NASA Releases Commercial Crew Draft RFP, Announces CCDEV2 Optional Milestones

[Space Pete]

RELEASE : 11-312
 
NASA Releases Commercial Crew Draft RFP, Announces CCDEV2 Optional Milestones
 
WASHINGTON -- NASA unveiled Monday an outline of its acquisition strategy to procure transportation services from private industry to carry U.S. astronauts to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station. The agency also announced the addition of optional milestones for the Commercial Crew Development Round 2 (CCDev2) initiative.

"This is a significant step forward in America's amazing story of space exploration," said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. "It's further evidence we are committed to fully implementing our plan -- as laid out in the Authorization Act -- to outsource our space station transportation so NASA can focus its energy and resources on deep space exploration."

NASA's draft request for proposal (RFP) outlines a contract that will be awarded to multiple companies that provide a complete end-to-end design, including spacecraft, launch vehicles, launch services, ground and mission operations and recovery. The Integrated Design Contract (IDC) of up to $1.61 billion will run from July 2012 through April 2014.

"This IDC effort will bring us through the critical design phase to fully incorporate our human spaceflight safety requirements and NASA's International Space Station mission needs," said NASA Commercial Crew Program Manager Ed Mango. "We look forward to strong U.S. industry response."

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.

"All four CCDev2 partners are performing very well and meeting their milestones," said Phil McAlister, director of NASA's Commercial Spaceflight Development. "These additional milestones were selected because they sufficiently accelerated the development of commercial crew transportation systems to justify additional NASA investment."

For more information on NASA's Commercial Crew Program, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial


http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/sep/HQ_11-312_CCDEV_Announ.html

[peter-b]

This is good news, especially the "multiple companies" bit! I know several people had voiced a concern that the downselect would be to a single provider.  I know that we're all cheering on our particular favourite horses in this race, but just the fact that there will be more than one winner is great for the industry and for HSF in general IMHO.

IIRC, both SNC's and Boeing's CCDEV contributions have Atlas V man-rating in their critical path before they can be introduced into active service. I've lost track of what the current status on that is...

[Chris Bergin]

Yep! All good there!

[joek]

Draft RFP documents can be found here.

[peter-b]

Draft RFP documents can be found here.

Argh, it's all MS Office droppings. Is there any chance someone could stick some PDFs somewhere, pretty please? 

[robertross]

Draft RFP documents can be found here.

Thanks.


Great news!

[robertross]

Draft RFP documents can be found here.

Argh, it's all MS Office droppings. Is there any chance someone could stick some PDFs somewhere, pretty please? 

All PDFs

Some are covers or blank tables (like the larger Excel spreadsheets)

[peter-b]

Oh wow, this is amazing. On my way to bed now, but I will give these a good going-over tomorrow! 

[joek]

This is good news, especially the "multiple companies" bit! I know several people had voiced a concern that the downselect would be to a single provider.  I know that we're all cheering on our particular favourite horses in this race, but just the fact that there will be more than one winner is great for the industry and for HSF in general IMHO.

Down-select to a single provider expected for Phase 2.  From 148508-DRAFT-001-005 (pg 50):
edit: Multiple providers may still be in the future for Phase 2, budget available, per Robotbeat's post below.

I.14    NFS 1852.217-71  PHASED ACQUISITION USING DOWN-SELECTION PROCEDURES (MAY 2000)
(a)    This solicitation is for the Commercial Crew Program’s acquisition to facilitate the development of a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability with the goal of achieving safe, reliable and cost effective access to and from low earth orbit (LEO) including the International Space Station (ISS). The acquisition will be conducted as a two-phased procurement using a competitive down-selection technique between phases. In this technique, two or more contractors will be selected for Phase 1. It is expected that the single contractor for Phase 2 will be chosen from among these contractors after a competitive down-selection.

[snip]

(i)    The anticipated schedule for conducting this phased procurement is provided for your information. These dates are projections only and are not intended to commit NASA to complete a particular action at a given time.
Phase 1 award – July, 2012
Phase 2 synopsis – September, 2013
Phase 2 proposal requested – RFP release in October, 2013
Phase 2 proposal receipt – December, 2013
Phase 2 award – May, 2014

[Namechange User]

Down-select to a single provider expected for Phase 2.  From 148508-DRAFT-001-005 (pg 50):

Exactly.  No real surprises here though anymore and saw this coming.  I find it odd though that General Bolden and all can say they are sticking to a plan.  The "plan" as I remember it was to:

1.  Have redundancy
2.  Create a market that could exist in parallel and conjunction with NASA so that NASA could purchase from whoever via competition, etc
3.  Not do FAR-type contracting
4.  Create 10,000 jobs. 

[Robotbeat]

Congress also approved less funding than was requested for the effort (for this year). This obviously has consequences, and you're right it was foreseeable that one of the consequences of reduced funding is down-select to only 1 provider.

Also, there still will be redundancy, far more than at any time during Shuttle (which could not function as lifeboat).

Also, the skin-in-the-game requirement for CCDev (the development portion) means more jobs-per-NASA-dollar than other typical NASA endeavors (the money comes from the competitors).

[robertross]

Down-select to a single provider expected for Phase 2.  From 148508-DRAFT-001-005 (pg 50):

Good find.

That part's disappointing 

So, do we start a poll on which company will be the winner? 

I'm betting that Boeing & the CST-100 will be selected. Why? Experience in spaceflight.

[Robotbeat]

This is good news, especially the "multiple companies" bit! I know several people had voiced a concern that the downselect would be to a single provider.  I know that we're all cheering on our particular favourite horses in this race, but just the fact that there will be more than one winner is great for the industry and for HSF in general IMHO.

Down-select to a single provider expected for Phase 2.  From 148508-DRAFT-001-005 (pg 50):

I.14    NFS 1852.217-71  PHASED ACQUISITION USING DOWN-SELECTION PROCEDURES (MAY 2000)
(a)    This solicitation is for the Commercial Crew Program’s acquisition to facilitate the development of a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability with the goal of achieving safe, reliable and cost effective access to and from low earth orbit (LEO) including the International Space Station (ISS). The acquisition will be conducted as a two-phased procurement using a competitive down-selection technique between phases. In this technique, two or more contractors will be selected for Phase 1. It is expected that the single contractor for Phase 2 will be chosen from among these contractors after a competitive down-selection.

[snip]

(i)    The anticipated schedule for conducting this phased procurement is provided for your information. These dates are projections only and are not intended to commit NASA to complete a particular action at a given time.
Phase 1 award – July, 2012
Phase 2 synopsis – September, 2013
Phase 2 proposal requested – RFP release in October, 2013
Phase 2 proposal receipt – December, 2013
Phase 2 award – May, 2014

Don't forget this:

Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the competition in Phase 2 may result in the award of multiple contracts if budget allows.

In other words, whether or not a down-select to just one happens depends on whether or not there there's enough money. No surprise there.

So, it's basically up to Congress.

[mmeijeri]

Don't forget this:

Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the competition in Phase 2 may result in the award of multiple contracts if budget allows.

In other words, whether or not a down-select to just one happens depends on whether or not there there's enough money.

Good catch! I'm slightly relieved, but not much.

[Robotbeat]

I don't find this encouraging (on page 52 in pdf, labeled page 54 in draft-001-005):

Small Business Utilization sub-factor summary: The Offeror‘s Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Commitment to Small Businesses will be evaluated. Phase 2 small business subcontracting goals will be higher than in Phase 1. The Small Business Utilization sub-factor will be more heavily weighted in the Mission Suitability point distribution than in Phase 1.

I am pro-small-business (I work at one, after all), but I don't think they need this in order to compete. Small businesses (if you don't burden them with red tape, which hits them disproportionately) can compete on price just fine.

What it does do is limit the ability for companies to cut costs through vertical integration and lowers the incentive for small businesses in aerospace to compete on price/performance. There is a small cottage industry of small business aerospace subcontractors, but many times they're not used to "cost" being a very important factor.

[robertross]

Don't forget this:

Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the competition in Phase 2 may result in the award of multiple contracts if budget allows.

In other words, whether or not a down-select to just one happens depends on whether or not there there's enough money.

Good catch! I'm slightly relieved, but not much.

I don't know...they could be referring to just Phase 1 and keep ALL of the original companies, and still down-select to the final (and single) provider.

[Robotbeat]

Don't forget this:

Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the competition in Phase 2 may result in the award of multiple contracts if budget allows.

In other words, whether or not a down-select to just one happens depends on whether or not there there's enough money.

Good catch! I'm slightly relieved, but not much.

I don't know...they could be referring to just Phase 1 and keep ALL of the original companies, and still down-select to the final (and single) provider.

Or, something more subtle, like picking CST-100 for primary provider, but still paying (a lesser amount) for testing and capability of crewed Dragon. Makes more sense with Dragon, since it may still be used with cargo delivery even if it loses on primary crew provider.

It really depends on what Congress does. If Congress doesn't provide enough money, there'll only be one provider. If they provide more, NASA will be able to afford two (better for the market, better for redundancy).

[joek]

I'm betting that Boeing & the CST-100 will be selected. Why? Experience in spaceflight.

Me too given the evaluation weighting...

From 148508-DRAFT-001-002 (pg 2):

Source Selection and Evaluation Criteria
Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price factor. The Mission Suitability factor is more important than Price; The Price factor is approximately equal to the Past Performance factor.

From 148508-DRAFT-001-005 (pg 96):

Mission Suitability Subfactors (Scored Elements)	Weight (Points)
Subfactor 1: Technical, Crew Safety and Mission Assurance	650
Subfactor 2: Management Approach	275
Subfactor 3: Small Business Utilization	75
Total	1000

[Robotbeat]

So, 7.5% is small business utilization? What the heck? I guess somebody called a Congress person. I remember hearing about some subcontractors whining about how SpaceX wouldn't use their over-priced solution...

(I think they advertised on this site, actually... hope this doesn't get me in trouble!)

[robertross]

Don't forget this:

Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the competition in Phase 2 may result in the award of multiple contracts if budget allows.

In other words, whether or not a down-select to just one happens depends on whether or not there there's enough money.

Good catch! I'm slightly relieved, but not much.

I don't know...they could be referring to just Phase 1 and keep ALL of the original companies, and still down-select to the final (and single) provider.

Or, something more subtle, like picking CST-100 for primary provider, but still paying (a lesser amount) for testing and capability of crewed Dragon. Makes more sense with Dragon, since it may still be used with cargo delivery even if it loses on primary crew provider.

It really depends on what Congress does. If Congress doesn't provide enough money, there'll only be one provider. If they provide more, NASA will be able to afford two (better for the market, better for redundancy).

But they're already paying for Dragon. And now with all these CCDev payments, they have helped advance Dragon to a near-working state.

The big loser will be the Dreamchaser, unfortunately, as it has the furthest to go (IMO).

[mmeijeri]

Source Selection and Evaluation Criteria
Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price factor. The Mission Suitability factor is more important than Price; The Price factor is approximately equal to the Past Performance factor.

If you want to stimulate commercial manned spaceflight then price is as important as mission suitability. In fact, price is part of mission suitability. Past performance is only important in so far as it is an indication of future performance. Small business utilisation is totally unimportant.

[joek]

Don't forget this:

Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the competition in Phase 2 may result in the award of multiple contracts if budget allows.

In other words, whether or not a down-select to just one happens depends on whether or not there there's enough money. No surprise there.

Thanks!  Missed that one.  There's hope yet.

[Robotbeat]

Don't forget this:

Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the competition in Phase 2 may result in the award of multiple contracts if budget allows.

In other words, whether or not a down-select to just one happens depends on whether or not there there's enough money.

Good catch! I'm slightly relieved, but not much.

I don't know...they could be referring to just Phase 1 and keep ALL of the original companies, and still down-select to the final (and single) provider.

Or, something more subtle, like picking CST-100 for primary provider, but still paying (a lesser amount) for testing and capability of crewed Dragon. Makes more sense with Dragon, since it may still be used with cargo delivery even if it loses on primary crew provider.

It really depends on what Congress does. If Congress doesn't provide enough money, there'll only be one provider. If they provide more, NASA will be able to afford two (better for the market, better for redundancy).

But they're already paying for Dragon. And now with all these CCDev payments, they have helped advance Dragon to a near-working state.

The big loser will be the Dreamchaser, unfortunately, as it has the furthest to go (IMO).

Right, but if NASA doesn't pay for Dragon to meet their specific human-rated specs (currently in the works, probably specific to ISS in some respects, could reflect more "wants" instead of "needs" from the astronaut corp, etc), there is no way SpaceX would do it to NASA's specs ("use this kind of bolt with this torque") for free, even though SpaceX does plan to develop Dragon into a crewed vehicle with their own money eventually. If NASA wants it their way, they'll have to pay.

[joek]

So, 7.5% is small business utilization? What the heck? I guess somebody called a Congress person.

The result of FAR flow-down requirements, not to mention the recent House language:

For any acquisition strategy developed for CCDev3, NASA is encouraged to consider the potential contributions of women-, minority- and veteran-owned firms.

[Namechange User]

Congress also approved less funding than was requested for the effort (for this year). This obviously has consequences, and you're right it was foreseeable that one of the consequences of reduced funding is down-select to only 1 provider.

Also, there still will be redundancy, far more than at any time during Shuttle (which could not function as lifeboat).

Also, the skin-in-the-game requirement for CCDev (the development portion) means more jobs-per-NASA-dollar than other typical NASA endeavors (the money comes from the competitors).

Sigh.  Very bad response to my original post.  This is complete ignorance at worse and, at the very best, total and complete spin that fails to really address any of my oringinal points by simply ignoring them and pretending they were not really there out of convienence and moving the goal posts.  Very sad.

[Namechange User]

So, 7.5% is small business utilization? What the heck? I guess somebody called a Congress person. I remember hearing about some subcontractors whining about how SpaceX wouldn't use their over-priced solution...

(I think they advertised on this site, actually... hope this doesn't get me in trouble!)

Again, total ignorance.  It was you as I recall who was completely advocating and accepting of government totally funding "commercial" even though there were other ways to go about it that would really maximize the chance for true commercial.

It is now ironic that you are complaining about 7.5% for small business in a FAR-based contract when typically the percentage is much higher.

In addition there are categories to the "small business" allotment and that need to be satisfied and those typically include:

Woman-owned business
Veteran-owned business
Service-disabled Veteran-owned business
Minority-owned business
HUD-zone business
Etc

[Namechange User]

So, do we start a poll on which company will be the winner? 

I'm betting that Boeing & the CST-100 will be selected. Why? Experience in spaceflight.

Why does it have to be one of the current CCDev award companies?  With all due respect to you, this board was filled with everyone going on and on about "competition", etc and that the age of commercial was here and that no other alternatives were acceptable.

So, now with the state of things, and how we have already seen the goal posts move are we prepared to say that "commercial" now exists of a government-awardee to one company out of the four that we know and nobody else should try?  Is that "commercial" and does that fit with the points originally made and how this was sold.  What about my points in my original points in this thread? 

[A_M_Swallow]

So, 7.5% is small business utilization? What the heck? I guess somebody called a Congress person.

The result of FAR flow-down requirements, not to mention the recent House language:

For any acquisition strategy developed for CCDev3, NASA is encouraged to consider the potential contributions of women-, minority- and veteran-owned firms.

SpaceX does not have to employ a chef, he can work for a small business.
The cleaners can work for a woman owned firm.
Security, window cleaners, gardeners, accountants and other support staff can also have their own firms.

[robertross]

So, do we start a poll on which company will be the winner? 

I'm betting that Boeing & the CST-100 will be selected. Why? Experience in spaceflight.

Why does it have to be one of the current CCDev award companies?  With all due respect to you, this board was filled with everyone going on and on about "competition", etc and that the age of commercial was here and that no other alternatives were acceptable.

So, now with the state of things, and how we have already seen the goal posts move are we prepared to say that "commercial" now exists of a government-awardee to one company out of the four that we know and nobody else should try?  Is that "commercial" and does that fit with the points originally made and how this was sold.  What about my points in my original points in this thread? 

Perhaps you misunderstand, or I'm just seeing this form a more 'political' angle. I would certainly love to see the many players get a piece of the action, I really do. All of these companies bring something to the table, and each one can also fall into a hole and (though it may make them stronger in the end) will cost a lot of time and schedule. NASA has certainly won by leveraging the capabilities of several companies to make their position stronger; if more come to the table, NASA will no doubt seek to take advantage of that.

But NASA has to work with the tools available to them, and the biggest is money. They would have to invest (one would think) in a company (or companies) that can carry them forward with a commercial capability (not alternative), that can bring crew to the ISS (the main driver here, but not the only one) in a safe and timely manner. Congress is helping to tie NASA's hands, and that is evident in the language of the document(s).

I have respect for all the companies, but in the end, due to 'political weight', if I were to 'place a bet', my money would go to where the experience is in spaceflight, and that's Boeing.

If SpaceX is going to fly crew regardless, NASA has helped their cause to that end. Depending on which crew transports people to the Bigelow modules, they would not have advanced quite as far as the positions they are in now were it not for CCDev. So the players win here, but as you well have pointed out previously, commercial needs their own business case to close, and right now with the ISS as the 'only game in town', that's a stark reality.

[yg1968]

According to the document, the down select would only occur under CCDev-4 in July 2014. By that time cargo Dragon should be a proven system. IMO, the odds are in favour of SpaceX if there is only one provider.

But I would be very surprised if there is only one commercial crew provider that is selected for CCDev-4. July 2014 is in FY2014 which means that CCDev-4 will be governed by a new authorization bill. So the funding for commercial crew development should be increased for those years. At least that's what Senator Nelson said when the 2010 NASA Authorization bill was passed. He said that they decided not to fully fund commercial crew in the beginning but that starting in FY 2014, the funding for commercial crew development would be increased.

[joek]

But I would be very surprised if there is only one commercial crew provider that is selected for CCDev-4. July 2014 is in FY2014 which means that CCDev-4 will be governed by a new authorization bill. So the funding for commercial crew development should be increased for those years. At least that's what Senator Nelson said when the 2010 NASA Authorization bill was passed. He said that they decided not to fully fund commercial crew in the beginning but that starting in FY 2014, the funding for commercial crew development would be increased.

I hope so, but I'm having trouble figuring out where the money is going to come from... either something else in NASA's budget gives, or there's an increase in NASA's projected budget; doesn't appear to be a lot of room in either case.

[Namechange User]

So, 7.5% is small business utilization? What the heck? I guess somebody called a Congress person.

The result of FAR flow-down requirements, not to mention the recent House language:

For any acquisition strategy developed for CCDev3, NASA is encouraged to consider the potential contributions of women-, minority- and veteran-owned firms.

SpaceX does not have to employ a chef, he can work for a small business.
The cleaners can work for a woman owned firm.
Security, window cleaners, gardeners, accountants and other support staff can also have their own firms.

Wrong.  FAR requires that the small businesses are given "meaningful work" directly related to the contract award in order to avoid such practices.

[Danderman]

So, 7.5% is small business utilization? What the heck? I guess somebody called a Congress person. I remember hearing about some subcontractors whining about how SpaceX wouldn't use their over-priced solution...

(I think they advertised on this site, actually... hope this doesn't get me in trouble!)

Again, total ignorance.  It was you as I recall who was completely advocating and accepting of government totally funding "commercial" even though there were other ways to go about it that would really maximize the chance for true commercial.

It is now ironic that you are complaining about 7.5% for small business in a FAR-based contract when typically the percentage is much higher.

In addition there are categories to the "small business" allotment and that need to be satisfied and those typically include:

Woman-owned business
Veteran-owned business
Service-disabled Veteran-owned business
Minority-owned business
HUD-zone business
Etc

SpaceX qualifies as a small business, and it may be located in a HUD Zone in Hawthorne. Heck, ORB was a small business not that long ago, and may still be one.

[manboy]

Down-select to a single provider expected for Phase 2.  From 148508-DRAFT-001-005 (pg 50):

Exactly.  No real surprises here though anymore and saw this coming.  I find it odd though that General Bolden and all can say they are sticking to a plan.  The "plan" as I remember it was to:

1.  Have redundancy

Here's a quote if you ever need something to back up those memories

"Ideally, we'd like to have multiple competitors who come down to at least two that we can use so that we always have an alternative should one falter or fail," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-30/us/future.of.space.travel_1_international-space-station-spaceship-shuttle-program-ends?_s=PM:US

[peter-b]

I think you'll find that the plan was scuppered when Congress didn't give NASA the money that was asked for and required to implement said plan. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

I was thinking about this while trying to get to sleep last night, and I came to pretty much the same conclusion as other posters here: Boeing + SpaceX phase 1, downselect to Boeing phase 2. The weighting on "Past Performance" confirms it for me. Liberty hasn't got a gnat's chance in a Bunsen burner flame of getting funded -- given the limited budget and time available, NASA will want to fund spacecraft development, not launcher development -- and both Blue Origin and SNC seem much further from flight than the other two. Who else is there who could plausibly be awarded a contract?

The 7% socioeconomic subcontracting requirement does seem low (I seem to remember ~20% or higher from other FAR contracts). Do you think this is based on experience with COTS and the earlier CCDev rounds?

[docmordrid]

Couldn't "Past Performance" also be taken to mean several F9/Dragon flights, even in cargo configuration, having more weight than a lower number of Atlas/CST-100 flights because of the cargo/crew commonality?

[manboy]

Couldn't "Past Performance" also be taken to mean several F9/Dragon flights, even in cargo configuration, having more weight than a lower number of Atlas/CST-100 flights because of the cargo/crew commonality?

I'm hoping, because SpaceX seems to have much lower costs than Boeing.

[Hauerg]

....
 At least that's what Senator Nelson said when the 2010 NASA Authorization bill was passed. He said that they decided not to fully fund commercial crew in the beginning but that starting in FY 2014, the funding for commercial crew development would be increased.

And the cancellation of SLS will provide a LOT of money.

[MP99]

Down-select to a single provider expected for Phase 2.  From 148508-DRAFT-001-005 (pg 50):
edit: Multiple providers may still be in the future for Phase 2, budget available, per Robotbeat's post below.

If the down-select is at risk of going to one provider, it must make it harder for competitors to put their own skin in the game if they will be reliant on NASA business to recoup their investment.

cheers, Martin

[MP99]

Source Selection and Evaluation Criteria
Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price factor. The Mission Suitability factor is more important than Price; The Price factor is approximately equal to the Past Performance factor.

If you want to stimulate commercial manned spaceflight then price is as important as mission suitability. In fact, price is part of mission suitability. Past performance is only important in so far as it is an indication of future performance. Small business utilisation is totally unimportant.

How much is NASA overhead likely to affect the price?

Could the winning provider gain a NASA contract, but be undercut (eg for Bigelow) by one of the dropped competitors?

cheers, Martin

[marsavian]

So, 7.5% is small business utilization? What the heck? I guess somebody called a Congress person. I remember hearing about some subcontractors whining about how SpaceX wouldn't use their over-priced solution...

Could offloading say eventual manned Dragon payload processing to Astrotech count to this 7.5% clause or is this just manned Dragon development activity ?

[Diagoras]

So, is this a reaction to the House's 350 million or the Senate's 500 million? Also, standard DFTT disclaimer, guys.

[Chris Bergin]

Late to the party, but I'm not going to edit a bunch of posts, because someone's acting all roudy and the reaction is to quote it. Just be civil for pity's sake

[john smith 19]

A very interesting video, and some equally interesting links.

It seems (from the video) that the descriptions of "Milestone payments" and adherence to NASA "requirements"  during the earlier SSA's were in fact *unenforceable* and that in fact the whole process has operated on the goodwill of *both* sides up to now. More a polite agreement than an enforceable contract (still pretty impressive progress when committed people move toward a common goal).

People here have talked about this being a Firm Fixed Price agreement under FAR but the *whole* point of this meeting was to emphasize that they are working hard to ensure this is *not* the case.

EG No *detailed* cost data to be supplied to NASA (pity about this. It might be the *only* way the NAFCOM cost model values might be brought down a bit),

No nosing about into *every* subsystem on the vehicle or its launch vehicle.

Milestones tailored to *individual* vehicle designs ("detailed wing stress analysis  completion" would be a bit pointless for CTS-100, Dragon and Blue Origin) and the experience level of the companies involved.

I also note that they are adamant this will be *fixed* price and NASA's exposure to cost will be *strictly* limited. You almost get the feeling the programme staff have seen projects turn into permanent money pits that have produce no *tangible* benefit to the Agency and don't want that to happen here.

Having been surprised most of this is *not* available in an SAA I'm even more surprised some form "intermediate" contract, between the near totally hands off SAA and the we-are-ordering-a-full-cavity-search-of-all-your-employees-now approach under FAR was not implemented *decades* ago.

The devil will be in the contract details and with many hands at NASA pulling the levers it definitely could be FUBAR but this just *might* be the model for a new contract template.

Time will tell if they are successful.

[Diagoras]

A very interesting video, and some equally interesting links.

It seems (from the video) that the descriptions of "Milestone payments" and adherence to NASA "requirements"  during the earlier SSA's were in fact *unenforceable* and that in fact the whole process has operated on the goodwill of *both* sides up to now. More a polite agreement than an enforceable contract (still pretty impressive progress when committed people move toward a common goal).

People here have talked about this being a Firm Fixed Price agreement under FAR but the *whole* point of this meeting was to emphasize that they are working hard to ensure this is *not* the case.

EG No *detailed* cost data to be supplied to NASA (pity about this. It might be the *only* way the NAFCOM cost model values might be brought down a bit),

No nosing about into *every* subsystem on the vehicle or its launch vehicle.

Milestones tailored to *individual* vehicle designs ("detailed wing stress analysis  completion" would be a bit pointless for CTS-100, Dragon and Blue Origin) and the experience level of the companies involved.

I also note that they are adamant this will be *fixed* price and NASA's exposure to cost will be *strictly* limited. You almost get the feeling the programme staff have seen projects turn into permanent money pits that have produce no *tangible* benefit to the Agency and don't want that to happen here.

Having been surprised most of this is *not* available in an SAA I'm even more surprised some form "intermediate" contract, between the near totally hands off SAA and the we-are-ordering-a-full-cavity-search-of-all-your-employees-now approach under FAR was not implemented *decades* ago.

The devil will be in the contract details and with many hands at NASA pulling the levers it definitely could be FUBAR but this just *might* be the model for a new contract template.

Time will tell if they are successful.

Thank you very much for that analysis, john. It's nice to know there's still hope.

[Lurker Steve]

So, is this a reaction to the House's 350 million or the Senate's 500 million? Also, standard DFTT disclaimer, guys.

I don't understand why people think a 350 million dollar budget will cause a down-select to a single vendor.

The current CCDev-2 awards were for roughly 75 million each, right ? Continuing at the same funding level, that's 75 mil * 4 = 300 million, plus another 50 million for NASA to administer the program. The current year commerical development budget might have been larger, but NASA was also funding COTS at the same time. The COTS milestones should be complete by March / April, although I don't know if that funding is rolling over from the prior year, since those goals were to be accomplished in the prior fiscal year.

If any vendor has an issue with the FAR contract, I'm sure NASA would be willing to place them on an unfunded SAA instead. That's something each vendor will have to weigh. Can they meet the requirements in NASA's RFP for a lower overall development cost and bring their product to market faster if they aren't burdened by NASA oversight ?

[Will]

Down-select to a single provider expected for Phase 2.  From 148508-DRAFT-001-005 (pg 50):
edit: Multiple providers may still be in the future for Phase 2, budget available, per Robotbeat's post below.

If the down-select is at risk of going to one provider, it must make it harder for competitors to put their own skin in the game if they will be reliant on NASA business to recoup their investment.

cheers, Martin

I don't think so. Assuming equal ability to win the contract, it's the difference between a 50% chance of winning one flight a year or a 25% chance of winning two.

[Ronsmytheiii]

WIll , i am going to have to question your math here.  For a single provider and assuming the choice is between the four CCDev 2 recipients, then each company has a one in four chance of winning the single contract, or 25% which was correct above.

For two provider contract with seperate providers, the probability is not 50%.  The first slot would be one in four, but the second slot would be one in three.  Therefore an individual company would have a 58.33% chance of winning a commercial crew contract for a year in a dual sourced contract.

[go4mars]

For any acquisition strategy developed for CCDev3, NASA is encouraged to consider the potential contributions of women-, minority- and veteran-owned firms.

Does African count as a minority?  Elon's African.  Gynne is a woman. 

[BeanEstimator]

EG No *detailed* cost data to be supplied to NASA (pity about this. It might be the *only* way the NAFCOM cost model values might be brought down a bit),

excuse the snip.

fwiw, nafcom is fine.  contrary to what you've heard.  those of us who actually know how to use the model can build perfectly good estimates (including for F9 and F9H - estimates you've never seen unfortunately, the ones you saw were um, how shall we say, political in nature).  like any tool or model, the work falls to the analyst/user. 

but your point is still valid.  without cost data we are at a severe disadvantage.  still, the FAR reporting standards for cost accounting are onerous.  there is a much better way to report cost that doesn't require armies of rmo folks or an evm system that needs 3-5% of your total mission cost...but i digress.  unfortunately the reporting is always looked at as an "all or nothing".  and nasa will not be able to gain any insight into susbystem costs, or management costs...*sigh*

ok i now return you to a more substantive discussion.  you'll have to excuse the lowly cost weenie in the crowd 

[Jose]

...there is a much better way to report cost that doesn't require armies of rmo folks or an evm system that needs 3-5% of your total mission cost...but i digress...

Now you're just teasing us...

[Jason1701]

Does African count as a minority?  Elon's African. 

You made my day.

[baldusi]

WIll , i am going to have to question your math here.  For a single provider and assuming the choice is between the four CCDev 2 recipients, then each company has a one in four chance of winning the single contract, or 25% which was correct above.

For two provider contract with seperate providers, the probability is not 50%.  The first slot would be one in four, but the second slot would be one in three.  Therefore an individual company would have a 58.33% chance of winning a commercial crew contract for a year in a dual sourced contract.

If you assume first one in four and then one in three, that would be 0.25 + 0.75 * 0.33 = 49.75%.
But that only applies if you are first bidding for one, and then bidding for the second place. If it's simultaneous is 50% (academic, since we are talking about a 0.25%).

[BrightLight]

Would economies of scale work better if the down selected vendors used only the Atlas V as opposed to one vendor using the Atlas V and the other - Falcon?

[baldusi]

Would economies of scale work better if the down selected vendors used only the Atlas V as opposed to one vendor using the Atlas V and the other - Falcon?

Would sort of loose the LV redundancy. Technically, Boeing stated that they will be compatible with the Falcon 9. I think SNC and Blue Origin said something along that line. But I'm not sure. If redundancy would be an issue, I would sort of force that they demonstrate a dual LV capability. In fact, I would give the second launcher at least one launch with each craft, if both chosen vehicles use the same (probably Atlas V). Both Falcon 9 and Atlas V should be viable without that contract. But you have to demonstrate the interfaces and have at least an unmaned flight demonstration.

[BrightLight]

Would sort of loose the LV redundancy.
So if Spacex does not get the down-select that leaves Atlas V, Liberty and Delta.  But it looks like the Delta platform is not as viable for man rating and the status of Liberty is yet to be determined.  Conversely if Spacex gets the down-select would dragon fly on Atlas?  I would argue that redundancy might not be a priority - but we will have to wait and see!

[joek]

From 148508-DRAFT-001-005 (pg 94):

L.26   ANTICIPATED BUDGET
Offerors should consider multiple awards and the anticipated budget when establishing milestone events, prices and completion dates. The anticipated budget available for multiple contract awards of the CCIDC, based on the FY2012 President’s Budget Request, is shown below:

CLIN 001- Base period - $1.61B
CLIN 002- IDIQ - $0.02B per contract award
CLIN 003- Options - $0.48B

Obviously the $1.61B ($850M/yr x 2) isn't happening, at least soon.

The contract line items appear to be constructed so that if funding increases, some Phase 2 work could be completed under Phase 1 options and help accelerate efforts or help multiple vendors progress further (even if they aren't selected for Phase 2).  Without those options Phase 1 is range of the currently projected FY12-FY13 $500M/yr funding profile.
2012 Jul - Phase 1 awards.
2013 Oct - Phase 2 RFP.
2014 Apr - Phase 1 CLIN 001 complete (no later than).
2014 May - Phase 2 awards.
2014 Oct - Phase 1 CLIN 003 complete (no later than).

For reference:
CLIN 001 - Base FFP contract with 4 mandatory milestones and 1 optional milestone; vendors may propose additional milestones.
CLIN 002 - NASA-requested activities (IDIQ studies, analysis, etc. NTE $20M/contract).
CLIN 003 - Optional FFP extensions proposed by vendors for development testing and certification activities.  Those activities would otherwise be part of Phase 2.

edit: clarify CLIN 003

[R.Simko]

If Congress and NASA want true LEO HSF redundancy (of course that's a big if), then what makes the most sense to me, is to fund both CST-100 and Dragon.  With financial incentive, I would think that NASA could get SpaceX to be willing to allow Dragon to be flown on Atlas, in addition to flying on Falcon.  It is my understanding that CST-100 is being designed so that it can fly on either Atlas or Dragon (in addition to others).

This would make it so that if there is ever a problem with either capsule, then the other capsule can continue to fly (perhaps alternating) on the 2 available rockets.  If there is ever a problem with one of the rockets, then the capsules can fly on the other rocket, until the problem is found.

I didn't include SLS/Orion (MPLV), because that is only as an optional back-up if commercial doesn't work out.  SLS/Orion should be concentrating on BLEO.  But if the absolute worst happens, it would also be available whenever it is completed.

What is the value of a truely redundant American HSF capability?  It's time for Congress to step up and put America first.  Yes, even before their local contractors and constituents'.

Yes I know, the budget.  But to bring both of these systems on line would not cost that much.  Congress would either have to earmark additional funds for this, or temporarily shift some funding to bring these two systems on line.

When America wins, we all win.  If a few states say "me first", then we may all lose.

Edit-Word correction

[peter-b]

If Congress and NASA want true LEO HSF redundancy (of course that's a big if), then what makes the most sense to me, is to fund both CST-100 and Dragon.  With financial incentive, I would think that NASA could get SpaceX to be willing to allow Dragon to be flown on Atlas, in addition to flying on Falcon.  It is my understanding that CST-100 is being designed so that it can fly on either Atlas or Dragon (in addition to others).

This would make it so that if there is ever a problem with either capsule, then the other capsule can continue to fly (perhaps alternating) on the 2 available rockets.  If there is ever a problem with one of the rockets, then the capsules can fly on the other rocket, until the problem is found.

That sounds like such a sensible idea that I'm sure that there's not the tiniest of chances of it actually happening. I'm sure someone (Jim?) will be along presently to explain why.

[baldusi]

Would sort of loose the LV redundancy.
So if Spacex does not get the down-select that leaves Atlas V, Liberty and Delta.  But it looks like the Delta platform is not as viable for man rating and the status of Liberty is yet to be determined.  Conversely if Spacex gets the down-select would dragon fly on Atlas?  I would argue that redundancy might not be a priority - but we will have to wait and see!

Realistically, the only two man-ratable LV within the US industry are both Atlas V and Falcon 9. Delta could be done, but it would be expensive, and I highly doubt ULA would pay it for itself. It's all due to RS-68A limitations. But I understand that if you loose a bit the requirements, it wouldn't need main mods. The Liberty is a paper rocket, and the Ariane 5 core stage that's currently used has a different engine, tank and avionics than the one that was required at first to be man-ratable. But SpaceX has stated that they would be happy to fly an CST-100 on a Falcon 9.
So, barring any loosening of the man-rating requirements, I don't see any other cheap and realistic options than Atlas V and Falcon 9.
Now, if SpaceX is selected for a CRS 2 (from 2017 to 2020), they could offer the option of having a fully developed Crew Dragon, even one built and in storage, but only do with an IDIQ contract, since they could keep the Dragon line running on Cargo Dragon. In that arrangement, they could offer a "cheap" contract as a backup LV+craft, Lv or craft, with very little overhead. But the timing is interesting, since NASA would probably want to develop the human capsules first. Since all have stated that they can function as a robot capsule, it's quite probable that CRS 2 will have at least three (even four) fully working bidders. Dragon has the advantage of some unpressurized volume. But Cygnus could offer an unpressurized version easily. That would be one very interesting tender.

[BrightLight]

I have not seen that Spacex is willing to fly the CST-100 (if you have a citation, please re-post).  If this is true then a Dragon and CST-100 capability would provide remarkable redundancy - two unique space craft and two unique LV's. Although a lifting body spacecraft (Dream Chaser)  would offer unique capability but appears to have the longest path to go to IOC.

[joek]

The 7% socioeconomic subcontracting requirement does seem low (I seem to remember ~20% or higher from other FAR contracts). Do you think this is based on experience with COTS and the earlier CCDev rounds?

7.5% is the contribution of the subcontracting plan to the proposal evaluation (75 out of 1000 points), not a percentage of contract value.

[peter-b]

The 7% socioeconomic subcontracting requirement does seem low (I seem to remember ~20% or higher from other FAR contracts). Do you think this is based on experience with COTS and the earlier CCDev rounds?

7.5% is the contribution of the subcontracting plan to the proposal evaluation (75 out of 1000 points), not a percentage of contract value.

Ah, okay, I misunderstood. Do you have any idea what the required subcontracted value is?

[R.Simko]

Let me clarify my statement.  No I have not seen SpaceX ever indicate that they would be willing to fly Dragon on Atlas or any other launcher.  It is my hopes that the logic to being able to interchange Dragon/Falcon and Atlas/CST-100 would prove so sensible to the companies involved and NASA and America at large, that they would considder it. 

I guess what I am doing, is calling for this to be a solution, where it is a win-win for the companies involved and for America.  How many times have we seen the indisputable need for redundancy in our HSF?  To bring CST-100 and Dragon close to completion and to cast one of them aside and the redundancy they would bring, would be in my opinion sheer lunacy.

I'm sure that there are SpaceX employees reading this site, prehaps one of them could put this idea before Elon.

[joek]

Ah, okay, I misunderstood. Do you have any idea what the required subcontracted value is?

Hard to tell; per 148508-DRAFT-001-005:

"The NASA Administrator is required by statute to establish annually a goal to make available to small disadvantaged business concerns, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, minority institutions, and women-owned small business concerns, at least 8 percent of NASA's procurement dollars under prime contracts or subcontracts awarded in support of authorized programs..." (pg 53).

"The Contracting Officer’s assessment of appropriate subcontracting goals for this acquisition, expressed as a percent of TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE (basic and all options combined), is as follows: ...", which totals 6.2% (pg 83).

While it appears they're relaxing the requirements for Phase 1, they warn that "Phase 2 small business subcontracting goals will be higher than in Phase 1" (pg 51).

[joek]

So, is this a reaction to the House's 350 million or the Senate's 500 million? Also, standard DFTT disclaimer, guys.

The RFP appears to be constructed with a $500M/yr FY12-13 funding profile in mind ($1.61B FY12-13 PBR minus $0.48B optional Phase 1 elements = $565M/yr x2).

However, it also allows for acceleration of Phase 2 work (development, testing and certification) if additional funds are available, as vendors may propose as much Phase 2 work as they have an appetite for in the optional portion of Phase 1 proposals.  Also, a beneficial side effect is that those optional parts (assuming they are proposed) gives NASA better insight into Phase 2 timing and funding requirements.

I don't understand why people think a 350 million dollar budget will cause a down-select to a single vendor.

The current CCDev-2 awards were for roughly 75 million each, right ? Continuing at the same funding level, that's 75 mil * 4 = 300 million, plus another 50 million for NASA to administer the program. The current year commerical development budget might have been larger, but NASA was also funding COTS at the same time. The COTS milestones should be complete by March / April, although I don't know if that funding is rolling over from the prior year, since those goals were to be accomplished in the prior fiscal year.

If any vendor has an issue with the FAR contract, I'm sure NASA would be willing to place them on an unfunded SAA instead. That's something each vendor will have to weigh. Can they meet the requirements in NASA's RFP for a lower overall development cost and bring their product to market faster if they aren't burdened by NASA oversight ?

CCDev-2 is focused on components.  IDC/CCDev-3 is focused on complete systems; more time, effort and money--not to mention the additional NASA insight/oversight and FAR nreporting/compliance burdens.

If vendors were to forego the IDC/CCDev-3 (Phase 1) contract, it's questionable how much faster or cheaper it would be, as Phase 2 awardees will have to demonstrate that they meet the same level of system maturity and requirements as Phase 1 participants, ultimately have to meet FAR requirements for an acquisition contract, but would incur the entire cost and risk on their own.

If the "market" was larger than NASA (at least in the near term), life might be different, and time and cost to service that market (as opposed to just NASA) would weigh more heavily in the vendor's decision.  Unfortunately, that's not life today or for the foreseeable future.

COTS funds are rolling over and are separate from CCDev funds.

[erioladastra]

I have not seen that Spacex is willing to fly the CST-100 (if you have a citation, please re-post).  If this is true then a Dragon and CST-100 capability would provide remarkable redundancy - two unique space craft and two unique LV's. Although a lifting body spacecraft (Dream Chaser)  would offer unique capability but appears to have the longest path to go to IOC.

CST-100 is only committed to Atlas for development.  CST is being designed to perhaps work on Flacon down the road.

[BrightLight]

Is launch vehicle redundancy required for Commercial Crew?  I have seen the power point slide of CST-100 on the Falcon but no official description of an interface for the SpaceX avionics environment or vehicle.  If CST-100 flies on an Atlas V and Dragon only flies on Falcon then these really aren't redundant as they are separate complete non-interacting systems.

[joek]

Is launch vehicle redundancy required for Commercial Crew?  I have seen the power point slide of CST-100 on the Falcon but no official description of an interface for the SpaceX avionics environment or vehicle.

Launch vehicle redundancy is not a requirement.

If CST-100 flies on an Atlas V and Dragon only flies on Falcon then these really aren't redundant as they are separate complete non-interacting systems.

If both are available they would provide redundant crew transportation capabilities and presumably competitive services, which are the most important attributes.

[baldusi]

Is launch vehicle redundancy required for Commercial Crew?  I have seen the power point slide of CST-100 on the Falcon but no official description of an interface for the SpaceX avionics environment or vehicle.

Launch vehicle redundancy is not a requirement.

If CST-100 flies on an Atlas V and Dragon only flies on Falcon then these really aren't redundant as they are separate complete non-interacting systems.

If both are available they would provide redundant crew transportation capabilities and presumably competitive services, which are the most important attributes.

A slight technicality, but if they are not interchangeable, you could be grounded if you had a capsule failure and the other LV has a problem. In that case, with interchangeable LV/capsules you are covered. Quite a corner case, and may be not really worth the money.
But again, if SpaceX is left out of the commercial crew capsules, I'm sure they will try to make a very sweet deal on the LV to the winners. And if they are in, they would get a launch with the competitor's craft for sending a Dragon in an Atlas V. And once they've demonstrated, they could bid the Falcon 9 against ULA. So, overall, they should do it.
I do wonder if the Dragon can be adapted to the Atlas V. Because if CST-100 and Dreamchaser are compatible with both Atlas V and Falcon 9, and Dragon only with Falcon 9, it could be a point against them.

[BrightLight]

If SpaceX does indeed intend to launch other vendors orbital systems such  as the Boeing CST-100 then there would be clear redundancy but SpaceX has not made it obvious they will do this.  I an not privy to the SpaceX  market strategy and the lack of public discussion on alternative payloads for the Falcon  give the impression that SpaceX is not interested (if their are contradictory info, please post).  I agree that from here it looks like a great idea to be able to launch the CST-100 on Falcon and even Dragon on Atlas V, but this is assuming a great deal about desire and capability.

[A_M_Swallow]

The larger Atlas V can lift heaver payloads than the Falcon 9.  So it may be possible to use the cargo Dragon as a space tug to guide cargoes launched on the Atlas V to their destination.  A small RCS may also be needed.

[baldusi]

If SpaceX does indeed intend to launch other vendors orbital systems such  as the Boeing CST-100 then there would be clear redundancy but SpaceX has not made it obvious they will do this.  I an not privy to the SpaceX  market strategy and the lack of public discussion on alternative payloads for the Falcon  give the impression that SpaceX is not interested (if their are contradictory info, please post).  I agree that from here it looks like a great idea to be able to launch the CST-100 on Falcon and even Dragon on Atlas V, but this is assuming a great deal about desire and capability.

May be I didn't made myself clear. Even though I think I've read somewhere that SpaceX stated they would launch another's craft, I can't find such quote and thus would consider it invalid (for now).
But SpaceX is a commercial entity. And as an economist, I can estimate what would make them earn more money (and this includes competition analysis and cross substitution). Normally, very integrated companies, fail to maximize profits because they protect each non competitive products with their very competitive products. But this is a special case.
As I stated before, after the CCS are given, SpaceX can find itself in three different scenarios:
1) Be the only supplier. So, if Boeing wants to pay them to actually test a CST-100, it would be another client. It shouldn't give CST-100 a better position on the next round, since Dragon Crew would have been proven for whatever number of launches they have contracted. And if they keep being price leaders, they will be in the best competitive position.
2) They get no contract. They have nothing to lose, and might even take some money out of ULA. In the case that there are two spacecrafts, then they could really compete on price with ULA for the LV, which is their core business.
3) They get a contract and somebody else gets another one. What would they lose from letting the other supplier demonstrate integration? They already have their contract, and it's not like they will underprice themselves. I really don't see why they wouldn't.
What I don't think they would do, at least in case 1) and 3), is pay anything for themselves. In case 3) it would probably be some extra NASA money to both suppliers, to have cross compatibility. But overall, they wouldn't mind in any case. At least, not from my (light) business analysis.
What I do think, is that the Dragon/Falcon 9 stack is very integrated, and it might be possible that it requires such extreme measures to make it compatible with the Atlas V, as to not be worth the cost. But I think of this as a probability, out of my complete lack of information.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

There are five items for interfacing to a LV:
1) Acoustic
2) Acceleration
3) Electrical
4) Software
5) Mechanical

1) This one is nearly identical for both F9 and Atlas V so it’s not a concern to designers.

2) This one is also nearly identical for both F9 and Atlas V.

3) This one is very different and would be an established interface that the LV would not change unless you paid lots of money to do a special box to convert to the interface specified by the spacecraft. Dragon is natively designed to interface to F9 and CST-100 is natively designed to interface to Atlas V. Dream Chaser is probably going to be natively designed to the Atlas V interface. For CST and Dream Chaser to be able to fly a F9 they can share the same electrical interface conversion box design that would reside on the F9 US.

4) This one is the largest concern. Every spacecraft has different information needs and commands. This is where most of the costs for interfacing to the other LV would occur. A manned spacecraft requires “tight” software integration with the LV for information flow from the LV and commands to the LV. Software interfaces on both the LV and spacecraft would be needed for each pairing that would be unique to the pair of LV and spacecraft. These interface software items would be similar to device drivers to give a PC terminology of how they are implemented in modern software.

5) Although unique to each spacecraft it is rather simple using modern CAD systems to design this LV portion adapter for the spacecraft. This is done for a lot of regular satellites as well so the LV provider is used to doing this work as part of normal LV services.

[baldusi]

...
5) Mechanical
....
5) Although unique to each spacecraft it is rather simple using modern CAD systems to design this LV portion adapter for the spacecraft. This is done for a lot of regular satellites as well so the LV provider is used to doing this work as part of normal LV services.

What I've deducted from looking into the Dragon's Trunk, is that is so optimized to the F9 US, that it respect the curvature of the US top tank. It would seem to be an extremely optimized design. It might be very expensive to adapt.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

...
5) Mechanical
....
5) Although unique to each spacecraft it is rather simple using modern CAD systems to design this LV portion adapter for the spacecraft. This is done for a lot of regular satellites as well so the LV provider is used to doing this work as part of normal LV services.

What I've deducted from looking into the Dragon's Trunk, is that is so optimized to the F9 US, that it respect the curvature of the US top tank. It would seem to be an extremely optimized design. It might be very expensive to adapt.

There would be a similar challenge to adapt the Dragon trunk to a Centaur.

The shape of the trunk is actually to accomodate the thrust cone for the satellite/spacecraft mount which houses among other things secondary payloads.

Of either vehicle for manned spacecraft mecanically, the Atlas V's Centaur represents the more dificult case for mechanical interface since it is a smaller diameter than the Atlas V.

[erioladastra]

There are five items for interfacing to a LV:
1) Acoustic
2) Acceleration
3) Electrical
4) Software
5) Mechanical

1) This one is nearly identical for both F9 and Atlas V so it’s not a concern to designers.

Not neccessairly.  I don't think the thrust profiles through max Q are the same (but going off top of head, not sure and Atlas is updating theirs) plus I think the aborts might be slight different. 

[mmeijeri]

A manned spacecraft requires “tight” software integration with the LV for information flow from the LV and commands to the LV.

Is that true even if the spacecraft doesn't need the capability to control the launch vehicle? I vaguely remember reading that NASA originally had a requirement that Orion should be able to control Ares I but that that requirement was later dropped.

Software interfaces on both the LV and spacecraft would be needed for each pairing that would be unique to the pair of LV and spacecraft.

Couldn't you have a generic interface so you would need n + m instead of n x m implementations? Edit: not that it makes much of a difference for low values of m and n...

[Robotbeat]

Also a possible issue: horizontal versus vertical integration. Falcon 9 (and Dragon, though probably less of an issue) has payloads integrated horizontally, while Atlas V has them integrated vertically.

[joek]

Another ray of hope with regards to the potential down-select...
NASA plans to fund only one CCDev company? Probably not., NewSpace Journal, Sep 21 2011:

In addition, when talking to Florida Today reporter James Dean yesterday for an article he wrote about CCDev, he shared with me a clarification he received from NASA on that issue. It turns out that the clause in question is a standard one in FAR-based contracts, and that the Commercial Crew Program was “investigating getting a waiver or deviation from this standard clause language for the final RFP.”

[baldusi]

Also a possible issue: horizontal versus vertical integration. Falcon 9 (and Dragon, though probably less of an issue) has payloads integrated horizontally, while Atlas V has them integrated vertically.

I guess it just means that you design your capsule to be horizontal and vertically integrated. Given the stresses of launch, the extra care should be making it horizontally integrated. In other words, if it's horizontal, going vertical shouldn't be much of a problem.
But yes, from all this problems I guess it means that you have to design your capsule with a lot of flexibility in certain areas. Probably not a problem if you start from zero, but a real meass if you went the route of perfect optimization with a single LV.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Also a possible issue: horizontal versus vertical integration. Falcon 9 (and Dragon, though probably less of an issue) has payloads integrated horizontally, while Atlas V has them integrated vertically.

I guess it just means that you design your capsule to be horizontal and vertically integrated. Given the stresses of launch, the extra care should be making it horizontally integrated. In other words, if it's horizontal, going vertical shouldn't be much of a problem.
But yes, from all this problems I guess it means that you have to design your capsule with a lot of flexibility in certain areas. Probably not a problem if you start from zero, but a real meass if you went the route of perfect optimization with a single LV.

Yes, you are correct. Dragon is probably the least flexible of the four in that it is mostly designed and flight proven and has little incentive to be changed. But most of its problems for flying on Atlas V would be mechanical, electrical and software. All of which can be overcome if there is plans to fly more than once on an Atlas V. Most of it will come down to: is it worth it economically to design to work on multiple LV’s? And the answer to that will probably be NO for most of the spacecraft builders. Take all of the design and integration work to integrate to the preferred LV and multiply by 2, which is not a small amount and you get the feeling that the stated flexibility is not likely to occur.

Number 2) which I listed as “Acceleration” really should have been “Flight Profile constraints”. Flight profiles and the spacecraft constraints to it are adjusted and analyzed for each flight so this is not really a large delta cost for porting to a new LV since this is done on every flight. Subsequent flights with the same or similar profile become cheaper and easier.

The vertical vs horizontal processing issue is one that I missed. This is properly part of mechanical but is a special case that is completely related to the spacecraft. The specialized handling equipment for the spacecraft, cradles etc, to do a vertical vs a horizontal will not be the same and will require additional design and testing (fit checks) to insure it works. There may be other items inside the spacecraft that would be different but not likely since spacecraft have to be built to withstand lateral 2+gs acceleration during flight. Shipping and handling only bracing is designed for the orientation the spacecraft will endure during shipping and handling. New shipping and handling bracing may be required. Fueling of spacecraft may be another item. They maybe only able to be fueled in one orientation, this one may be very difficult to overcome.

[erioladastra]

Also a possible issue: horizontal versus vertical integration. Falcon 9 (and Dragon, though probably less of an issue) has payloads integrated horizontally, while Atlas V has them integrated vertically.

I guess it just means that you design your capsule to be horizontal and vertically integrated. Given the stresses of launch, the extra care should be making it horizontally integrated. In other words, if it's horizontal, going vertical shouldn't be much of a problem.
But yes, from all this problems I guess it means that you have to design your capsule with a lot of flexibility in certain areas. Probably not a problem if you start from zero, but a real meass if you went the route of perfect optimization with a single LV.

Number 2) which I listed as “Acceleration” really should have been “Flight Profile constraints”. Flight profiles and the spacecraft constraints to it are adjusted and analyzed for each flight so this is not really a large delta cost for porting to a new LV since this is done on every flight. Subsequent flights with the same or similar profile become cheaper and easier.

I don't think that is correct.  The companies are working to do their cert one time, not each flight.  That is the type of recurring costs they are trying to eliminate.  Sure if you change vehicles you will pay that costs but that will be a disincentive to change LVs.  WHat is wrong witht he current one they will ask?  Unless say Bigelow (or NASA) says "well pay for you to do that so that we have more options" it is unlikely the company will. 

[erioladastra]

A manned spacecraft requires “tight” software integration with the LV for information flow from the LV and commands to the LV.

Is that true even if the spacecraft doesn't need the capability to control the launch vehicle? I vaguely remember reading that NASA originally had a requirement that Orion should be able to control Ares I but that that requirement was later dropped.

The draft CCP requirements no longer require manual control during launch.

[BrightLight]

If the flexibility to exchange launch vehicles and spacecraft are limited, as they apparently are will Falcon/Dragon and Atlas/CST-100 be positioned for LON, that is when one provider is scheduled will the other pre-position an integrated system in case of extensive launch delay or even mission failure?

[baldusi]

If the flexibility to exchange launch vehicles and spacecraft are limited, as they apparently are will Falcon/Dragon and Atlas/CST-100 be positioned for LON, that is when one provider is scheduled will the other pre-position an integrated system in case of extensive launch delay or even mission failure?

That's where redundancy could be achieved. To give both suppliers a contract, but force them to have a launcher ready to launch a rescue mission it there's a problem with the other. If there's no problem, the vehicle is returned to the hangar until its next flight, and the other supplier acts as the LON. This would require at least four crew launches per year, if I'm not mistaken. Particularly if the capsules keep using hypergolic fuels.

[BrightLight]

Another question - Can the falcon 9/Dragon be launched from Vandenberg and attain the ISS orbit of 51 degrees?  If so then assured access to the ISS is maintained by having two separate launch sites and LV's

[Lars_J]

Another question - Can the falcon 9/Dragon be launched from Vandenberg and attain the ISS orbit of 51 degrees?  If so then assured access to the ISS is maintained by having two separate launch sites and LV's

No. There is not enough propellant for the massive plane change maneuver that would be required. VAFB only makes sense for launching into polar to retrograde orbits.

[baldusi]

Another question - Can the falcon 9/Dragon be launched from Vandenberg and attain the ISS orbit of 51 degrees?  If so then assured access to the ISS is maintained by having two separate launch sites and LV's

I don't think so. I guess you could launch from Wallops. Still same coast. But it seems a bit exaggerated. I don't know how would they handle a space help, in fact. If they reached the expected orbit, they should be able to reach ISS. If not, you'd need a time to get their true orbit, configure the range, program the launch, wait for the correct precession, etc. Right?

[BrightLight]

One attribute of a commercial provided LEO access with Falcon/Dragon and Atlas/CST or Dream Chaser is that they use separate launch pads in Florida, making LON possible.  With only the Atlas as a LV and CST-100 and Dream Chaser as spacecraft, the same launch pad is used for both systems. From a reliability and access perspective having Falcon and Atlas would be desirable, assuming the funds are available.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip]

The vertical vs horizontal processing issue is one that I missed. This is properly part of mechanical but is a special case that is completely related to the spacecraft. The specialized handling equipment for the spacecraft, cradles etc, to do a vertical vs a horizontal will not be the same and will require additional design and testing (fit checks) to insure it works. There may be other items inside the spacecraft that would be different but not likely since spacecraft have to be built to withstand lateral 2+gs acceleration during flight. Shipping and handling only bracing is designed for the orientation the spacecraft will endure during shipping and handling. New shipping and handling bracing may be required. Fueling of spacecraft may be another item. They maybe only able to be fueled in one orientation, this one may be very difficult to overcome.

The spacecraft on a Falcon 9 could be fuelled vertically at the launch pad.  The supplying fuel tank may need lifting up on a cherry picker.

The fuelling needs of the Dragon will need investigating.

[baldusi]

{snip]

The vertical vs horizontal processing issue is one that I missed. This is properly part of mechanical but is a special case that is completely related to the spacecraft. The specialized handling equipment for the spacecraft, cradles etc, to do a vertical vs a horizontal will not be the same and will require additional design and testing (fit checks) to insure it works. There may be other items inside the spacecraft that would be different but not likely since spacecraft have to be built to withstand lateral 2+gs acceleration during flight. Shipping and handling only bracing is designed for the orientation the spacecraft will endure during shipping and handling. New shipping and handling bracing may be required. Fueling of spacecraft may be another item. They maybe only able to be fueled in one orientation, this one may be very difficult to overcome.

The spacecraft on a Falcon 9 could be fuelled vertically at the launch pad.  The supplying fuel tank may need lifting up on a cherry picker.

The fuelling needs of the Dragon will need investigating.

Those kind of crafts usually have hypergolic fuels. That requires special rooms for fueling.

[alexw]

Another question - Can the falcon 9/Dragon be launched from Vandenberg and attain the ISS orbit of 51 degrees?  If so then assured access to the ISS is maintained by having two separate launch sites and LV's

No. There is not enough propellant for the massive plane change maneuver that would be required. VAFB only makes sense for launching into polar to retrograde orbits.

    Falcon Heavy probably has the excess performance to accommodate a dog-leg maneuver. Might Falcon9/Merlin1D-stretched even be able to? HMXHMX, IIRC, has said that 51 degrees is surprisingly attainable from Vandy if the range azimuths are pushed to their nominal limits.
      -Alex

[BrightLight]

Here is the problem we have, have had and might continue to have...
If CCDEV chooses spacecraft that use the Atlas V (a good LV choice) then as of present, we have one pad to launch our manned missions to LEO/ISS.
If CCDEV uses both Falcon 9 and Atlas 5 we can have some level of independence in case a LV has issues but we have no options for bad weather or other unfortunate circumstances that preclude using the Cape.  If VAFB is an option then a lot more flexibility is available for guaranteed access to ISS.  Unluckily the history of SLC 6 at VAFB gives us some insight (not pretty) into this option.

[Lars_J]

But the only two domestic launch sites that have access to ISS orbits (without massive inefficiencies) are KSC/CCAFS and Wallops. And unfortunately a natural disaster could wipe out both.

VAFB is not going to be practical.

[Ronsmytheiii]

But the only two domestic launch sites that have access to ISS orbits (without massive inefficiencies) are KSC/CCAFS and Wallops. And unfortunately a natural disaster could wipe out both.

VAFB is not going to be practical.

I am sure that if a launch pad is wiped out, insurace or federal assistance will help them recover.  I mean, it is not like flooding will wipe out a concrete pedestal and steel buildings, there might be damage.

I also have to admit that I do not see the point in LV redundancy for a manned spacecraft. Firstly, it is not like there are empty rockets waiting to fly in case a rocket fails, one would have to be procured.  secondly, even if a LV is ready for another mission one cannot just rip off the old payload and put the craft on.  So it would probably faster for the LV that failed to have a return to flight than for a switch in LV.

[Lars_J]

I also have to admit that I do not see the point in LV redundancy for a manned spacecraft. Firstly, it is not like there are empty rockets waiting to fly in case a rocket fails, one would have to be procured.  secondly, even if a LV is ready for another mission one cannot just rip off the old payload and put the craft on.  So it would probably faster for the LV that failed to have a return to flight than for a switch in LV.

Really? The current Soyuz situation is not a good enough example of that for you? Granted, this specific problem will probably be addressed in short order, but problems could occur that shuts down use of a spacecraft/LV for years. (Challenger, Columbia being prime examples). To not have redundancy is inviting problems - especially with a manned station that we need to keep manned to get good use out of.

Sure, you won't be able to switch on short notice. But if provider A fails or develops a problem, provider B should be able to be ready within a few months notice to replace that flight/capability. It is just common sense, especially at the price we/NASA can get it for.

[Lurker Steve]

But the only two domestic launch sites that have access to ISS orbits (without massive inefficiencies) are KSC/CCAFS and Wallops. And unfortunately a natural disaster could wipe out both.

VAFB is not going to be practical.

I am sure that if a launch pad is wiped out, insurace or federal assistance will help them recover.  I mean, it is not like flooding will wipe out a concrete pedestal and steel buildings, there might be damage.

I also have to admit that I do not see the point in LV redundancy for a manned spacecraft. Firstly, it is not like there are empty rockets waiting to fly in case a rocket fails, one would have to be procured.  secondly, even if a LV is ready for another mission one cannot just rip off the old payload and put the craft on.  So it would probably faster for the LV that failed to have a return to flight than for a switch in LV.

Actually, if a class 5 Hurricane directly hit CCAFS/KSC, it would be a huge mess. Check New Orleans after Katrina for a reference. Sure, the VAB and the flat concrete pads would survive, but what about the access roads ? I'm sure smaller buildings like the SpaceX HIF would be leveled, along with most of the towers surrounding the pads.

Fortunately, they seem to be located in a part of the state that doesn't get directly hit by the tropical storms. It's usually either the southern part of the state (Miami, or farther up the coast in NC).

[GClark]

But the only two domestic launch sites that have access to ISS orbits (without massive inefficiencies) are KSC/CCAFS and Wallops. And unfortunately a natural disaster could wipe out both.

VAFB is not going to be practical.

I am sure that if a launch pad is wiped out, insurace or federal assistance will help them recover.  I mean, it is not like flooding will wipe out a concrete pedestal and steel buildings, there might be damage.

I also have to admit that I do not see the point in LV redundancy for a manned spacecraft. Firstly, it is not like there are empty rockets waiting to fly in case a rocket fails, one would have to be procured.  secondly, even if a LV is ready for another mission one cannot just rip off the old payload and put the craft on.  So it would probably faster for the LV that failed to have a return to flight than for a switch in LV.

Actually, if a class 5 Hurricane directly hit CCAFS/KSC, it would be a huge mess. Check New Orleans after Katrina for a reference. Sure, the VAB and the flat concrete pads would survive, but what about the access roads ? I'm sure smaller buildings like the SpaceX HIF would be leveled, along with most of the towers surrounding the pads.

Fortunately, they seem to be located in a part of the state that doesn't get directly hit by the tropical storms. It's usually either the southern part of the state (Miami, or farther up the coast in NC).

I can speak to that.

I was in Homestead a year after Andrew and the place still looked like a bombed-out shell.  Reinforced concrete buildings were structurally intact but otherwise empty & roofless, etc.  Entire city blocks had been scoured away as if they had never been.  Humbling.

It makes me wonder exactly why I still live in Virginia Beach.

[MP99]

Here is the problem we have, have had and might continue to have...
If CCDEV chooses spacecraft that use the Atlas V (a good LV choice) then as of present, we have one pad to launch our manned missions to LEO/ISS.
If CCDEV uses both Falcon 9 and Atlas 5 we can have some level of independence in case a LV has issues but we have no options for bad weather or other unfortunate circumstances that preclude using the Cape.  If VAFB is an option then a lot more flexibility is available for guaranteed access to ISS.  Unluckily the history of SLC 6 at VAFB gives us some insight (not pretty) into this option.

What about SLC-4E?

cheers, Martin

[BrightLight]

SLC-4E would require infrastructure development -is it in the current budget plan? If I'm not mistaken the man-rating for the AtlasV already identified a pad,adding an additional launch facility would  help free-up LC-39 (I need to check this) but who will pay for it. the "free" pad SpaceX got from the Air Force apparently cost a bunch! is SLC-4E already set-up for AtlasV and man-rated?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Here is something to think about. SpaceX can switch out a complete vehicle stack and payload in a day. Just by having two HIF’s at SLC-40 which they will have by 2015 in order to launch both FH and F9 on the pad, two different crew vehicles could be processed simultaneous at SLC-40.

[Jason1701]

Here is something to think about. SpaceX can switch out a complete vehicle stack and payload in a day. Just by having two HIF’s at SLC-40 which they will have by 2015 in order to launch both FH and F9 on the pad, two different crew vehicles could be processed simultaneous at SLC-40.

Good point, but it's probable that a crew access tower (or something built into a strongback) will support crew ingress and egress for a Dragon from only one HIF. Designing the system to interface with hardware in angular positions ninety degrees apart doesn't sound good.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Here is something to think about. SpaceX can switch out a complete vehicle stack and payload in a day. Just by having two HIF’s at SLC-40 which they will have by 2015 in order to launch both FH and F9 on the pad, two different crew vehicles could be processed simultaneous at SLC-40.

Good point, but it's probable that a crew access tower (or something built into a strongback) will support crew ingress and egress for a Dragon from only one HIF. Designing the system to interface with hardware in angular positions ninety degrees apart doesn't sound good.

Pad crew access for a Dream Chaser will be very different than for a CST-100. So the access capability needed to support both by ULA on Atlas V may represent a significant challenge.

As far as oreintation at SLC-40 even though the vehicle comes from a different HIF the oreintation for the crew access if using a seperate movable structure could be the same. A strongback with the crew access built in would make the strongback very heavy, awkward and costly to use, traits that SpaceX is trying to avoid in its pad processing.

[alexw]

But the only two domestic launch sites that have access to ISS orbits (without massive inefficiencies) are KSC/CCAFS and Wallops. And unfortunately a natural disaster could wipe out both.
VAFB is not going to be practical.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24178.msg695710#msg695710
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24178.msg696288#msg696288
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24178.msg696232#msg696232
    It's intriguing. FH and AV552 would have massive performance margin, and F9-M1D might.
    -Alex

[yg1968]

This is good news, especially the "multiple companies" bit! I know several people had voiced a concern that the downselect would be to a single provider.  I know that we're all cheering on our particular favourite horses in this race, but just the fact that there will be more than one winner is great for the industry and for HSF in general IMHO.

Down-select to a single provider expected for Phase 2.  From 148508-DRAFT-001-005 (pg 50):

I.14    NFS 1852.217-71  PHASED ACQUISITION USING DOWN-SELECTION PROCEDURES (MAY 2000)
(a)    This solicitation is for the Commercial Crew Program’s acquisition to facilitate the development of a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability with the goal of achieving safe, reliable and cost effective access to and from low earth orbit (LEO) including the International Space Station (ISS). The acquisition will be conducted as a two-phased procurement using a competitive down-selection technique between phases. In this technique, two or more contractors will be selected for Phase 1. It is expected that the single contractor for Phase 2 will be chosen from among these contractors after a competitive down-selection.

[snip]

(i)    The anticipated schedule for conducting this phased procurement is provided for your information. These dates are projections only and are not intended to commit NASA to complete a particular action at a given time.
Phase 1 award – July, 2012
Phase 2 synopsis – September, 2013
Phase 2 proposal requested – RFP release in October, 2013
Phase 2 proposal receipt – December, 2013
Phase 2 award – May, 2014

Don't forget this:

Notwithstanding paragraph (a), the competition in Phase 2 may result in the award of multiple contracts if budget allows.

In other words, whether or not a down-select to just one happens depends on whether or not there there's enough money. No surprise there.

So, it's basically up to Congress.

On the issue of how many providers are expected for CCDev-4, the following article is of interest:
http://www.newspacejournal.com/2011/09/21/nasa-plans-to-fund-only-one-ccdev-company-probably-not/

In addition, when talking to Florida Today reporter James Dean yesterday for an article he wrote about CCDev, he shared with me a clarification he received from NASA on that issue. It turns out that the clause in question [the clause suggesting a down selection to only one provider] is a standard one in FAR-based contracts, and that the Commercial Crew Program was “investigating getting a waiver or deviation from this standard clause language for the final RFP.”

[2552]

From AIAA Space 2011:

https://twitter.com/#!/jeff_foust/status/118879437658923009:
McAlister confirms NASA's plan is for >1 company in each of next 2 CCDev phases. Want multiple companies for competition. #aiaaspace

[joek]

The CCP IDC Pre-Soliciation Conference Presentation has been posted (pptx warning, pdf attached).  (Also latest requirements workshop presentation, see here.)

[A_M_Swallow]

I hope that only a few people at each company will require Security Clearances, since getting clearances can put a heavy load on a programme with such short time scales.

Ref IDC_Industry_Day.pdf page 46

•Performance under this contract will involve access to and/or generation of classified information
–Federal Acquisition Regulation clause 52.204-2 (Security Requirements) and DD254 (Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification) will be added

[joek]

Not nearly as exciting or interesting as Fobos-Grunt, but worth a note...

The CCIDC draft RFP Q&A #2 was just posted (Q&A #1 that was posted a month ago, but not much of interest).  Mostly T&C minutia, but a few interesting clarifications on government data rights.  May be obvious to the FAR/contracting guru's, but seemed to be some concern/confusion judging by the questions. Emphasis added.

Some additional incentive for respondents to put more than a "nominal amount" of skin in the game.

As provided in the clause, the Government gets “unlimited rights” in data first produced in the performance of the contract exclusively at Government expense. If the pending deviation is approved, the Government gets only “limited rights” in data developed wholly or in part at private expense that embody trade secrets or are commercial or financial and confidential or privileged.  Thus, data that is “co-funded,” i.e., produced in part at private expense, is considered “limited rights data.” Contractors will be able to assert that data was produced in part at private expense by a showing of Contractor investment of more than a nominal amount in creating the data. ...

Appears if you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound.  CCIDC contract winners can't walk away from the subsequent DTEC phase(s) just because they don't want to play any longer, or the government can claim unlimited data rights.

The deviation to FAR 52.227-14 provides the Government less rights in data than it would have received under the standard FAR clause. The Government's intent is to balance its objective of minimizing the Government's acquiring rights in data/computer software while protecting the Government's investment. Absent the deviation language, the Government always takes unlimited rights to data first produced and software first developed in performance of the contract under FAR clause 52.227-14. In the IDC, the Government waives its right to otherwise receive unlimited rights in data and/or software first produced in performance of the contract, but protects its interest to receive unlimited rights in cases where the Contractor is terminated for default, fails to bid on the subsequent phase or provides a proposal on the subsequent phase that is determined unacceptable in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70.

[A_M_Swallow]

Not nearly as exciting or interesting as Fobos-Grunt, but worth a note...

The CCIDC draft RFP Q&A #2 was just posted (Q&A #1 that was posted a month ago, but not much of interest).  Mostly T&C minutia, but a few interesting clarifications on government data rights.  May be obvious to the FAR/contracting guru's, but seemed to be some concern/confusion judging by the questions. Emphasis added.

NASA may wish to ensure that there is never more than 9 months between milestones.  That way there will always have some progress it can include in its annual report to Congress.  Nine months between milestones is used rather than 12 months so the contractor can be up to 3 months late without having to spend months publicly explaining the lateness to nick picking politicians.

[joek]

NASA may wish to ensure that there is never more than 9 months between milestones.  That way there will always have some progress it can include in its annual report to Congress.  Nine months between milestones is used rather than 12 months so the contractor can be up to 3 months late without having to spend months publicly explaining the lateness to nick picking politicians.

What milestones/dates are you speaking of, and from where do you draw such a conclusion?  Certainly nothing in the CCIDC draft RFP or subsequent communications suggests such.

The only nominally prescribed dates are CCIDC start and end.  NASA has set a few high level intermediate milestones, but does not define dates (or amounts, among other things); those (and other potentially more detailed milestones) are TBD and part of bidder's proposals.

[A_M_Swallow]

NASA may wish to ensure that there is never more than 9 months between milestones.  That way there will always have some progress it can include in its annual report to Congress.  Nine months between milestones is used rather than 12 months so the contractor can be up to 3 months late without having to spend months publicly explaining the lateness to nick picking politicians.

What milestones/dates are you speaking of, and from where do you draw such a conclusion?  Certainly nothing in the CCIDC draft RFP or subsequent communications suggests such.

The only nominally prescribed dates are CCIDC start and end.  NASA has set a few high level intermediate milestones, but does not define dates (or amounts, among other things); those (and other potentially more detailed milestones) are TBD and part of bidder's proposals.

Which means that the CCIDC milestones are currently being negotiated.

[joek]

Which means that the CCIDC milestones are currently being negotiated.

No it doesn't mean that "CCIDC milestones are currently being negotiated".  Nor would that be possible at this point.

[erioladastra]

Which means that the CCIDC milestones are currently being negotiated.

No it doesn't mean that "CCIDC milestones are currently being negotiated".  Nor would that be possible at this point.

Correct.  There are several required milestones as noted, but in their IDC proposals the companies will detail what milestones they want to request funding for.  And like CCDev2 not all may be selected.  Each company will likely have different ones.  They must end in CDR.  This will all be worked out next year.

[Confusador]

Correct.  There are several required milestones as noted, but in their IDC proposals the companies will detail what milestones they want to request funding for.  And like CCDev2 not all may be selected.  Each company will likely have different ones.  They must end in CDR.  This will all be worked out next year.

They all have to include CDR, but I thought the most interesting question was the one that indicates they don't have to stop there:

Q.30 Does NASA want to see proposals that “accelerate a CTS” and get beyond CDR, or simply
propose what is necessary to get to CDR?

The structure of the RFP provides Offerors the flexibility to advance beyond the CDR level and
accommodates Offerors with differing entrance levels of design maturity. Offerors define their own
pace of performance for their design maturity and the risk associated with their approach to accelerate
development within the budget and schedule constraints.

[A_M_Swallow]

A project can have major milestones and minor milestones.  Some of the minor milestones can be unfunded, but that tends to be unpopular with contractors.

CDR will almost always be a major milestone.

Minor milestones can include recruitment of staff, repair of the laboratory, arrival of test equipment, publication of the software requirements specification, integration of a sub-system and test results of a new part.  Anything that the project manager can show to a NASA quality inspector.

[Jim]

A project can have major milestones and minor milestones.  Some of the minor milestones can be unfunded, but that tends to be unpopular with contractors.

CDR will almost always be a major milestone.

Minor milestones can include recruitment of staff, repair of the laboratory, arrival of test equipment, publication of the software requirements specification, integration of a sub-system and test results of a new part.  Anything that the project manager can show to a NASA quality inspector.

Again, you show that you have no knowledge of the subject matter. 

A. COTS, CRS, CCDev, CCP and NLS are commercial programs, there are no NASA inspectors.  NASA is only buying services and not hardware.
B.  the  contractors suggest the milestones and NASA agrees.
C.  The contractor is not going to suggest ridiculous  milestones such as staff hiring or facility repairs.  Nor will they suggest any milestone that won't get paid for, much less absurd ones.

Leave the discussions for those with something intelligent to post and save your inane blathering for other sites

[A_M_Swallow]

A project can have major milestones and minor milestones.  Some of the minor milestones can be unfunded, but that tends to be unpopular with contractors.

CDR will almost always be a major milestone.

Minor milestones can include recruitment of staff, repair of the laboratory, arrival of test equipment, publication of the software requirements specification, integration of a sub-system and test results of a new part.  Anything that the project manager can show to a NASA quality inspector.

Again, you show that you have no knowledge of the subject matter. 

A. COTS, CRS, CCDev, CCP and NLS are commercial programs, there are no NASA inspectors.  NASA is only buying services and not hardware.
B.  the  contractors suggest the milestones and NASA agrees.
C.  The contractor is not going to suggest ridiculous  milestones such as staff hiring or facility repairs.  Nor will they suggest any milestone that won't get paid for, much less absurd ones.

Leave the discussions for those with something intelligent to post and save your inane blathering for other sites

That is a very silly statement to write Jim.

A. NASA Inspectors.

    Quoting from the CCP IDC Pre-Soliciation Conference Presentation referenced by Joek above
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=343

Slide 39
" H.14 Completion Milestone Payments and Interim Performance-based Payments
Completion Milestone events
Determination of milestone completion
Completion payments are not recoverable
Interim financing payments in accordance with FAR 52.232-32, Performance Based Payments, may be proposed
Interim payments are recoverable until successful accomplishment of Completion Milestone event
Attachment J-4, Milestone Acceptance Criteria and Payment Schedule
"

Someone from the government will check that the milestone have actually be completed.  Possible using the people mentioned in slide 38.


B. Negotiations. 
"B.  the  contractors suggest the milestones and NASA agrees."

Have a look at slide 43

"During Discussions, the Government may negotiate the reduction of an Offeror’s proposed content, schedule and/or price for required milestones and for “work packages” as defined in L.23 and L.24 of the DRFP to allow for multiple awards
"

C. Types of milestone.

"C.  The contractor is not going to suggest ridiculous  milestones such as staff hiring or facility repairs.  Nor will they suggest any milestone that won't get paid for, much less absurd ones."

Staff hiring and facility repairs can be hidden on long contract but unfortunately can have a major effect on the end date of a short contract.  They allow a customer to see that the contractor is actually doing something on a contract.

As for unpaid milestones, all the milestones in the man rating of the Atlas V SAA are unpaid.

[Jim]

As for unpaid milestones, all the milestones in the man rating of the Atlas V SAA are unpaid.

So what?   This is Commercial Crew Draft RFP and not a unpaid or even paid SAA.  Atlas won't be eligible for this by themselves.  They will have to team with someone, so your point is wrong.  Just keep it up, another case of your lack of knowledge.

[Jim]

A. NASA Inspectors.

    Quoting from the CCP IDC Pre-Soliciation Conference Presentation referenced by Joek above
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=343

Slide 39
" H.14 Completion Milestone Payments and Interim Performance-based Payments
Completion Milestone events
Determination of milestone completion
Completion payments are not recoverable
Interim financing payments in accordance with FAR 52.232-32, Performance Based Payments, may be proposed
Interim payments are recoverable until successful accomplishment of Completion Milestone event
Attachment J-4, Milestone Acceptance Criteria and Payment Schedule
"
Someone from the government will check that the milestone have actually be completed.  Possible using the people mentioned in slide 38.

So?  Those are not inspectors, quality or otherwise.   That was my point, not that someone from NASA wasn't going verify a milestone.  Use of quality inspectors means a very different type of contract, one that industry wants NASA to get away from.

I have performed this role many times for other contracts, I am not an inspector.  You still don't know how NASA or the industry works.

[Jim]

Staff hiring and facility repairs can be hidden on long contract but unfortunately can have a major effect on the end date of a short contract.  They allow a customer to see that the contractor is actually doing something on a contract.

More silliness.   This isn't going to be a short contract and so another of your points is meaningless.  A milestone for staff hiring is inane.  This isn't a cost plus contract so NASA has no say  or care about staffing levels.   Staff levels have no direct bearing on what NASA wants out of this contract.

Your whole point is absurd.  Meaningless milestone don't show the customer anything or progress of the real work.  This is another thing that industry wants NASA to get away from.

You continually show that you just don't understand basic concepts of commercial contracting