living on CRs this year I believe.  However CRs may not be the only source of money.

The combination of high levels of unemployment and a presidential election may result in the US Government deciding that a stimulus package is needed.  The previous one gave CCDev $50 million.  CCiCap has several 'shovel ready' spacecraft development projects.  Plenty of new high tech jobs in towns all over the USA.  Even the possibility of exports.

There is ZERO chance of another round of stimulus spending. We are trying to reduce the deficit, remember ?

[yg1968]

- counting the money that goes to the bureaucrats to run the program (because for some reason they need millions of dollars per year to do oversight).

And how much is that, since you seem to know?
Also, do you know how the program is setup and how many "bureaucrats' are in it, if any?

If my math is correct, $269.3M was awarded for CCDev-2. Since $306M was awarded for commercial crew in FY 2011, this means that about $36.7M in FY2011 went to the Commercial Crew Program Office in FY 2011. This seems reasonable to me. 

[BeanEstimator]

{snip}
So, proposals due this month, expected award in late summer this year.

Election year politics and history tells us a CR is very likely for FY13.  Which means they can def plan on having less than their request. 

That NASA is going to be living on CRs this year I believe.  However CRs may not be the only source of money.

The combination of high levels of unemployment and a presidential election may result in the US Government deciding that a stimulus package is needed.  The previous one gave CCDev $50 million.  CCiCap has several 'shovel ready' spacecraft development projects.  Plenty of new high tech jobs in towns all over the USA.  Even the possibility of exports.

interesting point, that did not cross my mind.

others will have to excuse me, but i read the following:

Base Period: To be accomplished prior to May 31, 2014 with funding ranging from $300M-$500M per award, with multiple awards

Each award will be in the range of $300-$500M.
Multiple awards are planned.
Base period ends May 2014.

If you only get $400M/year, you can do one award, per year.

Based on their range, time table, assuming a $400m/yr budget, NASA will have enough to make two awards.

Which is why I called attention to the Q&A, and the request for proposal that clearly indicates NASA wants a prioritized list of milestones and requested funding. 

The hedging has begun. 

Same point I raised in other threads:  if the $400m/year continues, then the entire program looks to re-evaled.  at that point it seems nwo.  could descope, defer, downselect, etc.

edit to add:  and under a CR, the problem gets worse since it's incremental funding.

[yg1968]

And how much is that, since you seem to know?
Also, do you know how the program is setup and how many "bureaucrats' are in it, if any?

According to Phil McAlister's comments at the 2011 International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight - the commercial crew office has grown to 250 people.

And from the CCP Forum in Feb:

It's important to understand that in iCap and this year, FY12, 75% of the funds from our budget for CCP this year are being used to support iCap. I think there were some misquotes earlier. I want to make sure that's clear - 75% of the funds from this fiscal year are being used to support iCap.

So yeah, some extra funding there.

He actually meant that the other 25% was for the extra optional milestones under CCDev-2 and 75% was for CCiCap.

[yg1968]

I am also usually anti-bureaucracy but I am not convinced that the commercial crew program office is bloated.  Ed Mango partly explained what they do. It seems like that they do a lot. For example, they provide services through unfunded SAA (e.g. with ULA). They worked on establishing commercial crew safety requirements. They also work with commercial companies through MOUs, etc. Most commercial crew companies have praised the work that they have done. 

[A_M_Swallow]

There is ZERO chance of another round of stimulus spending. We are trying to reduce the deficit, remember ?

Trying and succeeding are different words.

[erioladastra]

They're saying $300-$400M per award over two years. So $150-$200M/yr per award. Clearly they only need ~$500M/yr for two providers - counting the money that goes to the bureaucrats to run the program (because for some reason they need millions of dollars per year to do oversight).

No, you are reading it incorrectly.  They are targeting 300-500M per partner per year.  Some estimates show about $1.2B to get a vehicle flying.  Could maybe be scraping the low end of that in 2015 depending on funding.

[erioladastra]

I am also usually anti-bureaucracy but I am not convinced that the commercial crew program office is bloated.  Ed Mango partly explained what they do. It seems like that they do a lot. For example, they provide services through unfunded SAA (e.g. with ULA). They worked on establishing commercial crew safety requirements. They also work with commercial companies through MOUs, etc. Most commercial crew companies have praised the work that they have done. 

I think there are less than 120 FTE in the program at the peak (something like 75-80 now).  And many of those are part time brains. 

[QuantumG]

No, you are reading it incorrectly.  They are targeting 300-500M per partner per year.  Some estimates show about $1.2B to get a vehicle flying.  Could maybe be scraping the low end of that in 2015 depending on funding.

No, it isn't.

Ed Mango: And it's also good to note on that page - I forgot exactly what page that was - but there are some apples and oranges here. The first period is three to five hundred million over those 21 months. So, that includes multiple fiscal years. The second profile also includes multiple fiscal years. However, it's a different set of parameters during that time. So, you've got to look at three to five hundred is for that total amount. That's not per year in the base period.

The base period is three to five hundred for those 21 months. That is not three to five hundred in FY12, FY13, FY14 or anything like that. It's - they will be awarded three to five hundred for that 21-month period and then we'll manage how we get those funds over that period of time. Does that answer part of your question?

(my emphasis) .. from the Feb CCP forum transcript.

[BeanEstimator]

“If we only get 300 to 400 (million dollars) a year, I would say it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to do this program,” McAlister said. “If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program.”

Phil is Ed's boss.

[go4mars]

“If we only get 300 to 400 (million dollars) a year, I would say it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to do this program,” McAlister said. “If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program.”

Phil is Ed's boss.

Yikes.  Wait until he notices it's 21 months instead of 12...

[yg1968]

“If we only get 300 to 400 (million dollars) a year, I would say it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to do this program,” McAlister said. “If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program.”

Phil is Ed's boss.

Yikes.  Wait until he notices it's 21 months instead of 12...

That was a different context. McAlister meant that if they only get $300 to $400 million a year for commercial crew from Congress, the program cannot work. Ed Mango was saying that each company that wins under CCiCap will get $300-$500 million for 21 months for CCiCap.

[QuantumG]

Totally ignoring the FY12 money that is going to CCiCap, $300/21*12 = $171M/yr and $500/21*12 = $286M/yr.. so the program needs $342M to $572M per year for 2 participants or $513M to $858M per year for 3 participants.

[clongton]

Totally ignoring the FY12 money that is going to CCiCap, $300/21*12 = $171M/yr and $500/21*12 = $286M/yr.. so the program needs $342M to $572M per year for 2 participants or $513M to $858M per year for 3 participants.

Only while undergoing development.
The trick is going to be to get divorced from NASA after becoming operational and picking up commercial ridership.
For that we need more destinations in earth and cis-lunar space.
If they can do that then they won't need NASA's money with all those expensive strings attached.
Every one of those commercial carriers could operate successfully for much less overhead without all of NASA's peculiar requirements.

[QuantumG]

That's the most exciting thing about CCiCap, I think. The end result is providers who can fly (or have flown!) a non-NASA astronaut to LEO.

[A_M_Swallow]

Only while undergoing development.
The trick is going to be to get divorced from NASA after becoming operational and picking up commercial ridership.
For that we need more destinations in earth and cis-lunar space.
If they can do that then they won't need NASA's money with all those expensive strings attached.
Every one of those commercial carriers could operate successfully for much less overhead without all of NASA's peculiar requirements.

Which means that a commercial spacestation needs launching in 4 to 6 years time.

Life critical parts of the spacestation that need to work continuously for several years need to undergo service life testing to ensure that they can work for at least 2 years and have a reasonable mean time between failure.

This includes the ECLSS, heat management and power management.

[erioladastra]

That's the most exciting thing about CCiCap, I think. The end result is providers who can fly (or have flown!) a non-NASA astronaut to LEO.

Note that yesterday Hucthinson grilled Bolden on why more than 1.  Clearly they don't liek the idea.

[Robotbeat]

That's the most exciting thing about CCiCap, I think. The end result is providers who can fly (or have flown!) a non-NASA astronaut to LEO.

Note that yesterday Hucthinson grilled Bolden on why more than 1.  Clearly they don't liek the idea.

You're using the plural. There's only one Senator Hutchison, as far as I'm aware.

[yg1968]

Totally ignoring the FY12 money that is going to CCiCap, $300/21*12 = $171M/yr and $500/21*12 = $286M/yr.. so the program needs $342M to $572M per year for 2 participants or $513M to $858M per year for 3 participants.

I am not sure that it works that way. I think that you can get all of the money from FY 2012, FY2013 and FY2014 for commercial crew (less what is needed for the commercial crew office). I don't think that you need to prorate it over 21 months like you did. 

I could be wrong but I get the feeling that they will choose 3 companies for the CCiCap base period and will down select to 2 providers for the optional milestones period. 

[BeanEstimator]

“If we only get 300 to 400 (million dollars) a year, I would say it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to do this program,” McAlister said. “If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program.”

Phil is Ed's boss.

Yikes.  Wait until he notices it's 21 months instead of 12...

That was a different context. McAlister meant that if they only get $300 to $400 million a year for commercial crew from Congress, the program cannot work. Ed Mango was saying that each company that wins under CCiCap will get $300-$500 million for 21 months for CCiCap.

this is the only context i care about.  especially in light of the testimony yesterday.  granted the house has never been a fan, but i didn't see a whole lotta support for cc.