Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[QuantumG]

I don't see why.  The stipulations are the same as COTS and CCDev (AFAICT COTS, CCDev and CCiCAP are identical).  Nothing new or aberrant.

Did you read the letter?

Per our discussions, it is my understanding that NASA now has the following intentions for the CCP:

..

* NASA intends to implement protocols to protect taxpayer interests by ensuring that, in the event of a commercial partner's termination from the program due to default or failure to perform, the government will:

   * have access to and use of data and licenses produced by that partner through the CCP;

   * have the "right of first refusal" to purchase real property produced by that partner through the CCP at a price that fully reflects the Federal investment already made in the acquisition or development of that property

You can't have shared costs and the right of the government to acquire your property at just the costs they paid if you fail. No-one would take that deal. It's EELV all over again.

[QuantumG]

, so they won't accept new strings being attached.

They aren't new.  They have always been there.

If that's true, you should have no problem producing them.

[neilh]

Then expect SpaceX, Blue Origin and maybe even SNC to walk.

I don't see why.  The stipulations are the same as COTS and CCDev (AFAICT COTS, CCDev and CCiCAP are identical).  Nothing new or aberrant.

Could you point out where they're specified for COTS and Ccdev? I've been searching and haven't been able to find anything. I'm interested in seeing how the language compares to right of first return or right of first offer.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

The issue isn't timing.  Its more complex than that

First, why do we care if we have no other vehicles other than Soyuz or Orion?  For that matter, why do we care if we have Soyuz and Orion?  Or ISS for that matter? 

To put it bluntly - I want to take every piece of HSF hardware, determine whether it serves the goal of space settlement, and if it doesn't, chuck it.  Further, I want to place all of our chips on the bet of space settlement (which is something we don't know that we can do).  In effect, I am saying I want to get rid of anything that isn't serving the purpose of space settlement, and I don't know that we can do space settlement.  Yes, that should be a scary proposition for anyone. 

The second part of this is that you are operating on the position that until we see a clear demonstrated need for demand, doing anything on the supply side is unlikely to actually advance the cause of spaceflight.  Thus, you are looking for the killer app, that will demand that we find cheaper ways to do things in space. 

I am looking at it from the supply side of the equation.  That is, that if there is a large amount of infrastructure created to doing in space stuff, then people will take it and try and create a demand for it.  In other words, I am not looking for a killer app for space transportation because the killer app for space transportation is space transportation.  Space development, IMHO, will NOT be based on finding some killer app that demands we spend huge amounts of money bringing the price of spaceflight down.  Rather, it will happen when we have lots of infrastructure that is encouraging people to try and utilize space in new ways, that they can then monetize and sell. 

In short - I don't know what the industries are.  I submit we don't need to know what they are.  For a really good explainer of this, I suggest you see if you can find video of Jeff Greason's speech at this year's ISDC. 

In the short term, if you are any a position to advocate two vehicle funding with out political leadership I would suggest trying to sell that as a package that includes more flights to ISS.  Perhaps sending payload specialists there for a week at a time.  Then commercial crew can get some of the funds from the station budget.

I absolutely believe that needs to be part of the equation.  However, I would expand that somewhat, to be that its not just that we need more flights to ISS.  But we need a much more effort put forward towards ISS utilization. 

[Chris Bergin]

Let's not derail this. Thread title is the discussion point.

If I'm brought back to this, it'll result in thread trimming.

[Jim]

If that's true, you should have no problem producing them.

the FAR contracts, it is standard wording

[Jim]

You can't have shared costs and the right of the government to acquire your property at just the costs they paid if you fail. No-one would take that deal. It's EELV all over again.

Huh?  Nothing of the sort has happened to EELV.  Boeing and LM own the intellectual property and real property.  The USAF owns nothing.  The USAF is paying for assured and added capability.

[AnalogMan]

Then expect SpaceX, Blue Origin and maybe even SNC to walk.

I don't see why.  The stipulations are the same as COTS and CCDev (AFAICT COTS, CCDev and CCiCAP are identical).  Nothing new or aberrant.

Could you point out where they're specified for COTS and Ccdev? I've been searching and haven't been able to find anything. I'm interested in seeing how the language compares to right of first return or right of first offer.

From the draft SAA in the CCiCAP Announcement:

ARTICLE 27. TITLE AND RIGHTS IN PROPERTY
Company X will have title to property it acquires or develops under this Agreement. In the event of termination of this Agreement for any reason under Article 16, NASA will have the right to purchase any such property. The Parties will negotiate in good faith purchase prices for specific items of property. The negotiated prices will be based on Company X’s actual costs for purchase or development of the specific item(s), or fair market value, whichever is less. This price will then be discounted by a percentage that reflects the ratio of Government funding provided under the Agreement versus the amount of Company X funding used to develop the specific item(s) of property. ($2 of Government funds v. $1 of participant funds = 2/3 = 66.6% discount.).

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/149848-SOL-001-002.doc

Virtually identical wording is included in the Draft SAA for CCDEV-2

ARTICLE 26.  TITLE AND RIGHTS IN PROPERTY
Company X will have title to property acquired or developed under this Agreement, including developed or acquired by Company X for CCDev 2 efforts.  In the event of termination of this Agreement for any reason under Article 16, NASA will have the right to purchase any such property.  The Parties will negotiate in good faith purchase prices for specific items of property.  The negotiated prices will be based on Company X’s actual costs for purchase or development of the specific item(s), or fair market value, whichever is less.  This price will then be discounted by a percentage that reflects the ratio of government funding provided under the Agreement versus the amount of Company X funding used to develop the specific item(s) of property.  ($2 of government funds v. $1 of participant funds = 2/3 = 66.6% discount.).

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/144064-SOL-001-002.docx

[QuantumG]

If that's true, you should have no problem producing them.

the FAR contracts, it is standard wording

We're talking about CCiCap. If all this stuff is delayed to the certification phase then I don't have any problem with it, because - like CRS - cost sharing at that point is negligible, and exactly what NASA can appropriate at cost in case of default is reasonable.

[Jim]

If that's true, you should have no problem producing them.

the FAR contracts, it is standard wording

We're talking about CCiCap. If all this stuff is delayed to the certification phase then I don't have any problem with it, because - like CRS - cost sharing at that point is negligible, and exactly what NASA can appropriate at cost in case of default is reasonable.

See above for SAA's and it was the in the COTS SAA's.

[QuantumG]

From the draft SAA in the CCiCAP Announcement:

ARTICLE 27. TITLE AND RIGHTS IN PROPERTY

Thanks AnalogMan.. that sounds outright fair, and if that's what Wolf is objecting to then I'd be interested in hearing what it is that Bolden just agreed to. If Wolf is just ignorant of those provisions and it is what he had in mind, then it's all just a storm in a teacup.

[Jim]

Take a different tact.  Look at everything as positive and not NASA or the gov't trying to muck things up.  It will all work out in the end.  After all, Cxp got cancelled.

[mr. mark]

"In the event of termination of this Agreement for (any reason under Article 16), NASA will have the (right) to purchase any such property". NASA is not acting as a customer, it is acting as a minority business partner. Business customers don't normally have rights to acquire a business' intellectual property in a default. This is the last I will say on this but, I am disheartened because my illusions of these being private companies are gone.

With that said...
1. Boeing CST-100
2.SpaceX Dragon
2.5 Sierra Nevada Dreamchaser   

[QuantumG]

Take a different tact.  Look at everything as positive and not NASA or the gov't trying to muck things up.  It will all work out in the end.  After all, Cxp got cancelled.

Heh, can you lend me your rose glasses?

[Jim]

This is the last I will say on this but, I am disheartened because my illusions of these being private companies are gone. 

No different than what has been done in the past since the 50's.  Every unmanned spacecraft contract has similar clauses.  Even COTS has the clause.

[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.

In order to preserve maximum options now that we are no longer creating an industry as a goal,  I expect it to be

1.  Boeing
2.  SNC
2.5.  SpaceX

This is of course assuming good proposals to the RFP.  Subcontractors are not a consideration and it is up to the awarded company to spend the money accordingly in order to meet agreed to milestones

Creating an industry is still a goal but it is no longer a primary goal. The primary goal is to service the ISS as quickly as possible. This primary goal could help SpaceX get a full award given that its spacecraft is further along than the other ones.  For DC, I meant that all of the milestones would go to the development of the spacecraft and none to the LV. I don't know if that is a possibility but I am guessing that this could be considered a "partial award". 

[Ronsmytheiii]

Take a different tact.  Look at everything as positive and not NASA or the gov't trying to muck things up.  It will all work out in the end.  After all, Cxp got cancelled.

Heh, can you lend me your rose glasses?

Jim have rose glasses? ......Really?

So predictions for predictions for down select

A. ATK/Liberty
B. Boeing/CST-100/Atlas V
S C. SpaceX/Dragon/Falcon 9

Note none of those are in order as I won't speculate who will get the half contract, but those three seem to be the strongest contenders at this point.

[Jason1701]

SpaceX and Boeing get full funding, SNC partial.

[vt_hokie]

SpaceX and Boeing get full funding, SNC partial.

I hope it's SpaceX and SNC...do we really need two types of LEO capsules? 

[Lobo]

SpaceX and Boeing get full funding, SNC partial.

I hope it's SpaceX and SNC...do we really need two types of LEO capsules? 

Don't really need two, but two would mean one couldn't get too cocky and try to jack up their prices, as you then start giving the other more business, or take that into consideration when it comes time to renegotiate the contracts.

With a capsule and space plane, they have different perceived capabilities, and it's not quite as much of an apples-to-apples comparison.  Or at least it will be argued to be apples-to-oranges.  So you might get both the space plane and capsule providers trying to stick it to you under the pretence you can't do without either. 
In truth, they would be about the same, with the Capsule being more capable becuase it doesn't have all of the drawbacks the space plane does.  It's just a more efficient geometric shape without having to haul wings and a large TPS surface up to space. 

DC is very "cool", but I don't think it offers anything a capsule doesn't.  there is something about a reduced g-load on reentry I think, but I'm not sure how big of a consideration that would really be.

However, with all of that said, DC smacks of the Space Shuttle, which seems more "futuristic" and more airplane like than a capsule.  Even though in reality it doesn't, a space plane -seems- like a advancement, while a capsule seems a little "old tech".  (again, all perception).  So I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some consideration for that "futuristic" factor in the selection process that gives them a fair shot.