Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[clongton]

It [Dragon] will be used for cargo, so cost savings would result from shared use for crew - presuming significant crew-cargo commonality which is not a given.

My view differs, Talk is a brand new Dragon is needed so back to square one.

Incorrect. I can't even begin to count the number of times Elon has stated exactly the opposite. The design of Cargo and Crew Dragon is tightly integrated. Cargo Dragon was designed from day 1 to be Crew Dragon. Any changes to the design going forward will be shared tightly between the 2. They are, and will remain, essentially the same spacecraft. Elon has made this point countless times, over and over again.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

joek

The concept of a DTEC phase is dead.  That means that awarding another contract, that includes parts for development, testing, evaluation and certification is dead.

Those activities will, in some fashion still take place, but they won't be an all inclusive phase - All of the development will take place in CCiCap, and all of the Certification will take place in another phase. 

It is my belief and argument that the testing and evaluation will take place in an optional phase of CCiCap. 

And yes, it entirely possible that certification will be done during CCiCap.

yg1968

Define for me what you mean by an onerous certification.  I have a very specific view, but I am curious as to what you think that means and how you define it.

[Go4TLI]

joek

The concept of a DTEC phase is dead.  That means that awarding another contract, that includes parts for development, testing, evaluation and certification is dead.

I'm not sure why people are trying to place everything into categories.  Development testing, simulation, etc and evaluation of that data is happening now in many cases.

Qualification of flight hardware and systems and the subsequent certification of that will happen as the company sees most appropriate, as the vehicles and systems mature, and from an integrated system and scheudle standpoint.  It is likely many of those will fit milestones for whatever NASA is calling the next round. 

It is much too dificult and time consuming to design, develop, test and certify a spacecraft around arbitrary NASA award titles. 

[yg1968]

yg1968

Define for me what you mean by an onerous certification.  I have a very specific view, but I am curious as to what you think that means and how you define it.

Here are the two certification options that are possible according to the commercial crew office's February 7th 2012 presentation (see page 9 of the attached document). I have added additional titles in brackets:

Certification Contract Approaches under consideration

• [1- extensive certification phase] “DTEC” Concept: All activities related to final hardware
development, testing, evaluation, and certification are under the
contract.

• [2- lite certification phase] “Certification” Concept: Reduced scope, as compared to DTEC.
Assumes final hardware development, integration, and industry
certification activities for non-NASA missions occur outside the
contract. Primary effort is safety assessment and verification of
NASA certification requirements. Could involve data buys, directed
testing, and limited hardware integration (e.g., docking system).

At the time NASA said that they were leaning towards the first approach. However, if they use this first approach for certification, the CCiCap optional milestones are not likely to be exercised (or few of them will).

[Political Hack Wannabe]

Go4TLI - the reason for the categorization is very straight forward - it will determine the type of contracting instrument for each phase.  As per the Wolf letter, there is the CCiCAP phase, which has all of the development, and is done under SAA options.  And there is the certification phase, which will be done under FAR.  However, what part of FAR it will be done under has not been formally determined.  It could be done under FAR part 12 (which is where CRS is being done) or it could be done under FAR part 35 (which is where Orion is being done)

[darkenfast]

I've seen pics of astronauts checking out the Dragon mock-up (twice, I think), and we've been told that they've given feedback on it. Can we assume that they have done or will do something similar for CST-100, Dreamchaser, and Blue Origin's biconic vehicle. Does the situation regarding proprietory information mean that we cannot know anything about the astronauts opinions thus far, and also will we ever know? Can the companies release any of that if they felt it was in their interest to do so? I'm talking about the actual sessions at the facilities, not the statements made by ISS crew when inside the cargo Dragon. Oh, to be a fly on the wall...

[Orbital Debris]

I've seen pics of astronauts checking out the Dragon mock-up (twice, I think), and we've been told that they've given feedback on it. Can we assume that they have done or will do something similar for CST-100, Dreamchaser, and Blue Origin's biconic vehicle. Does the situation regarding proprietory information mean that we cannot know anything about the astronauts opinions thus far, and also will we ever know? Can the companies release any of that if they felt it was in their interest to do so? I'm talking about the actual sessions at the facilities, not the statements made by ISS crew when inside the cargo Dragon. Oh, to be a fly on the wall...

One of the milestones for Boeing during CCDEV-1 was delivery of a mockup of CST-100 (the same mockup that has been displayed at several space conventions).  They went through at least one round of evaluations and input from the crew office.  Some modification of the CST-100 mockup was done during the second phase based on evolving designs.  The companies can release the information at their prerogative, but I would not think it would be in their interest.  Most of the comments were on the basis of optimizing the usability of the crew systems.

[Go4TLI]

Go4TLI - the reason for the categorization is very straight forward - it will determine the type of contracting instrument for each phase.  As per the Wolf letter, there is the CCiCAP phase, which has all of the development, and is done under SAA options.  And there is the certification phase, which will be done under FAR.  However, what part of FAR it will be done under has not been formally determined.  It could be done under FAR part 12 (which is where CRS is being done) or it could be done under FAR part 35 (which is where Orion is being done)

You're quite missing my point.  Engineering and developing a spacecraft is not centered around a contract mechanism.  Engineering and development is planned to bring something into creation and operations.  The contract mechanism is simply a vehicle for that. 

For example, if NASA said they wanted to start operations tomorrow and were prepared to issue a contract for that, clearly they are several steps ahead in the overall engineering process.  The contract mechanism or what they call it does not change that. 

[Political Hack Wannabe]

Go4TLI - the reason for the categorization is very straight forward - it will determine the type of contracting instrument for each phase.  As per the Wolf letter, there is the CCiCAP phase, which has all of the development, and is done under SAA options.  And there is the certification phase, which will be done under FAR.  However, what part of FAR it will be done under has not been formally determined.  It could be done under FAR part 12 (which is where CRS is being done) or it could be done under FAR part 35 (which is where Orion is being done)

You're quite missing my point.  Engineering and developing a spacecraft is not centered around a contract mechanism.  Engineering and development is planned to bring something into creation and operations.  The contract mechanism is simply a vehicle for that. 

For example, if NASA said they wanted to start operations tomorrow and were prepared to issue a contract for that, clearly they are several steps ahead in the overall engineering process.  The contract mechanism or what they call it does not change that. 

Here is the problem - you assume that it is a one way street - that engineering and development flow down, and force the hand of the contracting mechanism.  But I can tell you this is not a one way street - the contracting mechanism can heavily influence how things get developed and engineered. 

For example, does the contracting mechanism require the commercial company to change any issue in the design as NASA specifies?  Or is NASA required to negotiate on the issues of design changes?  Also, who retains ownership of the actual vehicle?  And so on.   

The point I am getting at (of which no doubt is going to drive more than a few engineers crazy) is that part of the issue is that the bureaucrats and lawyers and bean-counters are going to be playing a role in the process of development as well. 

To put it bluntly, the last sentence is incorrect.

[PeterAlt]

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. 

Oh, I did not know this. This is indeed good information!

[Jim]

Does the situation regarding proprietory information mean that we cannot know anything about the astronauts opinions thus far, and also will we ever know? Can the companies release any of that if they felt it was in their interest to do so?

It is all up to the companies to release what they want to.

[Go4TLI]

Go4TLI - the reason for the categorization is very straight forward - it will determine the type of contracting instrument for each phase.  As per the Wolf letter, there is the CCiCAP phase, which has all of the development, and is done under SAA options.  And there is the certification phase, which will be done under FAR.  However, what part of FAR it will be done under has not been formally determined.  It could be done under FAR part 12 (which is where CRS is being done) or it could be done under FAR part 35 (which is where Orion is being done)

You're quite missing my point.  Engineering and developing a spacecraft is not centered around a contract mechanism.  Engineering and development is planned to bring something into creation and operations.  The contract mechanism is simply a vehicle for that. 

For example, if NASA said they wanted to start operations tomorrow and were prepared to issue a contract for that, clearly they are several steps ahead in the overall engineering process.  The contract mechanism or what they call it does not change that. 

Here is the problem - you assume that it is a one way street - that engineering and development flow down, and force the hand of the contracting mechanism.  But I can tell you this is not a one way street - the contracting mechanism can heavily influence how things get developed and engineered. 

For example, does the contracting mechanism require the commercial company to change any issue in the design as NASA specifies?  Or is NASA required to negotiate on the issues of design changes?  Also, who retains ownership of the actual vehicle?  And so on.   

The point I am getting at (of which no doubt is going to drive more than a few engineers crazy) is that part of the issue is that the bureaucrats and lawyers and bean-counters are going to be playing a role in the process of development as well. 

To put it bluntly, the last sentence is incorrect.

I am NOT saying engineering forces the contract mechanism.  I am saying the contract method is only a vehicle to complete the engineering. 

The contract does not impact how the vehicle is engineered.  Requirement documents do that.  Contract methods specify deliverables (paper work), finanical transactions, etc.  Contracts also almost always specify what requirements documents the provider is to live by in their bid for the work.  However in this case it would be highly illogical for NASA to specify all kinds of new requirements, potentially invalidating the investment they made to this point.

If the potential providers were ignorant enough to ignore all the CCP requirement documents thus far, then so ends the potential for delivering crew to the ISS and, possibly, has a major impact on having NASA as a customer in the future. 

Finally, there are essentially two layers to this particular certification process.  There is the standard process of saying the vehicle and systems that have been designed and tested meet the specified system requirements and can do the job in which they were intended to do.  There is also now, in this case, the NASA certification saying they meet the requirements levied by the customer from a safety, etc perspective.  One absolutely must be a build off the other, otherwise there are huge problems and what I was saying in the first post is that the providers are already on the way to complete this and the logical progression to get there does not change that much relative to what NASA calls a particular contract. 

When FAR contracts are implemented that good foundation must be there or else the structure collapses. 

[joek]

I'm not sure why people are trying to place everything into categories.  Development testing, simulation, etc and evaluation of that data is happening now in many cases.
...
It is much too dificult and time consuming to design, develop, test and certify a spacecraft around arbitrary NASA award titles. 

The simple answer is that there are restrictions on what contract vehicle can be used for various parts of the program; in particular, SAA's vs. FAR, and specifically, NASA requirements and certification.  There was quite a furball early-mid last year when NASA announced they intended to move from SAA- to FAR-based contracting.

Short form... Industry: SAA good, FAR bad.  NASA: legally we can't levy requirements or perform certification or acquisition with SAA, must use FAR.  The question is what happens under the CCiCap SAA vs. what happens in the yet-to-be FAR contract is largely about how to make the best use of each contracting instrument, especially given time and budget pressure.  The answer to that question may significantly change the complexion of the program; in particular, what happens when, and who is likely to be funded sufficiently to cross the finish line.

The subject of SAA vs. FAR and the implications have been hashed and rehashed in (among others), the following threads:
Commercial Spaceflight Federation Position Statement on SAAs
Commercial Crew Program (CCP-CTS-CCT) Requirements

The contract does not impact how the vehicle is engineered.  Requirement documents do that.  Contract methods specify deliverables (paper work), finanical transactions, etc.  Contracts also almost always specify what requirements documents the provider is to live by in their bid for the work.  However in this case it would be highly illogical for NASA to specify all kinds of new requirements, potentially invalidating the investment they made to this point.

Yes, but again, it's not a question of NASA specifying new requirements.  NASA can not legally levy any program-specific requirements* under an SAA.  It may be highly illogical, but them's the rules.


* A clumsy way to describe the constraint, but the best I can do at the moment.

[yg1968]

There was a big debate about this when CCIDC was announced last year. Under what part of FAR was the (now cancelled) CCIDC going to be under?

[Go4TLI]

Yes, but again, it's not a question of NASA specifying new requirements.  NASA can not legally levy any program-specific requirements* under an SAA.  It may be highly illogical, but them's the rules.


* A clumsy way to describe the constraint, but the best I can do at the moment.

Yes they can and they have, hence the volumes of requirements currently out there.  What they cannot do under an SAA is verify compliance, i.e. paperwork.  This takes me directly to the situation I described above.  NASA still has insight to all of it. 

[joek]

Yes they can and they have, hence the volumes of requirements currently out there.  What they cannot do under an SAA is verify compliance, i.e. paperwork.  This takes me directly to the situation I described above.  NASA still has insight to all of it. 

Adherence to those requirements can not be stipulated in an SAA (never mind compliance verification).  It is not legal for NASA to do so.  Hence the absence of such verbiage in CCiCap, CCDev-1, CCDev-2, or COTS.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

yg1968 - That was under FAR part 35

And its not about verification of requirements, or forced requirements. 

What NASA can't do is CHANGE requirements without negotiations from the company. 

[Prober]

I've seen pics of astronauts checking out the Dragon mock-up (twice, I think), and we've been told that they've given feedback on it. Can we assume that they have done or will do something similar for CST-100, Dreamchaser, and Blue Origin's biconic vehicle. Does the situation regarding proprietory information mean that we cannot know anything about the astronauts opinions thus far, and also will we ever know? Can the companies release any of that if they felt it was in their interest to do so? I'm talking about the actual sessions at the facilities, not the statements made by ISS crew when inside the cargo Dragon. Oh, to be a fly on the wall...

One of the milestones for Boeing during CCDEV-1 was delivery of a mockup of CST-100 (the same mockup that has been displayed at several space conventions).  They went through at least one round of evaluations and input from the crew office.  Some modification of the CST-100 mockup was done during the second phase based on evolving designs.  The companies can release the information at their prerogative, but I would not think it would be in their interest.  Most of the comments were on the basis of optimizing the usability of the crew systems.

As a research tool A fly off (NASA style) should be done.

1)   NASA has plenty of empty rooms
2)   All mockups of the current entrants must setup a display for inspection
3)   Anyone (only) current, past or future from the astronaut corps can participate in confidentially or open as they wish.
4)   Two documents will be filled out:
A)   Q&A each astronaut can fill out for each entrant
B)   Closed ballot box 1st choice, 2nd choice 3rd choice.
5)   Information should be compiled into reports and made public.
A)   Compiled Q&A for each of the entrants provided to improve their product. Full Compiled (all entrants) kept confidential by NASA for review until announment of winners.
B)   Closed ballot results are made public after the final count.


Edit: to make this work, the entrants can provide a 3 page Summary prior to the "closed door review".    None of the entrants or employees. will be allowed in while mockups are in review.

[SpacexULA]

As a research tool A fly off (NASA style) should be done.

1)   NASA has plenty of empty rooms
2)   All mockups of the current entrants must setup a display for inspection
3)   Anyone (only) current, past or future from the astronaut corps can participate in confidentially or open as they wish.
4)   Two documents will be filled out:
A)   Q&A each astronaut can fill out for each entrant
B)   Closed ballot box 1st choice, 2nd choice 3rd choice.
5)   Information should be compiled into reports and made public.
A)   Compiled Q&A for each of the entrants provided to improve their product. Full Compiled (all entrants) kept confidential by NASA for review until announment of winners.
B)   Closed ballot results are made public after the final count.

NASA is not a democracy, and Astronauts are not the experts in this field.  It would be like letting pilots pick the aircrafts DOD buys.

[joek]

yg1968 - That was under FAR part 35

And its not about verification of requirements, or forced requirements. 

What NASA can't do is CHANGE requirements without negotiations from the company. 

Please elaborate.  I get the difference between FAR-12 and FAR-35; I don't understand under what conditions NASA could change requirements without renegotiating the contract?