CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[BrightLight]

Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.

[manboy]

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.

$830 million is being requested. The most that has ever has been requested is $850 million, it was in 2012, not even a year after the Space Shuttle program ended. Congressmen were complaining about how there wasn't a replacement ready, some even called it unacceptable. They didn't even give them half.

The meager budget has delayed Commercial Crew by several years.

Additional funds help prevent the severity of further slips. Not downselecting will push the schedule further to the right.

[woods170]

Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.

And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.

[clongton]

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.

Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.

That doesn't sound to me like we "threw money" at anybody. Instead it sounds like we contracted for a product and then shortchanged the contractor.

[Lurker Steve]

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"??

As part of the Stimulus program, both SpaceX and Orbital each received more than 100 million in additional COTS funding. Perhaps that's just pocket change to you. This extra COTS funding did not improve the schedule, and it only provided NASA funding tasks that the vendors needed to perform anyway.

[Lurker Steve]

Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.

Just for the record, that 3.052 Billion corresponded to Obama's NASA budget. This was rejected by Congress, just like his budget for each and every other federal agency.

[Robotbeat]

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"??

As part of the Stimulus program, both SpaceX and Orbital each received more than 100 million in additional COTS funding. Perhaps that's just pocket change to you. This extra COTS funding did not improve the schedule, and it only provided NASA funding tasks that the vendors needed to perform anyway.

Is this the same money that Shelby ended up redirecting to Constellation?

[joek]

As part of the Stimulus program, both SpaceX and Orbital each received more than 100 million in additional COTS funding. Perhaps that's just pocket change to you. This extra COTS funding did not improve the schedule, and it only provided NASA funding tasks that the vendors needed to perform anyway.

Is this the same money that Shelby ended up redirecting to Constellation?

No, as part of the stimulus package OSC and SpaceX were each awarded (and spent) ~$118M for additional COTS milestones.

[baldusi]

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"??

As part of the Stimulus program, both SpaceX and Orbital each received more than 100 million in additional COTS funding. Perhaps that's just pocket change to you. This extra COTS funding did not improve the schedule, and it only provided NASA funding tasks that the vendors needed to perform anyway.

NASA gave money to pay for risk reduction activities. In Orbital case that payed (among other things) for A-One. Which might actually have delayed a bit the schedule. And in SpaceX case other activities (like environmental testing and such) were executed.
You're very wrong saying that money was thrown to accelerate the solution. NASA had accepted a development program, and decided that it was too risky and so they payed to get extra development work to reduce the risk. Even though this was a program for demonstration and not operative missions.
I can't say if the money was worth or not. Could it be the reason why the COTS demonstration worked so well and CRS was done so fast after that? I don't know. But it was not money thrown to accelerate a schedule.
NASA was tight on logistics and decided that they'd rather wait and pay a bit more but reduce the operation risk. Plain and simple.
Crew services is a completely different beast. Where NASA has been asking money and Congress has systematically denied it. But they do ask to not get behind. The story is a lot more complicated, but that's the gist of it.
So don't compare to COTS because a) the procurement program is not comparable and b) the extra money was not to accelerate 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"??

As part of the Stimulus program, both SpaceX and Orbital each received more than 100 million in additional COTS funding. Perhaps that's just pocket change to you. This extra COTS funding did not improve the schedule, and it only provided NASA funding tasks that the vendors needed to perform anyway.

Do you come from an alternate dimension where this money was not spent, so you can illustrate how not spending this money wouldn't have affected their schedules? And how the companies would have been able to self-fund these activities in no extra time?

And pocket change or not, in the overall NASA budget is a very minor element, and money well spent if the risk was reduced for NASA. And in retrospect, with a successfully completed COTS program with two CRS providers, it seems difficult to argue against.

[erioladastra]

Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.

And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.

Not quite true.  The requested funding is shooting for multiple parnters for competition.  It is possible that one partner could reach 2017 with the current funding (won't say how likely but possible).

[joek]

Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.

The attached shows commercial crew Presidential Budget Requests FY2010-FY2014 and actuals (assuming completion of CCtCap given current projections).

[Lurker Steve]

Do you come from an alternate dimension where this money was not spent, so you can illustrate how not spending this money wouldn't have affected their schedules? And how the companies would have been able to self-fund these activities in no extra time?

And pocket change or not, in the overall NASA budget is a very minor element, and money well spent if the risk was reduced for NASA. And in retrospect, with a successfully completed COTS program with two CRS providers, it seems difficult to argue against.

let's try this.

The CRS budget this year was about 300 million less than the 850 million request.
Where would that extra 300 million have gone ?
Which vendor would be past the CDR level today, instead of completing CDR this summer ?

[Prober]

Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.

And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.

Not quite true.  The requested funding is shooting for multiple parnters for competition.  It is possible that one partner could reach 2017 with the current funding (won't say how likely but possible).

Believe we are rehashing funding and agreements between Congress and the administration that were locked in.  What if's are gone.    Remember when SpaceX & Boeing got full shares and SN received 1/2?  The program was changed at that point with the agreement, so going back and saying its not fully funded is the difference between a wish list and a real program.

[baldusi]

Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.

And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.

Not quite true.  The requested funding is shooting for multiple parnters for competition.  It is possible that one partner could reach 2017 with the current funding (won't say how likely but possible).

As soon as you downselect, most benefits of commercial approach are lost. The winner has zero incentive to keep schedule and budget.

[joek]

Not quite true.  The requested funding is shooting for multiple parnters for competition.  It is possible that one partner could reach 2017 with the current funding (won't say how likely but possible).

As soon as you downselect, most benefits of commercial approach are lost. The winner has zero incentive to keep schedule and budget.

You could have one fast-track award, and another slow-track award.  Fast-track is funded at a higher annual level and reaches the goal sooner; slow-track is funded at a lower annual level and reaches the goal later.  That still provides some competitive pressure in the short term, greater competitive pressure long term, and at least some hope of recovering if the fast track fails to perform.

I believe that is NASA's current strategy and is the best that can be hoped for at this time given budget constraints.  The questions are then: (1) Even if funded at an optimal level (where "optimal" is within the program budget), can the fast-track finish by 2017? (2) After the fast-track award, what if any funds are available for a slow-track, and could it finish in a reasonable time (e.g., the CCtCap contract period which nominally ends 2020)?

[Go4TLI]

As soon as you downselect, most benefits of commercial approach are lost. The winner has zero incentive to keep schedule and budget.

This is where things begin to fall apart and takes everyone right back to the philosophical discussion of what "commercial" is and why are doing this with multiple partners.  That's never truly been answered with conviction and consistency by the actual policy makers. 

For the record I absolutely do NOT buy into the statement that competition is necessary to maintain cost and schedule.  That push can remain via various incentive fees to whatever company.  IF that is they way forward chosen, that provider can get the majority of the available money increasing the likelihood of having a capability that much sooner.  And, quite obviously, the sooner the capability exists, the sooner contracts can be given for it's use, which is exactly what a provider would want. 

This is not a new idea, and contrary to popular opinion, is exactly how cost-plus contracts work as far as incentives in order to keep cost and schedule per the baseline as outlined in a Statement of Work. 

Now, maybe you believe more than one is needed because this is to open up the "vast market" that exists as so many claimed.  That's fine, and that is the philosophical discussion. 

The much more practical reason for more than one, in the here and now, is to have multiple vehicles in the event a provider is grounded, or if the rocket they ride on is. 

[yg1968]

Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.

And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.

Not quite true.  The requested funding is shooting for multiple parnters for competition.  It is possible that one partner could reach 2017 with the current funding (won't say how likely but possible).

As soon as you downselect, most benefits of commercial approach are lost. The winner has zero incentive to keep schedule and budget.

That's why I think that it's important to have two certified providers. The price of the post-certification missions may not represent the actual prices that NASA ends up paying for the CTS contract (especially if only one provider makes it to certification).

[A_M_Swallow]

If you are going for a fast track you can add 2 or 3 milestone that basically say the contractor gets a large payment if he completes milestone g, j and y by a certain (early) date and passes a tough quality inspection.

[joek]

If you are going for a fast track you can add 2 or 3 milestone that basically say the contractor gets a large payment if he completes milestone g, j and y by a certain (early) date and passes a tough quality inspection.

There are already numerous potential milestones--provider to propose, in addition to the minimum required by NASA.  The incentive is getting paid sooner rather than later, and in particular to start billing for post-certification missions.  Certification is the "tough quality inspection" and has a defined set of milestones.