CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[yg1968]

Prior to award anouncement the potential winners are in cofidential negotiations about milestone payment amounts and reporting details. This should take about a week. But it is also not a set length either other than it must finish before 1 Aug. Only until all negotiations with each of the potential award nominies (BTW during this period a potential award nominie can be droped or moved in priority based on dificulty of negotiations or failure to come to an agreement. But this is rare and is not likely to happen.)

All of this must happen before any releases because not only the exact award amount is stated but the milestone schedule is also published at that time (minus the payment amounts for each milestone only the total award is published). So NASA does not yet know when negotiations will end. Usually the release is made on the same date as the contracts are signed. Also usually not until all parties (the possible 3 different providers) have signed.

NASA must spend the cash before 1 Aug or FY012?

CCDev-2 ends July 31. NASA's schedule is to have no break. Plus any delay risks NASA loosing some of its CCP FY2012 funds because it can only be spent during FY2012, giving only 2 months of activity for CCiCap to complete milestones for the amount NASA expects to spend in FY2012.

I am not sure that CCDev-2 has to end on July 31st; it goes into the third quarter of 2012 according to the milestones chart.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf

As far as funding for CCiCap is concerned, different budget rules apply for SAAs; the commercial crew funding for FY 2012 doesn't need to be spent in FY 2012 it gets carried over into the next fiscal year if it is not spent in FY2012.   

[yg1968]

Prior to award anouncement the potential winners are in cofidential negotiations about milestone payment amounts and reporting details. This should take about a week. But it is also not a set length either other than it must finish before 1 Aug. Only until all negotiations with each of the potential award nominies (BTW during this period a potential award nominie can be droped or moved in priority based on dificulty of negotiations or failure to come to an agreement. But this is rare and is not likely to happen.)

All of this must happen before any releases because not only the exact award amount is stated but the milestone schedule is also published at that time (minus the payment amounts for each milestone only the total award is published). So NASA does not yet know when negotiations will end. Usually the release is made on the same date as the contracts are signed. Also usually not until all parties (the possible 3 different providers) have signed.

The process is well explained in the following slide from the Commercial Crew Office's February 14th presentation:

[Lobo]

Regarding your #3, why do you think DC wouldn't launch at KSC?

So far I haven't seen any indication that they intend to use a different pad for crewed Atlas V launches; it looks like they're just going to make whatever modifications they need at SLC-41.  So, at the Cape: yes. At KSC: no.

It gets a little bit grey because I suspect that everyone will be using the crew quarters and medical facilities at KSC to prepare for flight, but that's a different topic.

Yea, that's what I was referring to.  It looks like they are intending to launch it and CST-100 at LC-41, although the spacecraft themselves will be processed at KSC/LC-39.  That could certainly change.  There could be a scenario where SNC and Boeing go together on a new ML that is designed for Atlas V, and can be easily configured for either Dreamchaser or CST-100.  NASA could potentially force the issue since they are the ones paying for the mission service, and require their crews to be launched from -their- Launch Complex for safety/control reasons or whatever (and also it will be a better visual if they are launching from LC-39, I'm sure NASA would think).  .  But so far all the art and talk I've seen look like a modified UT at LC-41 with a crew elevator and new crew access swing bridge.  THat's why I don't think they'll launch from LC-39.  At this point at least. 

[Lobo]

I think there are much better reasons for the evaluation team to choose DC.

1.  Lower reentry accelerations so DC can play a lifeboat role in present and future NASA operations.
2.  1000-mile crossrange to give DC a greater landing flexibility, again for DC's lifeboat role.  It can get down more quickly (many runway choices) and shave hours off the time it takes to get a crew member to a hospital.
3.  Non-toxic propellants allow immediate crew egress at a public airport, again for a possible lifeboat role. 

Has there been talk of using Dreamchaser for a life boat?

I guess I thought the plan now was to use the spacecraft that would be on station doing crew rotations would be the "lifeboat" in case of emergency.  Sort of like how Soyuz is being used.  I think the whole lifeboat concept was back before STS was cancelled, and they envisioned the Shuttle doing crew rotations, then returning to Earth, which would leave the crew without an emergency ride home.  With the capsules, I think they are being designed to stay on station for at least 6 months (or longer), and thus there's always an emergency ride home.  And even then it only needs to be large enough for 3-4 people, because I think Russia wants to keep supporting it's crews with Soyuz, so there will always be at least one Soyuz on station to evac it's crew if necessary.

Maybe I don't have that quite right, but that's how I understood it.  And that means there wouldn't be a need for a dedictaed lifeboat.  So those advantages of DReamchaser wouldn't really factor in.  However, also note if it were to be a dedicated lifeboat, it's TPS is exposed to micrometeors and orbital debris strikes for an exteded period...which sort of causes a problem if your "lifeboat" has a hole in it.  ;-)

[erioladastra]

Prior to award anouncement the potential winners are in cofidential negotiations about milestone payment amounts and reporting details. This should take about a week. But it is also not a set length either other than it must finish before 1 Aug. Only until all negotiations with each of the potential award nominies (BTW during this period a potential award nominie can be droped or moved in priority based on dificulty of negotiations or failure to come to an agreement. But this is rare and is not likely to happen.)

All of this must happen before any releases because not only the exact award amount is stated but the milestone schedule is also published at that time (minus the payment amounts for each milestone only the total award is published). So NASA does not yet know when negotiations will end. Usually the release is made on the same date as the contracts are signed. Also usually not until all parties (the possible 3 different providers) have signed.

NASA must spend the cash before 1 Aug or FY012?

CCDev-2 ends July 31. NASA's schedule is to have no break. Plus any delay risks NASA loosing some of its CCP FY2012 funds because it can only be spent during FY2012, giving only 2 months of activity for CCiCap to complete milestones for the amount NASA expects to spend in FY2012.

I am not sure that CCDev-2 has to end on July 31st; it goes into the third quarter of 2012 according to the milestones chart.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf

As far as funding is concerned, different budget rules apply for SAAs; the commercial crew funding for FY 2012 doesn't need to be spent in FY 2012 it gets carried over into the next fiscal year if it is not spent in FY2012.   

CCDev2 officially ends April 2013 (24 months from award) or when all milestones are complete - whichever is earlier.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Prior to award anouncement the potential winners are in cofidential negotiations about milestone payment amounts and reporting details. This should take about a week. But it is also not a set length either other than it must finish before 1 Aug. Only until all negotiations with each of the potential award nominies (BTW during this period a potential award nominie can be droped or moved in priority based on dificulty of negotiations or failure to come to an agreement. But this is rare and is not likely to happen.)

All of this must happen before any releases because not only the exact award amount is stated but the milestone schedule is also published at that time (minus the payment amounts for each milestone only the total award is published). So NASA does not yet know when negotiations will end. Usually the release is made on the same date as the contracts are signed. Also usually not until all parties (the possible 3 different providers) have signed.

NASA must spend the cash before 1 Aug or FY012?

CCDev-2 ends July 31. NASA's schedule is to have no break. Plus any delay risks NASA loosing some of its CCP FY2012 funds because it can only be spent during FY2012, giving only 2 months of activity for CCiCap to complete milestones for the amount NASA expects to spend in FY2012.

I am not sure that CCDev-2 has to end on July 31st; it goes into the third quarter of 2012 according to the milestones chart.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf

As far as funding is concerned, different budget rules apply for SAAs; the commercial crew funding for FY 2012 doesn't need to be spent in FY 2012 it gets carried over into the next fiscal year if it is not spent in FY2012.   

CCDev2 officially ends April 2013 (24 months from award) or when all milestones are complete - whichever is earlier.

From the SNC SAA:
http://procurement.ksc.nasa.gov/documents/NNK11MS01S_SAA-%20SNC_Redacted.pdf

ARTICLE 15. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement becomes effective upon the date of the last signature below and shall remain in effect until the completion of all obligations of both Parties hereto, or two (2) years from the date of the last signature, whichever comes first.

You're correct about the max duration.

But past FY funds can not be put on a new contract, only current or future FY funds can be put on a new contract. So if NASA wants to use the remaining funds available in FY2012 not obligated for the CCDev2 contracts then they need to sign the contracts before 1 Oct 2012. You are probably correct that the olbligated FY2012 funds that has been put on contract with the CCDev2 SAA's could be paid to the contractors in FY2013 if they don't finish all of their milestones in FY2013. But if it isn't paid out it's gone, such as for milestones not completed by April 2013. I don't think any of the CCDev2 contractors will not complete all milestones by then though.

[manboy]

[vt_hokie]

The way I see it, it's DreamChaser and then a bunch of boring capsules...fingers crossed that it's not just a bunch of boring capsules after the downselect!

[Jim]

Winged vehicles are boring. They are only for LEO.

PS.  Trains are even more boring

[QuantumG]

Winged vehicles are boring. They are only for LEO.

PS.  Trains are even more boring

Space trains.

[Oberon_Command]

Winged vehicles are boring. They are only for LEO.

PS.  Trains are even more boring

Space trains.

With wings?

[zerm]

PS.  Trains are even more boring

Except when you're driving one (yes... I have driven a real locomotive, and it was not boring).


Quite frankly, I don't care how we get US astronauts from US soil and back into space, as long as we do it soon... even if it's "boring."

[PeterAlt]

My reading is also SpaceX and Boeing for full contracts and Sierra Nevada for a partial.

At this point in "the gap" you want to go with those closest to going live. Dragon is obviously well along, and Boeing can catch up fastest.

Both also have BEO potential, which previously didn't seem to be a consideration but recent comments by NASA types seem to bring into the mix. IMO this may be an unmentioned fallback criteria for if Orion / SLS get cut or significantly delayed.  Example - 2 years added to Orion's high altitude LAS test

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120622-orion-abort-test-delay.html

As much as I like it, DC is not yet as far along as SS2 is much less even a suborbital test flight. (not that SS2 is orbital, just an observation). I wouldn't even be surprised if it didn't make the cut, with Liberty taking #3.

So, we've discounted ATK from the picture? Is that a fair assumption? I don't know how I feel about their entry. Super aggressive. Is that a good quality or something we need to be suspicious of?

[docmordrid]

Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust

Rominger: Liberty would be part of ATK if get fully-funded CCiCap award. Otherwise, consider spinout & outside investment #newspace2012

[kirghizstan]

in the newspace2012 video the guy from SNC mentioned CCiCap announcement soon.  If i understand correctly companies who have been initially selected would be in negotiations right now.  so my random thought is, would this guy mention ccicap if they knew they were not one of the initial selections

[mr. mark]

All this is assumption. We really don't know what NASA is thinking on this. We'll just have to wait and see. I won't believe anything unless Chris posts it himself. Until then.........

[docmordrid]

A way to set the idea of spinning off Liberty in peoples heads so it wouldn't be a surprise later?

[Rocket Science]

All this is assumption. We really don't know what NASA is thinking on this. We'll just have to wait and see. I won't believe anything unless Chris posts it himself. Until then.........

Yes, we’re down to the short ones now…. Might as well catch some Olympics and Auto Racing on the tube over the weekend to distract myself…  I guess we can only estimate angels on a pinhead for so long… 

[yg1968]

Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust

Rominger: Liberty would be part of ATK if get fully-funded CCiCap award. Otherwise, consider spinout & outside investment #newspace2012

If commercial crew was really commercial that in itself should be a reason not to fund ATK.

[zerm]

No matter what the pick, some group is gonna be celebrating and some group is gonna be crushed.

The best analogy that I can make is one of sports. If your team advances in a playoff, you don’t really care why, you just get happy and pull for them to move on. If your favored team gets eliminated from a playoff, however, it is human nature to shrink into the mindset of “they were robbed,” or “The ref.s made bad calls,” or “The other team cheated,” or “The fix was in,” or “The deck was stacked against us,” or “there was favoritism,” or even “someone was bribed to throw the game,” or some combination of any of those. Rarely does anyone look back and say “Well, that goes all the way back to training camp- our team could have made better decisions and set us up to compete at a better or even different level.”

The same will be true when this selection is made by NASA. Just as an example, if SNC is selected and something such as Liberty is not- the SNC critics and Liberty fans will use all of the above mentioned mechanisms to justify why their team was eliminated. Likewise, if it goes the other way around the SNC is eliminated and Liberty is selected, the ATK critics will do the same.

Thus, here in cyber space it is a no-win situation for NASA… which is why most of the vitriol here on the Internet and in the forums is pretty much ignored by the career NASA folks- and well be it. So, what you have is a lot of usernames shouting and trash-talking one another in countless binary encoded 1’s and 0’s and accomplishing nothing more than aggravating each other. Although fun to read, and sometimes fun to participate in, it all has nothing to do with what next will actually take US astronauts into space from US soil and when… but it beats video games IMO.