Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[Political Hack Wannabe]

There will be at least 2 awards, and perhaps 2 and a follower

The letter doesn't say anything about a follower; it says partial funding.

From the press release

Additionally, NASA has stated that it will reduce the number of awards anticipated to be made this summer from the 4 awards made under commercial crew development round 2 to not more than 2.5 (two full and one partial) CCiCAP awards.  This downselect will reduce taxpayer exposure by concentrating funds on those participants who are most likely to be chosen to eventually provide service to ISS.

[mr. mark]

"Finally, NASA has specified that it will vet commercial crew participants’ financial health and viability before providing CCiCAP funds and (ensure the government's “first right of refusal” to acquire property developed under or acquired as part of the commercial crew program) at a price that reflects the taxpayers’ existing investment in its development".

Not sure how to legally read this but, I would now assume that SpaceX and Blue Origin will most likely bow out if NASA retains property rights of technology developed. This would basically mean that SpaceX will continue cargo only. Musk is not going to give up rights developed to NASA.

[Lars_J]

Isn't that "first right of refusal" if the company would go under and/or be sold off?

[mr. mark]

I hope you are right or this is going to Boeing by default. We'll have to see.

[mmeijeri]

Isn't that "first right of refusal" if the company would go under and/or be sold off?

I hope that's what it is and I think it's a good idea. Performance bonds are another potential tool to safeguard NASA investment. Of course, we hear of no such demands on SLS / Orion...

[mr. mark]

Even if SpaceX went belly up, would Musk sign away his rights to ownership of said intellectual property? I would say no as he could sell those designs to another company on his own or form a new company. Giving them to NASA outright is not good business although NASA has partially paid for development of designs and should receive just compensation. This sounds like a no winner for Musk. He would be better off gambling on Bigelow and DragonLab.

[joek]

Isn't that "first right of refusal" if the company would go under and/or be sold off?

Yes.  Same verbiage is in all previous COTS and CCDev SAA's.  Also covers if agreement is terminated because of non-performance.

[yg1968]

There will be at least 2 awards, and perhaps 2 and a follower

The letter doesn't say anything about a follower; it says partial funding.

From the press release

Additionally, NASA has stated that it will reduce the number of awards anticipated to be made this summer from the 4 awards made under commercial crew development round 2 to not more than 2.5 (two full and one partial) CCiCAP awards.  This downselect will reduce taxpayer exposure by concentrating funds on those participants who are most likely to be chosen to eventually provide service to ISS.

Does that mean that you agree? In my mind, there is a difference between a follower and a partial award. A partial award just means that you are getting less than the other ones. 

[mr. mark]

Isn't that "first right of refusal" if the company would go under and/or be sold off?

Yes.  Same verbiage is in all previous COTS and CCDev SAA's.  Also covers if agreement is terminated because of non-performance.

In essence, this would mean that the US government is partial owner of cargo Dragon. "Also covers if agreement is terminated because on non-performance". In other words if SpaceX were to have stopped COTS prematurely for any reason NASA could claim ownership under right of first refusal of cargo Dragon systems. Man oh man, I see some IPO showstoppers already.

[joek]

Isn't that "first right of refusal" if the company would go under and/or be sold off?

Yes.  Same verbiage is in all previous COTS and CCDev SAA's.  Also covers if agreement is terminated because of non-performance.

In essence, this would mean that the US government is partial owner of cargo Dragon. "Also covers if agreement is terminated because on non-performance. In other words if SpaceX were to have stopped COTS prematurely for any reason NASA could claim ownership under right of first refusal of cargo Dragon systems. 

Yes, but you're painting with way too broad a brush.  NASA contributed some money to some parts.

Basic rule is: Don't start the game unless you intend to finish.  If you decide for whatever reason you don't want to play any more, or you can't play because you're out of gas, you'll have to sell us the mables we helped you build so we can go find someone else to finish the game.

[mr. mark]

Yes but, this is bad business especially if critical systems are involved. NASA is supposed to be a client customer not an investor, co-owner. The money for COTS should have been subjected as a grant not as a part of said ownership. What this does in the case of SpaceX is create a potential IPO problem. With SpaceX not retaining ownership of intellectual property and the freedom to dispose of that said intellectal property in a way it sees fit, it creates a large problem.

[yg1968]

Yes but, this is bad business especially if critical systems are involved. NASA is supposed to be a client customer not an investor, co-owner. The money for COTS should have been subjected as a grant not as a part of said ownership. What this does in the case of SpaceX is create a potential IPO problem. With SpaceX not retaining ownership of intellectual property and the freedom to dispose of that said intellectal property in a way it sees fit, it creates a large problem.

COTS is pretty much over. Besides, SpaceX selling part of its assets doesn't mean that it has failed to perform. I see no reasons to believe that SpaceX will fail to perform under CCiCap.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

There will be at least 2 awards, and perhaps 2 and a follower

The letter doesn't say anything about a follower; it says partial funding.

From the press release

Additionally, NASA has stated that it will reduce the number of awards anticipated to be made this summer from the 4 awards made under commercial crew development round 2 to not more than 2.5 (two full and one partial) CCiCAP awards.  This downselect will reduce taxpayer exposure by concentrating funds on those participants who are most likely to be chosen to eventually provide service to ISS.

Does that mean that you agree? In my mind, there is a difference between a follower and a partial award. A partial award just means that you are getting less than the other ones. 

I am not certain what you are really refering to when you say a partial award. 

Think of it this way.  CCDev 2 had 3 leaders  (SpaceX, SNC, Boeing)  and 1 follower (Blue Origin).  The language originally said there would be only 1 award, or 1+1 awards (1 leader award and 1 follower award).  This means that there will be at least 2 substantial awards, and maybe a smaller award for a follower. 

In other words, it'll be like CCDev 2, minus 1 of the leader awards. 

Does that answer your question?

[mr. mark]

True but, according to the Wolf document, the rules of transfer for COTS also apply to CCDEV. SpaceX's development of systems are under NASA's right of first refusal. I'm not sure when the rules of this proposal would start to apply but any manned Dragon systems under said agreement would be under NASA's right of first refusal. SpaceX has already received funding under CCDEV which would mean this agreement already applies. That means that NASA is also in essence part owner/investor of manned Dragon. Bad business as NASA can claim ownership of said systems if SpaceX were to balk at the agreement for any reason. This is an IPO nightmare.

[Lobo]

If I were to rank them:

1. SpaceX
2. Boeing
3. Sierra Nevada
4. Liberty
5. Blue Origin

I would probably rank them like this:

1.  Liberty
2.  SpaceX
3.  Boeing
4.  Sierra NEvada
5.  Blue Origin.

Since there has to be a down selection, I'm fairly sure Blue Origin would be the first out.
I think SNC and Boeing might be sort of tied.  Boeing has more pull, but SNC offers a reusable space plane, like a mini-shuttle.  It makes for good press, and a reusable space plane looks more "futuristic" than a capsule.  See STS.  It woudl have good face, and that might give it an edge in many people's minds.
SpaceX's recent success certainly makes a good case for them.  They are closest to actually delivering the goods.  However, their success might work against them.  The government likes to spread things around.  SpaceX already has a CRS contract, and a list of commercial customers lined up.  Maybe even some DoD business.  The bid for commercial crew might be a casualty of the "spreading it around" mentality.
That leave Liberty, from out of nowhere.  But here’s a few things to consider.
A good deal of their capsule appears to be developed already under CxP competition.  And would be built by LM with some commonality with Orion.  That looks good on paper.  They have the political clout of say a Boeing, obviously.  And the 1st stage of Liberty will be the same 5-seg SRB as SLS.  I have a hunch the advanced boosters will be put off for awhile, maybe a long while, if ATK can offer NASA a good price on the 5-seg SRB’s.  And indicators are that they’ve done that.  So we may see 10 SLS flights or more with the SRB’s.  Again, that’s commonality that looks good on paper.  The 5-seg SRB has basically been already developed and paid for by old CxP funding, so there will also be a mindset in some to want to utilize that, rather than throwing it away right away for advanced boosters. 

In short, Blue Origin will be out.  Boeing and SNC might be a toss up, with one beating the other.  The ability to man-rate Atlas V and figure out a crew launch facility will effect both of them equally.  SpaceX and Liberty I think are the two strongest players now, but SpaceX’s success may get them down selected to spread the love around a little better.  If they pear it down to 3 contractors, I think it will be Liberty, SpaceX, and either Boeing or SNC.  If it gets paired down to just 2, it’s possible SpaceX gets edged out, and it’s Liberty, and either SNC or Boeing.
Anyway, as always, I might be wrong.  This is just speculation.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

True but, according to the Wolf document, the rules of transfer for COTS also apply to CCDEV. SpaceX's development of systems are under NASA's right of first refusal. I'm not sure when the rules of this proposal would start to apply but any manned Dragon systems under said agreement would be under NASA's right of first refusal. SpaceX has already received funding under CCDEV which would mean this agreement already applies. That means that NASA is also in essence part owner/investor of manned Dragon. Bad business as NASA can claim ownership of said systems if SpaceX were to balk at the agreement for any reason. This is an IPO nightmare.

I am pretty sure, after having talked to 2 different people, that this only comes into play if SpaceX (or any awardie) is unable to meet their obligation (due to something like a bankruptcy). 

I don't believe this will be that big of a deal.  YMMV

[yg1968]

True but, according to the Wolf document, the rules of transfer for COTS also apply to CCDEV. SpaceX's development of systems are under NASA's right of first refusal. I'm not sure when the rules of this proposal would start to apply but any manned Dragon systems under said agreement would be under NASA's right of first refusal. SpaceX has already received funding under CCDEV which would mean this agreement already applies. That means that NASA is also in essence part owner/investor of manned Dragon. Bad business as NASA can claim ownership of said systems if SpaceX were to balk at the agreement for any reason. This is an IPO nightmare.

I am pretty sure, after having talked to 2 different people, that this only comes into play if SpaceX (or any awardie) is unable to meet their obligation (due to something like a bankruptcy). 

I don't believe this will be that big of a deal.  YMMV

It's actually clearly stated in Wolf's letter than it is only in case of default or non-performance that the IP becomes an issue.

http://wolf.house.gov/uploads/DOC053112-160324.pdf

[yg1968]

There will be at least 2 awards, and perhaps 2 and a follower

The letter doesn't say anything about a follower; it says partial funding.

From the press release

Additionally, NASA has stated that it will reduce the number of awards anticipated to be made this summer from the 4 awards made under commercial crew development round 2 to not more than 2.5 (two full and one partial) CCiCAP awards.  This downselect will reduce taxpayer exposure by concentrating funds on those participants who are most likely to be chosen to eventually provide service to ISS.

Does that mean that you agree? In my mind, there is a difference between a follower and a partial award. A partial award just means that you are getting less than the other ones. 

I am not certain what you are really refering to when you say a partial award. 

Think of it this way.  CCDev 2 had 3 leaders  (SpaceX, SNC, Boeing)  and 1 follower (Blue Origin).  The language originally said there would be only 1 award, or 1+1 awards (1 leader award and 1 follower award).  This means that there will be at least 2 substantial awards, and maybe a smaller award for a follower. 

In other words, it'll be like CCDev 2, minus 1 of the leader awards. 

Does that answer your question?

The letter uses the term "partial award". The concept of leader follower was used in the House Report. The leader-follower concept is used by the DOD and means this:

Leader-Follower Concept

A government contractual relationship for the delivery of an end item through a prime or subcontract relationship or to provide assistance to another company. Variants include:

1.) A prime contract awarded to established source (leader) who is obligated to subcontract to and assist another source (follower).
2.) A contract is awarded requiring the leader to assist the follower who has the prime contract for production.
3.) A prime contract awarded to the follower for production, and the follower is obligated to subcontract with a designated leader for assistance. (The leader may be producing under another contract.)

In any event, I am glad that they have moved away from the leader-follower concept which was a bad idea.

[yg1968]

I wonder if this could be a solution under a 2.5 commercial crew provider scenario:
1- SpaceX
2- Boeing with ULA as a subcontractor
2.5- DC without any funding going to ULA.

[QuantumG]

Will the right to acquire apply to CCiCap or the FAR certification process that follows it?

If the former, SpaceX and Blue Origin will be taking their ball and going home.

1. Boeing / ULA
2. Liberty
2.5 SNC (maybe)

If the latter, it'll be a fight between Boeing and ATK for second place.