CCDev/CCP updates

[joek]

Some interesting bits from the Oct 14 COMSTAC meeting.   Unfortunately the meeting minutes haven't yet been posted.

However, there's an interesting presentation from Phil McAlister on how CCP is significantly different.  We've heard much of this before in general terms, but he offers some specifics and some interesting comparisons with other programs.

A couple items from Commercial Crew Program (CCP)Key Paradigm Changes^*

CCP requirements will be controlled by NASA at a higher level than traditional programs
- Lower level requirements controlled by the commercial partner, with NASA having insight
- Allows the commercial partner to accelerate decision-making and control costs
Level 1 - Agency requirements (provide transportation for ISS)
Level 2 - Program requirements (integrated system performance requirements and interfaces)

Prior to initiating the acquisition of integrated design contract(s), all CCP Level 1 and 2 requirements will be defined.
- CCP will have zero missing or incomplete requirements, i.e., no “TBDs”

CCP has significantly reduced NASA-controlled requirements needing full verification
- CCP has approximately 5% of the number of Shuttle requirements
- Commercial Crew requirements deal with safety of all mission phases, whereas Commercial Cargo (COTS) deals only with ISS interfaces
[shuttle 10,000-12,000; Commercial Cargo ~250; Commercial Crew ~650]

^* pdf attached for the pptx averse.

[peter-b]

- CCP will have zero missing or incomplete requirements, i.e., no “TBDs”
...
CCP has significantly reduced NASA-controlled requirements needing full verification
...
[shuttle 10,000-12,000; Commercial Cargo ~250; Commercial Crew ~650]

This sounds good to me!

[jacqmans]

MEDIA ADVISORY: M11-221

NASA RELEASES THIRD STATUS REPORT ON COMMERCIAL PARTNER PROGRESS

WASHINGTON -- NASA's industry partners continue to meet their
established milestones in developing commercial crew transportation
capabilities that will ferry U.S. astronauts to and from the
International Space Station, reducing the amount of time America has
to depend on Russia for launch services. NASA has outlined an
ambitious program moving forward that relies on U.S. private industry
to assume transportation of cargo and crew to the International Space
Station, while the agency focuses on deep space exploration.

NASA has posted the third status report on its Commercial Crew
Development 2 (CCDev2) program to the agency's Commercial Space
Transportation website. The report highlights the progress and
accomplishments for the agency's commercial spaceflight development
efforts. The bi-monthly report is targeted toward non-technical
stakeholders and the American public, to keep them informed of NASA's
achievements in regaining human spaceflight leadership through
American-made access to space.

"There is a lot happening in NASA's commercial crew and cargo programs
and we want to make sure the public and our stakeholders are informed
about the progress industry is making," said Phil McAlister, NASA's
director of commercial spaceflight development. "It's exciting to see
these spaceflight concepts move forward."

NASA's Commercial Crew Development program is investing financial and
technical resources to stimulate efforts within the private sector to
develop and demonstrate safe, reliable, and cost-effective space
transportation capabilities.

For the report and more information about CCDev2, visit:


http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial   

[joek]

One other interesting difference between the milestones shown for August and October is that Oct includes all the optional milestones in the SAA amendments for SNC and Boeing announced in Sep (same announcement as the draft RFP).  However, approval for some of those was pending funding (provisionally expected by end Oct).  This may indicate those have now been approved/funded (?).

[erioladastra]

One other interesting difference between the milestones shown for August and October is that Oct includes all the optional milestones in the SAA amendments for SNC and Boeing announced in Sep (same announcement as the draft RFP).  However, approval for some of those was pending funding (provisionally expected by end Oct).  This may indicate those have now been approved/funded (?).

Correct.

[yg1968]

One other interesting difference between the milestones shown for August and October is that Oct includes all the optional milestones in the SAA amendments for SNC and Boeing announced in Sep (same announcement as the draft RFP).  However, approval for some of those was pending funding (provisionally expected by end Oct).  This may indicate those have now been approved/funded (?).

Yes, see this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26839.0

[joek]

One other interesting difference between the milestones shown for August and October is that Oct includes all the optional milestones in the SAA amendments for SNC and Boeing announced in Sep (same announcement as the draft RFP).  However, approval for some of those was pending funding (provisionally expected by end Oct).  This may indicate those have now been approved/funded (?).

Yes, see this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26839.0

Can you clarify?  At that time, several optional milestones were added via SAA amendments, but not all were funded/approved.  From the SAA amendments, Sep 2011 (emphasis original, based on Boeing and SNC SAA amendments)...

Availability of Funds:

Funds are not presently available for Milesones X, Y an Z of this agreement.  Obligations of the Government and XXX under this Agreement are contingent on the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for Agreement purposes can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise until fuinds are made available to the Agreement Office for this Agreement until the Partner receives notices of such availability, to be confirmed in writing by the Agreement Officer.  Completion dates listed in this agreement for Milestones X, Y and Z are valid onliy if XXX is notified in writing by October 30, 2011 that appropriated funds payable for Agreement purposes are available.  Any delay in notification beyond October 30, 2011 will result in comparable delays in completion of Milestones X, Y and Z to be calculated and applied to milestones as follows.  ...

This would appear to be the first confirmation we've had that all of those optional milestones have been funded/approved?  Or did I miss something?

[yg1968]

I misunderstodd you question in my first post. But I imagine that the language you quoted above is the result of the uncertainty with the passage of the CR (which occured after the September 19 2011 announcement by Bolden).

Just to clarify, the optional milestones were already in the original SAAs. NASA decided to pick-up some (but not all) of these optional milestones (on the condition that a FY2012 CR bill was passed, it would seem). Here is what the September 19 2011 announcement said:

Bolden also announced Monday at a speech to the Air Force Association's 2011 Air and Space Conference that NASA will fund optional milestones pre-negotiated as part of some of the original CCDev2 Space Act Agreements (SAA) to help accelerate development.

NASA amended Sierra Nevada Corp.'s SAA to include four optional milestones for a total of $25.6 million, bringing the potential value of Sierra Nevada's SAA to $105.6 million, if all milestones are completed successfully.

NASA also amended Boeing's SAA to include three optional milestones for a total of $20.6 million, bringing the potential value of Boeing's SAA to $112.9 million, if all milestones are reached.

[joek]

I imagine that the language you quoted above is the result of the uncertainty with the passage of the CR (which occured after the September 19 2011 announcement by Bolden).

Just to clarify, the optional milestones were already in the original SAAs. NASA decided to pick-up some (but not all) of these optional milestones (on the condition that a FY2012 CR bill was passed, it would seem). Here is what the September 19 2011 announcement said:

That's also how I interpreted the language... NASA wanted to set the groundwork for moving forward on optional milestones as early as possible, but funding was still TBD.  Understood the optional milestones are in the original SAA's (all are more-or-less the same, specifically, Appendix 2(b) CCDev2 Optional Performance Milestones and Success Criteria).  Of note, Boeng's, SNC's and Blue Origin's (but not SpaceX's) original SAA's included optional milestones; NASA chose to exercise some (but not all) of Boeing's and SNC's, but none of Blue Origin's.

[erioladastra]

I imagine that the language you quoted above is the result of the uncertainty with the passage of the CR (which occured after the September 19 2011 announcement by Bolden).

Just to clarify, the optional milestones were already in the original SAAs. NASA decided to pick-up some (but not all) of these optional milestones (on the condition that a FY2012 CR bill was passed, it would seem). Here is what the September 19 2011 announcement said:

That's also how I interpreted the language... NASA wanted to set the groundwork for moving forward on optional milestones as early as possible, but funding was still TBD.  Understood the optional milestones are in the original SAA's (all are more-or-less the same, specifically, Appendix 2(b) CCDev2 Optional Performance Milestones and Success Criteria).  Of note, Boeng's, SNC's and Blue Origin's (but not SpaceX's) original SAA's included optional milestones; NASA chose to exercise some (but not all) of Boeing's and SNC's, but none of Blue Origin's.

The optional milestones are now secured.

[baldusi]

Apparently, an unfounded SSA has been signed with the US subsidiary of Excalibur Almaz.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/10/26/excalibur-almaz-signs-unfunded-saa-with-nasa-on-ccdev/

[Lars_J]

Apparently, an unfounded SSA has been signed with the US subsidiary of Excalibur Almaz.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/10/26/excalibur-almaz-signs-unfunded-saa-with-nasa-on-ccdev/

What the (#%&*(? Do they really expect to get *anything* useful out of them? They just collect old Soviet hardware and don't do much with it. And aren't they UK based?

Or do they just sign unfunded SSA's left and right? (would explain ATK and Excalibur Almaz)

[Jason1701]

What the (#%&*(? Do they really expect to get *anything* useful out of them? They just collect old Soviet hardware and don't do much with it. And aren't they UK based?

Or do they just sign unfunded SSA's left and right? (would explain ATK and Excalibur Almaz)

They do remind me a lot of Interorbital. They're based on the Isle of Man.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}

Or do they just sign unfunded SSA's left and right? (would explain ATK and Excalibur Almaz)

Since NASA does not pay the firm any money unfunded SSA's are very cheap.  If only 1 in 100 comes in the other 99 in 100 can simply be ignored.

[baldusi]

{snip}

Or do they just sign unfunded SSA's left and right? (would explain ATK and Excalibur Almaz)

Since NASA does not pay the firm any money unfunded SSA's are very cheap.  If only 1 in 100 comes in the other 99 in 100 can simply be ignored.

It still costs them their own people's time, and generates a lot of spending on accounting and oversight. If they have people that can't be let go and don't have projects to assign them to, then it might be a good uses of resources. Given current situation, it might be this case. At least it might give some green troop some experience, or show them some un usual approach.

[BrightLight]

It might also preclude law suits about bias etc.

[joek]

It might also preclude law suits about bias etc.

Yes; IIRC "without bias" was in the verbiage, although unfortunately I can't find the reference at the moment (in some NASA, GAO, OMB, ... report).

As successive CCDev rounds are specifically not down-selects (including IDC Phase 1, aka CCDev-3), NASA has to allow non-awardees to continue to participate in the process so as not to unduly favor previous awardees; unfunded SAA's are the vehicle.  (Could also be other forms of SAA's, but as far as I know, none have been executed for CCDev.)

[yg1968]

This is an interesting interview with Ed Mango on the safety requirements for commercial crew:
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Certified-Safe.html?c=y&page=1

[AnalogMan]

Current CCDEV-2 Milestone Schedules for all commercial partners (shows milestones, completion or expected completion dates & milestone funding) - updated December 9, 2011.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/610830main_CCDev2_Public_20111209_508.pdf

[Robotbeat]

Current CCDEV-2 Milestone Schedules for all commercial partners (shows milestones, completion or expected completion dates & milestone funding) - updated December 9, 2011.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/610830main_CCDev2_Public_20111209_508.pdf

Thanks for the update.