CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[clongton]

Isn't there also the concern about the longevity on orbit of a "lifeboat"? If they rotate out the crew vehicles that is not an issue, but leaving a vehicle there for several years and expecting it to work is risky.

Yes, absolutely, and I assume that's why the current plan is to have the crew use the vehicle they took up as a lifeboat during their stay, then bring it back down.

Yes; CTS requirement is minimum life of 210 days on-station.  Not to mention something like a CRV would occupy a docking port.  Only two will be available for the foreseeable future on the USOS side, and IIRC nominal rule is one remain unoccupied in case there is a problem with the other.

There would be no need to leave a lifeboat docked there for "years". Just have that vehicle in the rotation schedule. That way there is always a "new" lifeboat docked.

NASA only wants one CTS contractor starting in 2017. So SNC would have to have edge out SpaceX for the CTS contract.

NASA has not downselected to anybody yet. That statement is your personal opinion and should be so labeled.

[joek]

NASA only wants one CTS contractor starting in 2017. So SNC would have to have edge out SpaceX for the CTS contract.

Did you mean "NASA only wants one CCtCap awardee starting flights in 2017.  So SNC would have to edge out SpaceX for the CCtCap contract."?

Although the NASA pre-solicitation conference briefing shows a notional CTS contract award in FY2016, it also shows first flight under CTS in FY2019.  I'd bet CTS solicition and award slip quite a bit.

The post-certification missions which nominally begin in 2018 are under CCtCap (not CTS).  As stated in the pricing guideline (Attachment L-04 Price Template - CCtCap.xlsx sheet CLIN 002-Post Cert. Mission):

Offerors are to consider their CTS lead time when inputting their data above.  The CCtCap contract is anticipated to conclude at the end of 2020.

Note that all other CCtCap pricing information is also requested through 2020.

In short, the CCtCap award is likely to have significant implications for who is providing ISS crew services through CY2020.

[joek]

NASA has not downselected to anybody yet. That statement is your personal opinion and should be so labeled.

I think maybe the term down-select is being tossed about too freely.  Nit: NASA can not and will not down-select awardees for CCtCap.  Under FAR, CCtCap is open to any qualified bidder, and not a down-select from a predefined field.  That said, some culling of the field is likely given past and projected CCP funding constraints.

The operative question is: Who gets selected to provide ISS crew services under CCtCap?  In particular, will there be sufficient funds for 1, 2 or ...?  Given a projected demand of two ISS crew missions per year, the justification for funding at least one provider seems clear; for two questionable; for three extremely dubious.

Given that, it appears that there will be one front-runner who will be awarded sufficient funds to see CCtCap through to providing ISS crew services; and another awarded reduced funds which, while not sufficient to provide ISS crew services, provides a backup--or at least an incentive to the front-runner to keep their eye on the ball.

[yg1968]

Isn't there also the concern about the longevity on orbit of a "lifeboat"? If they rotate out the crew vehicles that is not an issue, but leaving a vehicle there for several years and expecting it to work is risky.

Yes, absolutely, and I assume that's why the current plan is to have the crew use the vehicle they took up as a lifeboat during their stay, then bring it back down.

Yes; CTS requirement is minimum life of 210 days on-station.  Not to mention something like a CRV would occupy a docking port.  Only two will be available for the foreseeable future on the USOS side, and IIRC nominal rule is one remain unoccupied in case there is a problem with the other.

There would be no need to leave a lifeboat docked there for "years". Just have that vehicle in the rotation schedule. That way there is always a "new" lifeboat docked.

NASA only wants one CTS contractor starting in 2017. So SNC would have to have edge out SpaceX for the CTS contract.

NASA has not downselected to anybody yet. That statement is your personal opinion and should be so labeled.

It's not my personal opinion for the CTS contract (following CCtCap), NASA intends to have only one company. They have said so several times.

[yg1968]

NASA has not downselected to anybody yet. That statement is your personal opinion and should be so labeled.

I think maybe the term down-select is being tossed about too freely.  Nit: NASA can not and will not down-select awardees for CCtCap.  Under FAR, CCtCap is open to any qualified bidder, and not a down-select from a predefined field.  That said, some culling of the field is likely given past and projected CCP funding constraints.

The operative question is: Who gets selected to provide ISS crew services under CCtCap?  In particular, will there be sufficient funds for 1, 2 or ...?  Given a projected demand of two ISS crew missions per year, the justification for funding at least one provider seems clear; for two questionable; for three extremely dubious.

Given that, it appears that there will be one front-runner who will be awarded sufficient funds to see CCtCap through to providing ISS crew services; and another awarded reduced funds which, while not sufficient to provide ISS crew services, provides a backup--or at least an incentive to the front-runner to keep their eye on the ball.

There is no backup. Each round is independent of each other. If NASA decides to have 1.5 providers for CCtCap, the 0.5 company also has a chance of winning the CTS award. But my point was that there will only be one CTS award. NASA has said so on a number of occasions. It's not set in stone but that's the current plan.

[joek]

There is no backup. Each round is independent of each other. If NASA decides to have 1.5 providers for CCtCap, the 0.5 company also has a chance of winning the CTS award. But my point was that there will only be one CTS award. NASA has said so on a number of occasions. It's not set out in stone but that's the current plan.

Sorry should have been clearer as that was my point.  Any such FAR acquisition (i.e, CTS) must be open to all qualified bidders, including those not selected for previous contracts (i.e., CCiCap and CCtCap).  Also, just to be clear, my reference to "backup" is with respect to CCtCap, not CTS.

I don't recall NASA making any single-award statements with respect to CTS.  NASA's notional timeline at the CCtCap pre-proposal conference appears to suggest otherwise, with new-entrant certification and competition for CTS possible in the future (much like NLS on-ramp for new entrants).  What am I missing?

[yg1968]

There is no backup. Each round is independent of each other. If NASA decides to have 1.5 providers for CCtCap, the 0.5 company also has a chance of winning the CTS award. But my point was that there will only be one CTS award. NASA has said so on a number of occasions. It's not set out in stone but that's the current plan.

Sorry should have been clearer as that was my point.  Any such FAR acquisition (i.e, CTS) must be open to all qualified bidders, including those not selected for previous contracts (i.e., CCiCap and CCtCap).

I don't recall NASA making any single-award statements with respect to CTS.  NASA's notional timeline at the CCtCap pre-proposal conference appears to suggest otherwise, with new-entrant certification and competition for CTS possible in the future (much like NLS on-ramp for new entrants).  What am I missing?

Gerst said so in a few hearings. I don't remember which one. I will try to find it. But just from a practical point of view, 2 flights per year makes it difficult to have more than one company.

[joek]

Gerst said so in a few hearings. I don't remember which one. I will try to find it. But just from a practical point of view, 2 flights per year makes it difficult to have more than once company.

Thanks, would appreciate a reference.  Agree that two flights per year demand for ISS crew services would make it difficult to fund/justify more than one provider.  That said, let's ensure we differentiate between CCtCap (including post-certification missions, which could run through 2020), and CTS.

[yg1968]

I found the document where Gerst says that commercial crew would cost $480M per year (on page 112):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg70800/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg70800.pdf

Mr. PALAZZO. What is your estimated cost per flight once the development stage is completed?
Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, we would look at it as equal to or less than what we would be paying for Soyuz at that time.
Mr. PALAZZO. Some———
Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Roughly $480 million or so.
Mr. PALAZZO. How much would that come down per astronaut since that seems to be the common way of looking at it?
Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Roughly $80 million per crew seat.
Mr. PALAZZO. Okay.
Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Six seats per year, $480 million total per year.

[joek]

I found the document where Gerst says that commercial crew would cost $480M per year:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg70800/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg70800.pdf

That document from 2011 actually says that NASA might support more than one CTS provider. But I will see if I can find other more recent documents.

Thanks! (knew I'd see that $80M/seat before)  Note that Gerstenmaier says $480M/yr or $80M/seat based on projected Soyuz pricing, then...  For commercial crew, he states, "Again, we would look at it as equal to or less than what we would be paying for Soyuz at that time ... Roughly $480 million or so ... Six seats per year, $480 million total per year."  While we don't have firm numbers on commercial crew pricing yet, NASA at that time appeared to be budgeting $80M/seat @6 seats/yr for commercial crew (which is what stuck in my memory).  I hope and expect the price @8 seats/yr for commercial crew will be lower than $80M/seat, but time will tell.

[yg1968]

OK. I found the document where it says that there will likely be only one CTS Provider. It's the white paper on page 3:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docID=637

ISS Services Contract
Likely single award

Gerst confirmed this information at the following 2012 House hearing on pages 44 and 45:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg76234/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg76234.pdf

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you. And continuing, Mr. Gerstenmaier, at a rate of no more than two NASA missions per year, most analysts conclude that only one provider will ultimately be needed. If only one provider is selected to provide this service, how much government funding will have been provided to the other firms that will not be providing subsequent services to the United States government?

Mr. GERSTENMAIER. If you want a precise number, I can take it for the record and we can go calculate what that number is, but there will be funds that will have gone to these other providers that are not providing a service. The question is, is the market going to be just ISS or is the market going to be bigger than ISS. What we hear from these commercial companies is they believe that there is a market for their spacecraft that is beyond the government’s need. They believe there is a commercial-sector market for that. So even though one of these companies may only provide services to NASA for our ISS activities, the others may have another market to go do that can be there. Then I have the advantage from the government side is now I have another contractor that I could go back and pick up to go provide services later in some future activity if we decide to extend, for example, space station beyond 2020 and we need some additional services. It may be someone else in the market for us to go by. So we are investing in that other contractor as you described but we potentially get some benefit if they can generate a market on their own.

[yg1968]

Incidentally, I think that one of the reason for having post-certification missions is in order to provide incentives to the CCtCap company that doesn't obtain a CTS contract. I think that post-certification can not go beyond 5 years from the date of the award (August 2019). This change was made in the final RFP. 

[yg1968]

Gerst said so in a few hearings. I don't remember which one. I will try to find it. But just from a practical point of view, 2 flights per year makes it difficult to have more than once company.

That said, let's ensure we differentiate between CCtCap (including post-certification missions, which could run through 2020), and CTS.

CCtCap is likely to have 1.5 or two providers. McAlister said that they are unlikely to maintain three providers for the next round but that NASA wants (if they have the budget for it) to keep competition going as long as possible which is why CCtCap is likely to have more than one provider. But the CTS contract (the contract for ferrying crew to the ISS which starts in 2017) is likely to have just one provider.  At least, that is the current plan. I agree that there is an overlap between CTS and CCtCap and I believe that this was done on purpose in order to provide incentives for the company that doesn't win a CTS contract to continue. 

[Lurker Steve]

Incidentally, I think that one of the reason for having post-certification missions is in order to provide incentives to the CCtCap company that doesn't obtain a CTS contract. I think that post-certification can not go beyond 5 years from the date of the award (August 2019). This change was made in the final RFP.

So actually, then can come close to finishing out the decade without awarding a CTS contract.
There might actually be incentive for a company to remain in the CCtCap program as an "unfunded" if there is the possibility of funded post-certification flights.

[yg1968]

That's a good question and I am not certain about the answer. My understanding is that NASA has the option of either ordering post-certification missions (PCM) from both providers (assuming that there is two) or not order any. See clauses B.4, H.8 and H.19 in the second document linked below. More specifically, under H.19, NASA appears to have the discretion to proceed or not with PCMs (i.e., the authority to proceed seems discretionary) but if they do proceed with PCMs, each provider must be considered for a minimum of 2 flights (See B.4). 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32412.msg1121659#msg1121659

H.19 (a) Post Certification Mission (PCM) task orders may be awarded prior to completion of CLIN 001, DDTE/Certification. However, the Contractor shall meet the following development-related criteria before NASA will grant Authority to Proceed (ATP) with such missions. ATP for PCMs is at NASA’s sole discretion and is dependent on meeting the criteria. Specific mission objectives and target launch date are provided by NASA.

Post-certification missions will be able to rotate crews. So there is not much difference between a PCM flight and a CTS flight.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/nasa-outlines-plans-commercial-crew-certification/

The maximum number of all PCMs awarded to all CCtCap contractors is six. To the extent that they do not overlap with the existing Soyuz contract, post-certification missions are expected to be used to rotate crews on the ISS. Ed Mango mentioned at the conference that post-certification missions can be ordered thru December 31, 2020 [now September 2019].

[joek]

CCtCap is likely to have 1.5 or two providers. McAlister said that they are unlikely to maintain three providers for the next round but that NASA wants (if they have the budget for it) to keep competition going as long as possible which is why CCtCap is likely to have more than one provider. But the CTS contract (the contract for ferrying crew to the ISS which starts in 2017) is likely to have just one provider.  At least, that is the current plan. I agree that there is an overlap between CTS and CCtCap and I believe that this was done on purpose in order to provide incentives for the company that doesn't win a CTS contract to continue.

I wish we would end references to "1.5 xxx".  There may be one CCtCap awardee; or one awardee that is funded at a higher level and finishes first, with another funded at a lower level that finishes later.

Under the current CCtCap solicitation the awardee *must* complete CLIN-001 (DDT&E through to certification); there is no option for completing only part of it.  The awardee is also guaranteed two post-certification missions. There is no 1/2; the only question is how long t takes each awardee to finish.

Also, representative post-certification mission pricing (one mission per year for three years) is part of the price evaluation for CCtCap; PCM's are much more than an incentive or consolation prize. 

So actually, then can come close to finishing out the decade without awarding a CTS contract.
There might actually be incentive for a company to remain in the CCtCap program as an "unfunded" if there is the possibility of funded post-certification flights.

Correct, we can finish the decade without CTS; based on the notional schedule, CTS flights will not start until late CY2019 (FY2020), even though the notional CTS award is in 2017.  IMHO the CTS contract* will likely be pushed back.

As to remaining in CCtCap unfunded, see above.  CCtCap currently requires that every awardee complete DDT&E/certification and is guaranteed a minimum of two post-certification missions.  If you get that far you're done, and the next step is missions paid for under CTS.

That's a good question and I am not certain about the answer. My understanding is that NASA has the option of either ordering post-certification missions (PCM) from both providers (assuming that there is two) or not order any. See clauses B.4, H.8 and H.19 in the second document linked below. More specifically, under H.19, NASA appears to have the discretion to proceed or not with PCMs (i.e., the authority to proceed seems discretionary) but if they do proceed with PCMs, each provider must be considered for a minimum of 2 flights (See B.4). 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32412.msg1121659#msg1121659

Each awardee is guaranteed a minimum of two post-certification flights.  NASA is simply stating that once the criteria for PCM's is complete, issuing the authority to proceed (ATP) is at NASA's discretion--that is when money starts flowing for the missions.  That type of verbiage is fairly typical and you will find similar in CRS and NLS.


* edit: CTS solicitation

[yg1968]

Wolf first used the term 1.5 to mean half the funding for the 0.5. The term stuck and everybody is now using it. It doesn't mean that you don't get certified. It just means that you get half the funding.

As far as PCMs, B-4 of the RFP document uses the word "may" which implies that it is not automatic:

In accordance with clause C.1, Specification/Statement of Work, the task ordering procedures and other terms and conditions in the contract, the Contracting Officer may issue Post Certification Mission (PCM) task orders.

[yg1968]

Correct, we can finish the decade without CTS; based on the notional schedule, CTS flights will not start until late CY2019 (FY2020), even though the notional CTS award is in 2017.  IMHO the CTS contract* will likely be pushed back.

As to remaining in CCtCap unfunded, see above.  CCtCap currently requires that every awardee complete DDT&E/certification and is guaranteed a minimum of two post-certification missions.  If you get that far you're done, and the next step is missions paid for under CTS.

There is an overlap between CTS and CCtCap according to page 14 of this presentation. The chart also confirms that PCMs are optional and that they are there to provide incentives:

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=692

See the following document which is even clearer on this issue (page 3):
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/155325-OTHER-001-001.pdf

CCP is also assessing alternatives to mitigate transition timing between Phase 2 Certification and ISS Services (contracts). One approach being considered is to potentially include multiple postcertification mission(s) within the scope of the Phase 2 contract. The Government is considering these post-certification mission(s) to be optional (e.g. IDIQ or contract options); awarded at the Government’s discretion and based on Contractor performance. The mission(s) would be defined as the CCT-DRM-1110 of a certified configuration. During Phase 2 contract performance, flight specific objectives for optional mission(s) could be tailored to fit Agency requirements. The post-certification optional missions are expected to be licensed by the FAA for public safety.

[joek]

Short version...

CCtCap states a minimum (two per award) and maximum (six for all awards) post-certification missions (PCM) with indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ); that commits NASA to the minimum.  If there is no minimum, no minimum would be stated and there would be every reason *not* to state a minimum.  The PCM's are not optional.  Sans a catastrophic change in funding or other such event (edit: or renegotiation), if the awardee meets the requisite criteria and does so (including PCM delivery) within the CCtCap contract period, execution of PCM's are a matter of when, not if.

Longer version...

s far as PCMs, B-4 of the RFP document uses the word "may" which implies that it is not automatic:

In accordance with clause C.1, Specification/Statement of Work, the task ordering procedures and other terms and conditions in the contract, the Contracting Officer may issue Post Certification Mission (PCM) task orders.

That quote states that simply because the PCM prerequisites are met doesn't mean NASA will automatically issue a task order the next day (or within any predefined period).  While CCtCap commits to a minimum of two PCMs, it can not guarantee that those PCM orders will be issued because there are several prerequisites which must be met before a task order and ATP is issued, thus the weasel wording.

There is an overlap between CTS and CCtCap according to page 14 of this presentation. The chart also confirms that PCMs are optional and that they are there to provide incentives:

As I previously pointed out: While there is notional overlap between CCtCap and CTS, there is little or none in actual flights if all six PCM missions are executed.

The charts shows only that DDT&E / certification and PCM are separate phases of CCtCap; they say nothing about whether PCM's are optional.  In any case the verbiage in that same presentation and in the CCtCap solicitation explicitly state PCM award is not optional.

See the following document which is even clearer on this issue (page 3):
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/155325-OTHER-001-001.pdf

That document is outdated.  It tells us is that NASA had not made up its mind in April 2013; NASA subsequently did make up its mind as of Nov 2013, as reflected in the final CCtCap solicitation.

[yg1968]

Hmm... It looks like you were right after all. I found this document which clearly states it (it just recently came out) on page 6:

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/2013Dec9-10_HEOC_Minutes_Final.pdf

The winning (CCtCap) bidder will be awarded at least two missions, which gives them an assurance that they will recover some of their investment.

Come to think of it, page 14 of this chart also seems to indicate that at least two PCMs would be awarded as the first two PCM triangles are in bold and the CTS ISS missions (also triangles) seem to start right after these first two PCMs.
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=692

It's easy to get confused with this stuff. The language in the contract threw me off. Anyways, I don't mind being proven wrong (it means that I have learned something). It makes more sense that the first two PCM missions would be assured come to think of it as it provides incentives for the CTS loser and allows him to recoup some of his investment through these two missions.