Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[JohnFornaro]

As I understand "2.5", it means that there will be two winners, and a qualified runner up, in case one of the winners fails.

Each round/competition is independent of the previous one. So the third place finisher could still win a service contract in (or around) 2014. So qualified runner up is not the right way to describe the partial award participant in my opinion. 

My bold.  Nort sure I understand the selection process then.

[yg1968]

For CRS, NASA received bids from Orbital, SpaceX and PlanetSpace. PlanetSpace could have won CRS despite not being part of COTS. The same thing should be true of the commercial crew service contract. It could be won by the third place (i.e., partial award) CCiCap finisher or even somebody that did not receive any funding under CCDev/CCiCap (e.g., Stratolaunch). NASA must evaluate each bid on its merit regardless of what happened in past rounds/competitions.

[Go4TLI]

I've just formulated a new opinion. If the budget situation forces NASA to choose to keep either DC or CST-100, I think the wise choice would be DC. While Boeing may be further along, at the current pace of progress, SNC would probably make it to the finish line before Boeing does. Besides, DC delivers much more capability that CST-100. I would also reserve a token amount of funds to enlist Boeing to the team in an advisory role, lending its experience and expertise to an otherwise inexperienced SNC.

What pace do you believe Boeing is at?  Boeing is also on the SNC Team already. 

[JohnFornaro]

For CRS, NASA received bids from Orbital, SpaceX and PlanetSpace. PlanetSpace could have won CRS despite not being part of COTS. The same thing should be true of the commercial crew service contract. It could be won by the third place (i.e., partial award) CCiCap finisher or even somebody that did not receive any funding under CCDev/CCiCap (e.g., Stratolaunch). NASA must evaluate each bid on its merit regardless of what happened in past rounds/competitions.

Thanks.  Now I'm even more confused!

I thought the downselection process only pertained to the current companies in CCDev. Until the downselection, the contractural arrangements are SAA; afterwards FAR.

Is there an explanation of the overall process somewhere?  I've been reading here and there and generally understand, but it seems the specifics are very important.  I had no idea that new companies, say, StratoLaunch, could be eligible.

[Prober]

Thought Orion lite was more a LM project.  If you look at the paper on it (I bumped the thread on it), the number of ATK employees that designed it shocked me. Last few pages.

Could you link that thread up?

cheers, Martin

Here is the link:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27265.0

Some Pics
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/nasa-tests-all-composite-version-its-orion-space-module

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=28840.0;attach=396483;image

More Up to date info:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28840.0

[MP99]

Should any of NASA’s plans and intentions change from what was agreed to in the exchange of letters, I will reevaluate the situation.  I will continue to follow up with NASA to monitor the implementation of these understandings in fiscal year 2012 – both through committee actions and through appropriate outside oversight – and to ensure that these principles are reflected in any final appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2013.

I guess that "not more than 2.5 (two full and one partial) CCiCAP awards" could also be "one full and two partial", but I believe that would be taken as a lack of commitment to delivering redundant crewed access around 2016. I could see that triggering "reevaluate the situation".

cheers, Martin

Given the skin in the game requirement, the only company that would be interested in being a third wheel would be Blue Origin. But I don't think that is what is meant by partial award. I think that partial award simply means that you get less money for the base period but you are still a full participant.   For example, the partial award winner may only get $300M and the 2 full participants may get the maximum of $500M for the base period.

But your idea of one full award and two partial awards is interesting. It could allow NASA to fast track the most promising proposal and keep competition going between the second and third place finishers through the base period.

Not my idea - I was responding to others who had suggested it.

Personally, I think a straight "2.5" is what rep Wolf had in mind, and is more likely.

BTW, why do you think SNC wouldn't take up a half option if offered to them? $300m is still a lot of funding towards getting them flying, especially if one of the other proposals is covering the HR of Atlas. I assume the required skin would scale down with the level of the award.

cheers, Martin

[joek]

As I understand "2.5", it means that there will be two winners, and a qualified runner up, in case one of the winners fails.

Each round/competition is independent of the previous one. So the third place finisher could still win a service contract in (or around) 2014. So qualified runner up is not the right way to describe the partial award participant in my opinion. 

My bold.  Nort sure I understand the selection process then.

These competitions select who gets funded SAA agreements; legally there can not be a linkage to past or future competitions or SAA awards.  They do not, and can not legally, select or otherwise limit who may ultimately compete for and receive a crew service contract.  Describing this as a "down select" is legally incorrect, but in practice it will have that effect.  Hope that helps.

[JohnFornaro]

...Describing this as a "down select" is legally incorrect, but in practice it will have that effect.  Hope that helps.

Thanks for tryin'. In some ways, rocket science is easier than political science.  What I hear you all saying is that technically, I could offer my commercial crew scheme in this process.  I thought that only the companies already competing for commercial crew would be invited to this competition.

I'll keep reading.

[yg1968]

Not my idea - I was responding to others who had suggested it.

Personally, I think a straight "2.5" is what rep Wolf had in mind, and is more likely.

BTW, why do you think SNC wouldn't take up a half option if offered to them? $300m is still a lot of funding towards getting them flying, especially if one of the other proposals is covering the HR of Atlas. I assume the required skin would scale down with the level of the award.

cheers, Martin

I just meant that the partial award shouldn't be seen as a backup to the first two winners. It's simply an award for less money. Nobody would be interested in being a backup in case somebody else fails.

[joek]

What I hear you all saying is that technically, I could offer my commercial crew scheme in this process.  I thought that only the companies already competing for commercial crew would be invited to this competition.

Yes you could, and no it isn't.  CCiCap is not (cannot be) limited to current participants, if by current you mean those with CCDev-2 SAA's.  The CTS competition will not (cannot be) limited to those who get CCiCap SAA's.  Practically speaking tho, it's extremely unlikely that anyone who doesn't get a CCiCap award will be in the running for CTS.

[yg1968]

For CRS, NASA received bids from Orbital, SpaceX and PlanetSpace. PlanetSpace could have won CRS despite not being part of COTS. The same thing should be true of the commercial crew service contract. It could be won by the third place (i.e., partial award) CCiCap finisher or even somebody that did not receive any funding under CCDev/CCiCap (e.g., Stratolaunch). NASA must evaluate each bid on its merit regardless of what happened in past rounds/competitions.

Thanks.  Now I'm even more confused!

I thought the downselection process only pertained to the current companies in CCDev. Until the downselection, the contractural arrangements are SAA; afterwards FAR.

Is there an explanation of the overall process somewhere?  I've been reading here and there and generally understand, but it seems the specifics are very important.  I had no idea that new companies, say, StratoLaunch, could be eligible.

It is confusing. But here is how the next rounds/phases will work:

1-a) CCiCap base period from August 2012 until May 2014 will be under SAAs.
   b) CCiCap optional milestones will start after May 2014 and are also under SAAs. They include test flights. But they are optional. So they may not be exercised.
2- Certification period will be under FAR and should start in 2014. There are two types of certification phases under consideration:
a- One based on the DTEC concept which would also include test flights.
b- A lite certification phase that does not include test flights. The test flights would likely be done under the CCiCap optional SAA milestones (see 1-b above).
3- Commercial crew service contract will be under FAR and will likely be awarded in 2014 (in my opinion) but the services are likely to actually start in 2017.

Each of these phases/rounds are independent of each other. New companies are allowed to enter in any of these rounds/phases.

[Prober]

What I hear you all saying is that technically, I could offer my commercial crew scheme in this process.  I thought that only the companies already competing for commercial crew would be invited to this competition.

Yes you could, and no it isn't.  CCiCap is not (cannot be) limited to current participants, if by current you mean those with CCDev-2 SAA's.  The CTS competition will not (cannot be) limited to those who get CCiCap SAA's.  Practically speaking tho, it's extremely unlikely that anyone who doesn't get a CCiCap award will be in the running for CTS.

Beleive the deadline for Proposals has passed.

[joek]

Beleive the deadline for Proposals has passed.

Deadline was March 23 2012.

[JohnFornaro]

...technically, I could offer my commercial crew scheme in this process.  I thought that only the companies already competing for commercial crew would be invited...

Yes you could, and no it isn't.  ...  Practically speaking tho, it's extremely unlikely that anyone who doesn't get a CCiCap award will be in the running for CTS.

Thanks.  That makes sense.

It is confusing but here is how the next rounds/phases will work:

...

Each of these phases/rounds are independent of each other. New companies are allowed to enter in any of these rounds.

Thanks again. 

So theoretically, as you note, StratoLaunch could enter, since they at least have the anecdotally verified financing and associated engineering talent.  But.  Pragmatically speaking, they would have to develop their concept to the same stage as Spacex, Boeing, SNC and all, without government financing.  They're already behind the others because they don't have hardware yet; it would be quite the uphill battle for them to enter this competition.  Same for me, technically speaking.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

For CRS, NASA received bids from Orbital, SpaceX and PlanetSpace. PlanetSpace could have won CRS despite not being part of COTS. The same thing should be true of the commercial crew service contract. It could be won by the third place (i.e., partial award) CCiCap finisher or even somebody that did not receive any funding under CCDev/CCiCap (e.g., Stratolaunch). NASA must evaluate each bid on its merit regardless of what happened in past rounds/competitions.

Thanks.  Now I'm even more confused!

I thought the downselection process only pertained to the current companies in CCDev. Until the downselection, the contractural arrangements are SAA; afterwards FAR.

Is there an explanation of the overall process somewhere?  I've been reading here and there and generally understand, but it seems the specifics are very important.  I had no idea that new companies, say, StratoLaunch, could be eligible.

It is confusing. But here is how the next rounds/phases will work:

1-a) CCiCap base period from August 2012 until May 2014 will be under SAAs.
   b) CCiCap optional milestones will start after May 2014 and are also under SAAs. They include test flights. But they are optional. So they may not be exercised.
2- Certification period will be under FAR and should start in 2014. There are two types of certification phases under consideration:
a- One based on the DTEC concept which would also include test flights.
b- A lite certification phase that does not include test flights. The test flights would likely be done under the CCiCap optional SAA milestones (see 1-b above).
3- Commercial crew service contract will be under FAR and will likely be awarded in 2014 (in my opinion) but the services are likely to actually start in 2017.

Each of these phases/rounds are independent of each other. New companies are allowed to enter in any of these rounds/phases.

DTEC is not an option, because DTEC involved development.  Also, certification is not necessarily going to be run in series. 

[yg1968]

So theoretically, as you note, StratoLaunch could enter, since they at least have the anecdotally verified financing and associated engineering talent.  But.  Pragmatically speaking, they would have to develop their concept to the same stage as Spacex, Boeing, SNC and all, without government financing.  They're already behind the others because they don't have hardware yet; it would be quite the uphill battle for them to enter this competition.  Same for me, technically speaking.

Yes that's it. But the case of new entrants such as Stratolaunch raises some interesting question for NASA. Ideally, NASA should have a certification process where companies are allowed to sign an unfunded agreement in order to obtain NASA certification.  But I am not sure if that's possible under FAR.

[yg1968]

DTEC is not an option, because DTEC involved development.  Also, certification is not necessarily going to be run in series. 

NASA is supposed to make a decision this month on what type of certification phase (lite or more extensive based on the DTEC concept) they will choose in 2014. You believe that this decision has already been made based on the Wolf and Bolden letters. But I don't think the letters are very clear on this. If such a decision had been made, it hasn't been made clear.  Before the Wolf announcement, NASA was leaning towards the more extensive (based on the DTEC concept) certification phase. 

[joek]

DTEC is not an option, because DTEC involved development. 

Are you speaking to all of DTEC, or just a part of it?  DTEC as a relatively discrete phase as articulated back in mid-2011 may not be quite as discrete going forward, but some of it appears to still be within the scope of CCiCap; per Bolden's response of 4-Jun to Wolf's letter of 31-May:

As you know, our strategy is two-fold.  NASA is using Space Act Agreements to support the development of commercial crew transportation capabilities that NASA could eventually buy, and will use FAR-based contracts for certification of those capabilities and for the procurement of crew transportation services to and from the ISS.  NASA is developing a strategy to award FAR-based contracts and anticipates having this strategy substantively complete before Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCAP) award.

Also, certification is not necessarily going to be run in series.

Given that NASA certification cannot be required under CCiCAP (or any SAA), you are implying that FAR-based contract(s) being awarded (and funding available) before the completion of CCiCap?

[yg1968]

He is implying that the CCiCap optional milestones period and the lite certification period might overlap in 2014 which the Commercial Crew Office has confirmed last February.

[joek]

Understood.  I thought that's what you stated in your previous post.  Just trying to confirm whether PHW's response was simply reiterating that or something different.