CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[ChrisWilson68]

That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.

Yes, that would be good.  Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs.  late 2017 is probably ideal.  Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost).  One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work.  The longer NASA waits the worse it gets.  So I don't think 2017 is realistic.

I really don't see how a company saying that they need money to continue or they'll slow their work, or companies spreading their milestones a few months later makes 2017 unrealistic.

[arachnitect]

That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.

Yes, that would be good.  Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs.  late 2017 is probably ideal.  Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost).  One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work.  The longer NASA waits the worse it gets.  So I don't think 2017 is realistic.

I really don't see how a company saying that they need money to continue or they'll slow their work, or companies spreading their milestones a few months later makes 2017 unrealistic.

36-40 months left to get to operational status. In that time they need to finish design, build all the ground and flight hardware, abort test, orbital flight tests.

The margin is gone.

[clongton]

One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work. 

That company has more money than you can shake a stick at. They are just so used to sucking on the government teat for so many decades that I fear they have lost the appetite for a knock down drag out competition and would prefer to withdraw from the field than spend any more of their own money, unlike what the other two have pledged to do.

Mind you that is not a knock on the company because they have done some really marvelous things with our taxpayers' monies. They just don't have any ambition beyond the almighty dollar anymore. That's sad because they used to be inspirational.

[rcoppola]

That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.

Yes, that would be good.  Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs.  late 2017 is probably ideal.  Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost).  One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work.  The longer NASA waits the worse it gets.  So I don't think 2017 is realistic.

With regards to delaying milestones...Not all milestones are created equal. And delaying them does not by default mean schedule or cost increases.

I see no reason why one of these three couldn't be ready for 2017 if not earlier. Take SpaceX:

-Pad 39A mods have been initiated. No reason to think they can't have GSE, FSS, etc. mods ready for crew by mid 2016.
-F9V1.1 is gaining operational tempo and reliability every month
-Dragon V2 will undergo Pad and Max-Q aborts as well as return-flight and landing tests over the next 6-8 months
-Unmanned Orbital test by late 2015 early 2016
-Manned ISS docking by mid to late 2016
-Certified by mid 2017 if not earlier

[baldusi]

Btw, if they can validate the returnable first stage, they might have a ridiculously huge price advantage. May be they are focusing on that.

[erioladastra]

That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.

Yes, that would be good.  Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs.  late 2017 is probably ideal.  Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost).  One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work.  The longer NASA waits the worse it gets.  So I don't think 2017 is realistic.

I really don't see how a company saying that they need money to continue or they'll slow their work, or companies spreading their milestones a few months later makes 2017 unrealistic.

Because in my opinion I think 2017 is very aggressive without ANY funding issues or hiccups.  That is my educated opinion.    NASA is continuing to update and modify requirements (read changing the goal posts).  That will add to the plans.  Period.  Hopefully I am wrong but I am pretty confident.

[erioladastra]

One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work. 

That company has more money than you can shake a stick at. They are just so used to sucking on the government teat for so many decades that I fear they have lost the appetite for a knock down drag out competition and would prefer to withdraw from the field than spend any more of their own money, unlike what the other two have pledged to do.

Mind you that is not a knock on the company because they have done some really marvelous things with our taxpayers' monies. They just don't have any ambition beyond the almighty dollar anymore. That's sad because they used to be inspirational.

And that has been debated ad naseum elsewhere here.  For good or bad, they have chosen to fund their program a certain way.  I think some of their programs have shown a great deal of ambition (Sea launch - really? and X-37 and so on) but in this one they see liability so they are being careful.  Personally, I still don't se a commercial case so I don't blame them.  But I also respect SpaceX for their approach.

[Space Ghost 1962]

First, the gradual slip beyond 2017 is more of a governmental issue than a commercial crew services provider issue.

Put yourself in their shoes - they have do defend a selection decision, and do so on many different factors against all of the vendors. Then, in addition, they also have to address why the "unselected" providers  couldn't be selected. And this has to be communicated to a very critical audience, who may wish to have reasons to complicate a decision if the report on the selection isn't ... comprehensive.

To have a decision, you need multiple providers at a point where they can be judged the same. If they, for some reason, cannot be, you might have to delay consideration until they are able to be judged the same. Otherwise, things may not be appropriate.

In short, the effect becomes collective. Made worse perhaps by funding anxieties / perceptions. Congress attitudes still have overly skeptical aspects towards commercial crew, even at the best of times. Yet it and COTS before it have been excellent programs run by good people, in good time, and with a good result - I fear they don't get the respect they deserve, but get pounded in a proxy battle over HSF futures, regardless.

My view of the one company cited above as having "more money" isn't quite so dim. They remind me of another, earlier CCDEV firm, whose Liberty proposal was a little on the light side technically. I think they're rightly annoyed than Congress isn't providing enough funding, and that's the way they push back. All three have lobbyists, and lobbying works at a different level - in these firms they seldom speak with a coordinated voice. So my point with the earlier firm and "more money", is that they both think/thought that they've done enough to be credible, so ... give!

Secondly, there's a lot to be done to fly ... does Congress have the stomach for it? Or could a protracted "waiting game" push things out more.

[erioladastra]

That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.

Yes, that would be good.  Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs.  late 2017 is probably ideal.  Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost).  One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work.  The longer NASA waits the worse it gets.  So I don't think 2017 is realistic.

With regards to delaying milestones...Not all milestones are created equal. And delaying them does not by default mean schedule or cost increases.

I see no reason why one of these three couldn't be ready for 2017 if not earlier. Take SpaceX:

-Pad 39A mods have been initiated. No reason to think they can't have GSE, FSS, etc. mods ready for crew by mid 2016.
-F9V1.1 is gaining operational tempo and reliability every month
-Dragon V2 will undergo Pad and Max-Q aborts as well as return-flight and landing tests over the next 6-8 months
-Unmanned Orbital test by late 2015 early 2016
-Manned ISS docking by mid to late 2016
-Certified by mid 2017 if not earlier

You are correct they are not equal.  But when you are delaying some because they are not complete/ready...well it means you encountered issues, were not as far as you thought/hoped you would be or have to stretch out the money.  All three mean your schedule is likely at risk.  I don't know too many knowledgeable people who believe those milestones.  Certainly haven't seen anything in the past that gives a great deal of confidence.  Not knocking SpaceX, they are doing a great job.  But just look at the latest delay of SpaceX 4.  They have not yet established they can meet the routine schedules.  Don't get me wrong, I would love to see all this come together.  I am just being realistic.

maybe NASA will get their act together and announce in a week or two.  I can see many scenarios dragging this out a month or two or three.  Ugh.

[Elmar Moelzer]

You are correct they are not equal.  But when you are delaying some because they are not complete/ready...well it means you encountered issues, were not as far as you thought/hoped you would be or have to stretch out the money.  All three mean your schedule is likely at risk.

Uhm, don't forget that some got less money than others. So it is not because of the company being incompetent, but because of the government (congress) not providing adequate funding.

[yg1968]

Here is the remaining CCiCap milestones for all commercial crew companies:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/14/remaining-ccicap-milestones-companies/

[yg1968]

That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.

Yes, that would be good.  Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs.  late 2017 is probably ideal.  Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost).  One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work.  The longer NASA waits the worse it gets.  So I don't think 2017 is realistic.

I really don't see how a company saying that they need money to continue or they'll slow their work, or companies spreading their milestones a few months later makes 2017 unrealistic.

Because in my opinion I think 2017 is very aggressive without ANY funding issues or hiccups.  That is my educated opinion.    NASA is continuing to update and modify requirements (read changing the goal posts).  That will add to the plans.  Period.  Hopefully I am wrong but I am pretty confident.

Your changing the goal posts comment is cause for concern. The biggest challenge for fixed price contracts are these kind of last minute changes. 

[Elmar Moelzer]

What last minute changes?

[rcoppola]

What last minute changes?

Yes, what major requirements have changed recently that would effect costs and timing in a meaningful way?

[yg1968]

What last minute changes?

You would have to ask erioladastra that question, he would know the answer. He wrote:

NASA is continuing to update and modify requirements (read changing the goal posts).

I am guessing that he means that the certification requirements keep changing. Some of these requirements are found in these documents (which likely have been updated since that time):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.0

[JasonAW3]

This should prove interesting.

SpacePolicyOnline....

Hartman: U.S. and Russian Crews to Fly Both Soyuz and U.S. Commercial Vehicles

NASA intends to use future U.S. commercial crew vehicles to carry not only its astronauts, but also those of its Russian partner, to the International Space Station (ISS), said Dan Hartman, deputy space station program manager, at a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting on Monday (July 28).
>

We've known this for at least a year and a half.

"The USCV will carry four crewmembers, meaning that once it docks to the ISS, the crew of the station will be boosted to seven – allowing significant extra research activities to be performed. However, one of the crewmembers on the USCV will be Russian – just as one American crewmember will continue to be rotated on the Soyuz." - Year in Review (1 January 2013)

Wonder how much SpaceX is going to charge per seat for the Russians?

[yg1968]

SpaceX (or Boeing or SNC) sells their commercial crew services to NASA. NASA then decides how to fill up the seats. NASA will fill one of the seats on either Dragon, CST-100 or DC with a Russian astronaut in exchange for a U.S. astronaut on a Soyuz flight. In a nutshell, it's a barter exchange between NASA and Roscosmos.

[arachnitect]

This should prove interesting.

SpacePolicyOnline....

Hartman: U.S. and Russian Crews to Fly Both Soyuz and U.S. Commercial Vehicles

NASA intends to use future U.S. commercial crew vehicles to carry not only its astronauts, but also those of its Russian partner, to the International Space Station (ISS), said Dan Hartman, deputy space station program manager, at a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting on Monday (July 28).
>

We've known this for at least a year and a half.

"The USCV will carry four crewmembers, meaning that once it docks to the ISS, the crew of the station will be boosted to seven – allowing significant extra research activities to be performed. However, one of the crewmembers on the USCV will be Russian – just as one American crewmember will continue to be rotated on the Soyuz." - Year in Review (1 January 2013)

Wonder how much SpaceX is going to charge per seat for the Russians?

Spacex Commercial Crew Provider won't bill the Russians, it would be covered by their contract with NASA.

It will probably be barter w/ no money changing hands: Russians get one seat on USCV, Americans/Everyone else gets one seat on Soyuz.

[deputy space station program manager Dan Hartman] explained. The idea is to barter: “It would be just a seat for a seat."

[baldusi]

Please remember that a seat includes training, SAR services and many things. Many of those items were what inflated Soyuz prices. On the other hand, I remember that on a panel, a speaker that belonged to one of the three current contestants, was asked what level of training did he expected for commercial crew clients (i.e. Tourists). And he said he hoped for something like Russian training and "it's amazing what they get away with"
So, the barter would be for everything, the Russians train on NASA passenger for Soyuz, and the Americans train a Roscosmos passenger for whoever wins CC.

[Proponent]

Is it perhaps time for a poll on the outcome of the downselect?