CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[joek]

... 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). ...

I would consider it less a matter of being "proven wrong" and more an indication of a good exchange.  Challenged to revisit readings and interpretations is welcome, good exercise, and keeps us healthy and honest.  That aside, I don't see how post-certification missions provide much of a consolation prize to the CTS loser or CCtCap runner-up.  The CCtCap front-runner appears to be in a winner-take-all position (or mostly-winner-take-all) for the foreseeable future.

[yg1968]

... 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). ...

I would consider it less a matter of being "proven wrong" and more an indication of a good exchange.  Challenged to revisit readings and interpretations is welcome, good exercise, and keeps us healthy and honest.  That aside, I don't see how post-certification missions provide much of a consolation prize to the CTS loser or CCtCap runner-up.  The CCtCap front-runner appears to be in a winner-take-all position (or mostly-winner-take-all) for the foreseeable future.

Thanks, it's a consolation prize in the sense that the CTS loser still gets two (PCM) missions to the ISS. Under a winner takes all scenario, the winner would get all missions to the ISS (PCM and CTS missions) and the loser would get none. I expect that the PCM missions will be full price.  Like I said before, for all intended purposes, there is almost no difference between a PCM mission and CTS mission. They will both be used to rotate crews to the ISS. There will two missions to the ISS per year. These missions can either be a PCM or a CTS mission but there will still not be more than two per year. 

[yg1968]

Today (January 22) is the deadline for the CCtCap proposals. This deadline is important for three reasons:

First, it will allow NASA to determine what the cost of CCtCap will be and how many CCtCap providers they are able to fund.

Secondly, companies are relunctant to talk about their proposal until it has been submitted. The reason for this is simple; they don't want their competition to know what they are doing before the deadline (when it's too late to change their proposal).

Thirdly, we may find out if companies other than the CCiCap participants have submitted proposals. More specifically, we will find out if ATK or Blue Origin have submitted proposals. Although both companies are allowed to submit proposals, they must show that their certification plans is at the same level as the CPC participants (Boeing, SNC and SpaceX). I am not sure if that simply means that ATK or Blue Origin would submit additional certification documentation with their proposals or they would have had to conclude a prior (unfunded) arrangement with NASA to have completed this requirement (which we haven't heard anything about).     

[Prober]

With or without NASA, Crewed Dragon will be deployed

And why is that? Is there a market for orbital human spaceflight that would support a commercial crew program?

If any of those programs is not supported by NASA anymore it will simply cease to exist.

Because Commercial Crew is not necessary to justify crewed Dragon. Elon started SpaceX for the very specific purpose of going to Mars, with or without NASA. His original plans specifically excluded NASA. He signed on to NASA's commercial program because federal dollars, though not required at all, does speed things up. A commercial market for crewed Dragon is not required at all. It is Elon's spaceship, not NASA's or ours. It will fly with crew - with or without NASA.

Watch Elon & company sue if he gets cut.

[Robotbeat]

It'd be understandable why, too. SpaceX is WAY ahead of the other players right now, and anyone who doesn't see that is kidding themselves. They've put in a lot of their own "skin in the game," with the understanding that NASA's selection process would be fair.

[joek]

Today (January 22) is the deadline for the CCtCap proposals. This deadline is important for three reasons:
...
Secondly, companies are relunctant to talk about their proposal until it has been submitted. The reason for this is simple; they don't want their competition to know what they are doing before the deadline (when it's too late to change their proposal).

Yay!  Seems like it has been forever.  I'm having a drink to celebrate.  However, we have a bit farther to travel, and we may still see continued reticence on the part of offerors in discussing their plans until later this summer.

Final proposal revisions (FPR) are due in late June.  Those revisions are nominally based on NASA feedback of Certification Product Contract (CPC) deliverables, as well as the Performance Work Statement (PWS) provided in the original proposal.

It is unclear (at least to me) the extent to which "revisions" outside those areas are allowed, and in any case the PWS appears to be a core element.  I expect (but can only speculate) that those changes will not fundamentally change pricing the offeror's approach or structure, but may change deliverables timing and funding profile.

[ChrisWilson68]

Today (January 22) is the deadline for the CCtCap proposals. This deadline is important for three reasons:

First, it will allow NASA to determine what the cost of CCtCap will be and how many CCtCap providers they are able to fund.

Secondly, companies are relunctant to talk about their proposal until it has been submitted. The reason for this is simple; they don't want their competition to know what they are doing before the deadline (when it's too late to change their proposal).

Thirdly, we may find out if companies other than the CCiCap participants have submitted proposals. More specifically, we will find out if ATK or Blue Origin have submitted proposals. Although both companies are allowed to submit proposals, they must show that their certification plans is at the same level as the CPC participants (Boeing, SNC and SpaceX). I am not sure if that simply means that ATK or Blue Origin would submit additional certification documentation with their proposals or they would have had to conclude a prior (unfunded) arrangement with NASA to have completed this requirement (which we haven't heard anything about).   

It's hard for me to believe ATK or Blue Origin would submit a proposal at this point, unless it's just to play spoiler and delay the proceedings a bit with a protest.  Neither has a spacecraft that could possibly be ready in time.

[dglow]

Today (January 22) is the deadline for the CCtCap proposals. This deadline is important for three reasons:

First, it will allow NASA to determine what the cost of CCtCap will be and how many CCtCap providers they are able to fund.

Secondly, companies are relunctant to talk about their proposal until it has been submitted. The reason for this is simple; they don't want their competition to know what they are doing before the deadline (when it's too late to change their proposal).

Thirdly, we may find out if companies other than the CCiCap participants have submitted proposals. More specifically, we will find out if ATK or Blue Origin have submitted proposals. Although both companies are allowed to submit proposals, they must show that their certification plans is at the same level as the CPC participants (Boeing, SNC and SpaceX). I am not sure if that simply means that ATK or Blue Origin would submit additional certification documentation with their proposals or they would have had to conclude a prior (unfunded) arrangement with NASA to have completed this requirement (which we haven't heard anything about).   

It's hard for me to believe ATK or Blue Origin would submit a proposal at this point, unless it's just to play spoiler and delay the proceedings a bit with a protest.  Neither has a spacecraft that could possibly be ready in time.

Is enough known about Blue Origin's progress, or lack thereof, given their secrecy? I ask because I simply haven't followed them closely. Pointers to info and discussions would be welcome - thank you.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Is enough known about Blue Origin's progress, or lack thereof, given their secrecy? I ask because I simply haven't followed them closely. Pointers to info and discussions would be welcome - thank you.

Quick recap from memory:
Well they now have a 110k lbs hydrolox engine. They made some testflights with a suborbital vehicle, but lost it during a supersonic test flight. They are currently building a replacement that will use the new engine. That will still be suborbital, though. The reusable orbital first stage would be much bigger with the suborbital vehicle being the template for the second stage.

[ChrisWilson68]

Is enough known about Blue Origin's progress, or lack thereof, given their secrecy? I ask because I simply haven't followed them closely. Pointers to info and discussions would be welcome - thank you.

Quick recap from memory:
Well they now have a 110k lbs hydrolox engine. They made some testflights with a suborbital vehicle, but lost it during a supersonic test flight. They are currently building a replacement that will use the new engine. That will still be suborbital, though. The reusable orbital first stage would be much bigger with the suborbital vehicle being the template for the second stage.

Also, as far as anyone knows, they've only been working on launch vehicles so far.  There's no indication they've started work on a spacecraft.

[Lars_J]

Is enough known about Blue Origin's progress, or lack thereof, given their secrecy? I ask because I simply haven't followed them closely. Pointers to info and discussions would be welcome - thank you.

Quick recap from memory:
Well they now have a 110k lbs hydrolox engine. They made some testflights with a suborbital vehicle, but lost it during a supersonic test flight. They are currently building a replacement that will use the new engine. That will still be suborbital, though. The reusable orbital first stage would be much bigger with the suborbital vehicle being the template for the second stage.

Also, as far as anyone knows, they've only been working on launch vehicles so far.  There's no indication they've started work on a spacecraft.

Then what is this? (see image) They may have it on slow burn due to missing out on the latest commercial crew funding, but it appears to exist.

[joek]

...
Thirdly, we may find out if companies other than the CCiCap participants have submitted proposals. More specifically, we will find out if ATK or Blue Origin have submitted proposals. Although both companies are allowed to submit proposals, they must show that their certification plans is at the same level as the CPC participants (Boeing, SNC and SpaceX). I am not sure if that simply means that ATK or Blue Origin would submit additional certification documentation with their proposals or they would have had to conclude a prior (unfunded) arrangement with NASA to have completed this requirement (which we haven't heard anything about).   

It's hard for me to believe ATK or Blue Origin would submit a proposal at this point, unless it's just to play spoiler and delay the proceedings a bit with a protest.  Neither has a spacecraft that could possibly be ready in time.

I agree ATK and Blue Origin are long shots, but I doubt they would go through the effort of submitting a CCtCap proposal simply to play spoiler; that is generally counter-productive and a dangerous game.  Who knows, they might receive an award and would then be on the hook to deliver on a firm fixed price contract (CCtCap is FFP, including post-certification missions).

A significant portion of my skepticism relates to the Certification Products Contract (CPC).  As yg1968 pointed out, they need to show an equivalent level of maturity with respect to CPC.  All of the CPC contracts were ~$10M, which isn't a huge amount, and they might have funded it internally.  OTOH, that they did not bid on CPC probably says more about their expectations that anything else.

There's also the question of "ready in time".  While NASA has a goal of having at least one provider ready for ISS crew service missions in early FY2018 (late CY2017), that does not necessarily mean that all CCtCap awardees need to be ready for ISS crew service missions at that time.  At the risk of going off a bit on a tangent ...

There will be either 1.0 or 2.0 CCtCap awards.  Those awards will commit the awardees to complete the CCtCap contract, which means through certification, and possibly post-certification missions (depending on timing).  There is no "0.5" CCtCap award in the sense that an awardee is allowed to complete less than CCtCap contract.[1]  If you're awarded a CCtCap contract, you're pregnant and committed to delivery (i.e., seeing the contract through to at least certification); the only question is timing.

Thus, what we may see is one awardee funded sufficiently to achieve certification in 2017; with the other awardee funded at a lower level and achieving certification at a later date--conceivably as late as 2020.[1]  In short, we need to consider who might be ready in ~3 years after award (the "fast track" awardee); and funding allowing, who might be ready up to ~5 years after award (the "slow track" awardee).

Given that funding is available for a second "slow track" award, the operative consideration is who might be viable contenders for that "slow track" award (lower annual funding but which takes a few more years)?


[1] The CCtCap contract nominally ends in 2020.  While task orders must be issued within 5 years of award (Aug 2019), the CCtCap solicitation does not put a bound on delivery, which may occur later.  For example, CRS task orders must be issued prior to 31-Dec-2015, with delivery up to one year later (31-Dec-2016), or even later if both NASA and the provider agree.

[dglow]

Is enough known about Blue Origin's progress, or lack thereof, given their secrecy? I ask because I simply haven't followed them closely. Pointers to info and discussions would be welcome - thank you.

Quick recap from memory:
Well they now have a 110k lbs hydrolox engine. They made some testflights with a suborbital vehicle, but lost it during a supersonic test flight. They are currently building a replacement that will use the new engine. That will still be suborbital, though. The reusable orbital first stage would be much bigger with the suborbital vehicle being the template for the second stage.

Also, as far as anyone knows, they've only been working on launch vehicles so far.  There's no indication they've started work on a spacecraft.

Then what is this? (see image) They may have it on slow burn due to missing out on the latest commercial crew funding, but it appears to exist.

That's a cool photo, thank you. I ponder the odds of BO surprising us in the years ahead – pulling an 'Apple' and suddenly revealing the result of many years' efforts.

Back to my original query and pardon the Rumsfeldism, but are the unknowns surrounding Blue Origin understood or not... knowns or unknowns?

[joek]

Back to my original query and pardon the Rumsfeldism, but are the unknowns surrounding Blue Origin understood or not... knowns or unknowns?

No, the unknowns are not understood (at least in any detail), and likely will not be until Blue Origin tells us more.  That said, they will undoubtedly need to go through a flight test program, and that should leave some footprints in public records.  For example, at the moment it appears BO has suspended flight tests at their Corn Ranch facility (FAA permit expired and no new permit issued).  When/if we see FAA permits and licenses issued should provide some clues as to their progress.

[yg1968]

This is somewhat related to commercial crew: Soyuz will be extended until the end of 2017:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39312nasa-to-order-more-soyuz-seats

See also:
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=85172e891582386f3ab04df8314f2fc2&tab=core&_cview=0

[Oli]

This is somewhat related to commercial crew: Soyuz will be extended until the end of 2017:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39312nasa-to-order-more-soyuz-seats

See also:
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=85172e891582386f3ab04df8314f2fc2&tab=core&_cview=0

From the article

In its online procurement note, NASA said the first crewed demonstration flight to station under the Commercial Crew Program was tentatively scheduled for the fall of 2017.

So its fall 2017 for the first commercial crew flight.

[woods170]

This is somewhat related to commercial crew: Soyuz will be extended until the end of 2017:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39312nasa-to-order-more-soyuz-seats

See also:
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=85172e891582386f3ab04df8314f2fc2&tab=core&_cview=0

From the article

In its online procurement note, NASA said the first crewed demonstration flight to station under the Commercial Crew Program was tentatively scheduled for the fall of 2017.

So its fall 2017 for the first commercial crew flight.

tentatively.... assuming they get full funding for the years to come. Which they will not.

[Lurker Steve]

tentatively.... assuming they get full funding for the years to come. Which they will not.

I'm of the opinion that Commercial Crew development is going to take the same amount of time regardless of whether Congress provides 700 million per year or 1 Billion per year for development. We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work. Even a down-select to one vendor and concentrating all of the funding to that vendor probably wont help the schedule at all.

[BrightLight]

tentatively.... assuming they get full funding for the years to come. Which they will not.

I'm of the opinion that Commercial Crew development is going to take the same amount of time regardless of whether Congress provides 700 million per year or 1 Billion per year for development. We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work. Even a down-select to one vendor and concentrating all of the funding to that vendor probably wont help the schedule at all.

I understand your argument but shorting the funding can't help the schedule.

[Lars_J]

We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work.

I'm sorry, but when exactly did we "throw money" at some of these vendors? And how much funding would you consider "throwing money"??