CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Proponent]

Just what is the difference between COTS-D and CC-whatever?

[yg1968]

Just what is the difference between COTS-D and CC-whatever?

Certification for commercial crew is not under a space act agreement. There is no firm skin in the game requirement under commercial crew development. Safety requirements are a bit cumbersome under the commercial crew development program.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I agree that COTS-D would have been preferable, but CCDev is close enough for me.

[Lurker Steve]

Just what is the difference between COTS-D and CC-whatever?

Certification for commercial crew is not under a space act agreement. There is no firm skin in the game requirement under commercial crew development. Safety requirements are a bit cumbersome under the commercial crew development program.

NASA has given each vendor a "Certification Products" contract. I assume that was to pay for the effort to determine how to certify the vendor's vehicle meets NASA's requirements for carrying NASA astronauts.

Is there any reason certification itself can't be conducted under a firm fixed price contract ? There should be no unknowns for either NASA or the vendor.

Of course, any failure and the costs associated with re-trying any portion of the certification tests would be borne by the vendor. No need for "cost-plus", since that does not limit NASA's liability. It would really be the same as the "SAA" milestones, except there is only 1 milestone. Get certified, get paid with the cost and task list well defined up front by the results of the certification products contract .

[joek]

NASA has given each vendor a "Certification Products" contract. I assume that was to pay for the effort to determine how to certify the vendor's vehicle meets NASA's requirements for carrying NASA astronauts.

Is there any reason certification itself can't be conducted under a firm fixed price contract ? There should be no unknowns for either NASA or the vendor.

Of course, any failure and the costs associated with re-trying any portion of the certification tests would be borne by the vendor. No need for "cost-plus", since that does not limit NASA's liability. It would really be the same as the "SAA" milestones, except there is only 1 milestone. Get certified, get paid with the cost and task list well defined up front by the results of the certification products contract .

That is how it is intended to work.  Both CPC and CCtCap are firm-fixed price (FFP); no cost-plus involved.  CCtCap includes DDT&E/Certification, Special Studies and Post-certification Missions  (three different contract line items or CLIN's).  There are several NASA-specified milestones.  Beyond those, offeror's may propose additional milestones and associated payments.

edit: correct/clarify contract line items.

[joek]

Moved from Which vehicle/spacecraft will be next to carry crew to orbit from the US? as this is the more appropriate thread...

Actually, Boieng hasn't put any skin in the game for CCiCap and for the prior rounds but they said that they intend to do so for the next round (CCtCap). The skin in the game milestones are usually called "financial milestones" in the SAAs.

Nit: We're not sure of Boeing's contribution to CCiCap, other than it was disappointingly small, per the selection statement "... does not provide significant industry financial investment and there is increased risk of having sufficient funding in the base period".

Thanks for the official reference. Incidentally, the amount of skin in the game among all three commercial crew providers is about 10% on average. See page 9 of the following PDF (page 5 of the document) from a September 2012 House Hearing:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg76234/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg76234.pdf

NASA's goal for the Commercial Crew Development program is to stimulate the aerospace industry to develop multiple, competitive, privately operated, human spaceflight vehicles and systems. Although the government is paying for about 90 percent(3) of this development, NASA will not own the vehicles or retain the designs, intellectual property, or data rights. Private entities will own and operate the vehicles and systems.

(Footnote 3): 90 percent is indicative of the approximate relative contribution of the Federal Government. The actual nongovernment cash or in-kind contributions of the commercial partners is proprietary information and varies by company, and may be greater or less than 10 percent of the total.

Thanks; good refresher and reference.  Rep Johson said 11% based on committee staff calculations (always thought that was a bit too precise); Gerstenmaier qualified "on the order of" 10-20%.  The last (Nov 2013) NASA IG report states "partners are contributing under 20 percent of the CCiCap development costs for their spaceflight systems".[1]

That suggests a range of ~$120-220M for total partner contributions.  Some of the variance appears to be due to fuzziness valuing non-cash contributions from partners; some appears to based on future numbers (imprecise value at that time); some likely due to the difference in time between the hearing and the NASA IG report (additional insight or inclusion of optional Boeing and SNC milestones added in July 2013); maybe some due to inclusion of CCDev1 and CCDev2 numbers; and possibly some unclear division of contributions between base vs. optional period.  (Although I think all numbers referenced are for the base period).

In all, still rather squishy.  And my head hurts.  Trying to get a clear picture and parse-interpret public sources is like trying to nail Jello to the ceiling.  For example, from the original CCiCap SAA's (Aug 2012):

- Boeing milestone #19 Apr-2014, Critical Design Review (originally the last Boeing milestone): "Provide NASA documentation that a cumulative investment of [redacted] has been funded."  However, there are three other earlier milestones marked as "Includes investment criteria." (Integrated System Review, Phase 1 Safety Review Board, and Pilot-in-the-loop Demonstration).  Unclear whether the latter milestones indicate specific investment points/amounts, or whether it is more of a "when it's over we'll prove it".

- SNC milestone #5 Jul-2013, Investment Financing: "SNC co-investment plan completed for period."  Also, in the proposal, "Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) will invest [redacted] through orbital flight and an additional [redacted] from its industrial partners. Prior Team investment is [redacted]."  Unclear what the "period" is in milestone #5 (I hope and expect it is the CCiCap base period), or whether total previous SNC & Team investment is being counted.

- SpaceX milestone #10 Dec-2013, Review of Upgraded Falcon 9: "The SpaceX contribution value includes the Falcon 9 upgrade development work performed during the period from CCICap authority to proceed through the first flight of the upgraded Falcon 9." As a success criteria, "Verification that SpaceX financial commitments for Falcon 9 upgrades made at milestone 2 have been met."[2]  Not sure how you would value F9v1.1 development work from CCiCap award Aug-2012 through Sep-2013 (CASSIOPE first F9v1.1 flight).  Part of the certification effort?

- SpaceX milestone #14 Apr-2014, In-Flight Abort Test: "SpaceX's contribution value will be satisfied by provision of the launch vehicle and spacecraft test articles and related launch services." As a success criteria,  "Verification that SpaceX financial commitments for the In-Flight Abort Test made at milestone 2 have been met."[2]  How do you value that (cost or market value and opportunity cost)?  I don't know, but I bet it is significant, and that SpaceX wants that recognized at the highest figure they can get.  That alone could account for a significant chunk of the total calculated partner contributions.[3]


[1] NASA IG also states "For comparison, partner contributions for the cargo development program were roughly 50 percent."  THen again, CRS and COTS awards were concurrent.  CCtCap is offering similar with post-certification missions, but less guarantees in terms of number of missions.
[2] SpaceX milestone #2 "Financial and Business Review".
[3] Boeing was ready to book two Atlas V's in August 2012 for tests in 2014-2015 (one uncrewed orbital test, one crewed orbital test) if they got a sufficient CCiCap award, which they obviously did not.  (They eliminated a max-q abort test from the plan, which would have required another Atlas V.)  So you're SpaceX asking "What's one of those Atlas V test launches and spacecraft worth (specifically, the max-q abort test)? $100M? $200M?  Are we getting screwed here?"

[yg1968]

Rep Johson said 11% based on committee staff calculations (always thought that was a bit too precise); Gerstenmaier qualified "on the order of" 10-20%.

Thanks for the additionnal information. Do you have a reference for those percentages?

[joek]

THe Rep. Edwards and Gerstenmaeir numbers are from the House Hearing report you referenced: Rep. Edwards 11% from prepared statement, pg 15;  Gerstenmaeir "on that order" of 10-20% from Q&A with Rep. Brooks, pg. 44.  The NASA IG "under 20%" comes from NASA IG report IG-14-001 Nov 2013, pg. 19.

[AnalogMan]

Latest 60-day Report on Commercial Crew Program has been published:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_ROI_Report_Feb_2014.pdf

Contains this update on current milestones for each participant:

CCiCap Milestone Change Process
February 25, 2014

NASA signed the Commercial Crew integrated Capability (CCiCap)–funded Space Act Agreements in August 2012. Over the course of these agreements, as with most contracts, modifications have been occasionally needed. The CCiCap agreements have evolved as development and test efforts have progressed, enabling our partners to refine their plans. These refinements have resulted in several changes to the milestones listed in the original agreements. NASA also made a determination in August 2013 to fund a small portion of the optional milestones to reduce risk, thus increasing the number of total milestones and agreement value. These refinements and updates are why the milestone totals shown above in the thermometer graphic have changed over time.

When a change to the initial agreement is needed, both NASA and the respective industry partner must agree to the change. On the NASA side, the Commercial Crew Program Office assesses all changes. For minor changes, such as changes to milestone dates, the Program Office can approve the change and a memo for record is generated to document the change. For more significant changes, such as the addition of optional milestones, the Program Office provides recommendations for approval to NASA HQ for final disposition. If approved by NASA HQ, an amendment is negotiated and posted at http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=38. Thus, the current agreement with each partner is slightly different from the version that was initially signed a year and a half ago. To catch everyone up on the current status of partner milestones within each agreement, the below tables provide a snapshot of the current status.

[yg1968]

Looks like nobody is actually ahead. Every company has milestones that will be completed in the third quarter of CY2014 (i.e., this summer).

[edkyle99]

Looks like nobody is actually ahead.

Differing milestone completion percentages.

 - Ed Kyle

[yg1968]

I meant that everybody will be done at the same time in the third quarter. In any event, the number of milestones isn't representative of who is ahead. For example, even if SNC had completed all of its milestones, it would still be behind Boeing and SpaceX.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX (and Blue Origin!) are the only ones that will do a pad abort test this year. They may even do an in-flight abort test this year. To say the milestones are not a good proxy for how "ahead" one group is compared to another is an understatement.

[Lurker Steve]

I meant that everybody will be done at the same time in the third quarter. In any event, the number of milestones isn't representative of who is ahead. For example, even if SNC had completed all of its milestones, it would still be behind Boeing and SpaceX.

SNC has those 2 milestones for advancing the TRL levels (M9 / M9a).
That's the main measure that I see them behind the other 2.
I think it's important that those get closed out in Q2.

If they fly the ETA again this summer as scheduled, then I think they could easily close the gap.

[joek]

I meant that everybody will be done at the same time in the third quarter. In any event, the number of milestones isn't representative of who is ahead. For example, even if SNC had completed all of its milestones, it would still be behind Boeing and SpaceX.

Agree.  One of the most important milestones is CDR, and one of the objectives of CCiCap was on completion to have two providers at CDR.
- Boeing was Apr-2014; now shows Q3-2014
- SpaceX was Mar-2014; now shows Q2-2014
- SNC undefined; "Incremental Design Review #1" complete last October
Other than that a few changes which look like a few other milestones have been split-spread-slipped.  (Hard to tell in some cases as the milestones are not documented in any SAA or amendment.)  SpaceX Dragon Primary Structure Qualification milestone was Jan-2014 and is now Q2-2014.  That may account for some slip in the pad abort and in-flight abort tests.

A couple other bits:
- All have submitted second set of CPC deliverables.  The final set is due in Jun IIRC as part of CCtCap proposals.
- FAA issued a ruling on NASA astronauts performing crew functions last December (I had not seen that previously).  Short answer: Yes, including piloting the vehicle in an emergency; for details see here.

[A_M_Swallow]

When accessing who is ahead remember the finishing post - successful re-entry after delivering astronauts to the ISS.

I suspect that SNC and SpaceX are on different laps.

[yg1968]

Here is the 700 pages FY 2015 NASA Budget estimate which was released today:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_2015_Budget_Estimates.pdf

NASA is considrering extending CCiCap, see page 427:

NASA is evaluating whether to extend CCiCap milestones through FY 2015. Competition is an important component of the commercial crew program. Competition is a key to controlling costs over the long term and NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has opined that competition should be maintained until safety confidence is achieved.

NASA is considering extending CCiCap. See above.

[newpylong]

SpaceX (and Blue Origin!) are the only ones that will do a pad abort test this year. They may even do an in-flight abort test this year. To say the milestones are not a good proxy for how "ahead" one group is compared to another is an understatement.

Ares-I had an actual test flight in Ares-X, so I don't think the ability to put hardware in the air should be the sole indicator of progress. But I agree, the milestones are not the same across the board so they aren't a good indicator in a vacuum either.

[woods170]

SpaceX (and Blue Origin!) are the only ones that will do a pad abort test this year. They may even do an in-flight abort test this year. To say the milestones are not a good proxy for how "ahead" one group is compared to another is an understatement.

Ares-I had an actual test flight in Ares-X, so I don't think the ability to put hardware in the air should be the sole indicator of progress. But I agree, the milestones are not the same across the board so they aren't a good indicator in a vacuum either.

Emphasis mine.
Wait until Jim has read your statement.

[newpylong]

Should I have said it was off an STS stockpile 4 seg RMSRV with a dummy US going suborbital? If that's what you're getting at it does not change my point.