The CCiCAP Award (PRE- and Post-AWARD DISCUSSION) Thread

[Go4TLI]

I am not sure that it is contradictory because I am almost sure that you would get at least 2 or 3 good proposals for commercial crew services in 2014 like you did for CRS.

It's not so much contradictory as it is changing the tone and moving the goal posts to some extend.  If NASA wants two, there is a minimum they have to pay for two, which is more than the minimum they would have to pay for one.

If they don't pay enough and if one decides to close shop because of it then you are right back to just having one, the pitfalls you claim goes with having one, and money has been wasted on the second. 

[yg1968]

There is a bit of strategy involved. But as you said, if you say in advance that you will have two awards, the two companies would not really be competing against each other (which is a valid point). So strategy-wise, you are better off leaving that possibility open of choosing only one (even if it is remote).

In any event, for the first commercial crew services contract, you should have 3 providers competing for 2 contracts which is why I hope that no other down selection is made before the commercial crew services contract is awarded in 2014 or so.

[dcporter]

I understand your point, I was responding to QuantumG's annoying dismissal. (QG, sorry I never acknowledge the 98% of your posts that are highly informed and insightful!)

Two companies filling two slots is still better than 1/1 though. For an imperfect analogy, see the Kistler implosion: work continued with SpaceX, with no gap, while a replacement was found. Being able to swap out one of your contractors with no gap is miles better than having the threat of a guaranteed gap if your sole supplier flakes or bails or gets unreasonable.

[Go4TLI]

There is a bit of strategy involved. But as you said, if you say in advance that you will have two awards, the two companies would not really be competing against each other (which is a valid point). So strategy-wise, you are better off leaving that possibility open of choosing only one (even if it is remote).

There has been little strategy involved with this entire effort from a policy perspective.  We had somewhat mutually exclusive goals being advertised as the reason for this program offered at different times when the situation called for it until very recently.  We had various administration and NASA officials saying we needed more than one vehicle for more than two years. 

If the motive was to keep quiet on eventual number of providers or to deliver a concise message on the strategic rationale for this program, they failed or at least fumbled mightily, very early on. 

The program, like all programs or projects, could have gained more strength early on from consise goals and rationale on why it is important and what it will achieve. 

[Go4TLI]

I understand your point, I was responding to QuantumG's annoying dismissal. (QG, sorry I never acknowledge the 98% of your posts that are highly informed and insightful!)

Two companies filling two slots is still better than 1/1 though. For an imperfect analogy, see the Kistler implosion: work continued with SpaceX, with no gap, while a replacement was found. Being able to swap out one of your contractors with no gap is miles better than having the threat of a guaranteed gap if your sole supplier flakes or bails or gets unreasonable.

There was a gap with SpaceX.  They are years behind their initially advertised operational date.  NASA also benefited from the fact they had been working the Dragon design for several years and their intention was to always build it.  NASA funding allowed what may have never materialized, or at least not on this time table, to become a reality.  NASA is now sustaining Dragon with CRS funding. 

On the crew side, that may not be the case.  While others have stated they will work their designs to operational status, the business case now really needs to close assuming no NASA funding.  That will likely make it difficult and if an ROI or a reasonable expectation of an ROI in a medium time frame is not seen, the project will be terminated to save resources.

It just becomes a business decision, which unfortunately has to trump the "cool factor" of saying one is building a spaceship

[joek]

There is a bit of strategy involved. But as you said, if you say in advance that you will have two awards, the two companies would not really be competing against each other (which is a valid point). So strategy-wise, you are better off leaving that possibility open of choosing only one (even if it is remote).

If it's similar to NLS or CRS, individual task orders (missions/flights) may still be individually competed, and new providers on-ramped over time.  However, if there are only 2 flights/yr, that contract model may not work.  (I imagine under true IDIQ/NTE, the price could potentially be well above Gerst's previously stated budgetary estimate of $80M/seat.)

In any case, there's significant benefit to maintaining competition until contract award, even if only one contract is ultimately awarded.  Non-compete sole-source contracts carry significant overhead (price/cost justification and accounting rules etc.) that aren't required if competitively bid--that only requires two contenders.

I believe some of those factors are reflected in Ed Mango's previous comment "We need competition. The cost for 1 is greater than for 2 or 3."

[QuantumG]

Is an oligopoly better than a monopoly?

Who cares. It's a horrible situation to find yourself in, let alone to manufacture.

[Robotbeat]

Is an oligopoly better than a monopoly?

Who cares. It's a horrible situation to find yourself in, let alone to manufacture.

The extreme libertarian is the enemy of the pragmatic, market based approach. Because the only alternative is yet more government control. Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.

[spectre9]

This all relies on new destinations coming about.

With only 1 destination and low flight rates of 4 crew at a time this whole program is just a giant waste.

Multiple destinations allows more launches.

The world will not all use the same space station for very long. For a brief period of time during the last Shenzhou mission this already happened.

[Lars_J]

The extreme libertarian is the enemy of the pragmatic, market based approach. Because the only alternative is yet more government control. Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.

What are you blabbering about?

I think he is "blabbering" about the complaints of the people who have a problem with two CC providers.

If the other choice is one exclusive provider or just a NASA run spacecraft development - then two CC providers is clearly better.

Will they put a lot of price pressure on each other? Probably not, oligarchies usually don't. But at least they would provide a transportation system to NASA with a lot fewer critical paths - a failure of one does not have to cause a "new" gap.

With only 1 destination and low flight rates of 4 crew at a time this whole program is just a giant waste.

A giant waste compared to what? Ares I + Orion? Or not flying at all? (always cheaper) 

Multiple destinations allows more launches.

Obviously. But even if CC vehicles only ever flew to ISS, it would not be a waste. If the CC program saves money compared to an in-house NASA program, and allows us to utilize ISS - Then it is not a waste.

[QuantumG]

If the other choice is one exclusive provider or just a NASA run spacecraft development - then two CC providers is clearly better.

Will they put a lot of price pressure on each other? Probably not, oligarchies usually don't. But at least they would provide a transportation system to NASA with a lot fewer critical paths - a failure of one does not have to cause a "new" gap.

Great, so you agree that there's no "competition"? Having multiple providers (for anything) certainly has advantages, which is why the military insists on it, but what does this have to do with competition? The claim was:

In any event, the point of having two commercial crew providers is not just for redundancy pruposes, it's also to have competition between the two.

You're saying it's not, fine, I still don't know what Robotbeat was trying to say.. other than just grasp at any opportunity to bring politics into the discussion.

[WulfTheSaxon]

There is a bit of strategy involved. But as you said, if you say in advance that you will have two awards, the two companies would not really be competing against each other (which is a valid point). So strategy-wise, you are better off leaving that possibility open of choosing only one (even if it is remote).

If it's similar to NLS or CRS, individual task orders (missions/flights) may still be individually competed, and new providers on-ramped over time.  However, if there are only 2 flights/yr, that contract model may not work.  (I imagine under true IDIQ/NTE, the price could potentially be well above Gerst's previously stated budgetary estimate of $80M/seat.)

In any case, there's significant benefit to maintaining competition until contract award, even if only one contract is ultimately awarded.  Non-compete sole-source contracts carry significant overhead (price/cost justification and accounting rules etc.) that aren't required if competitively bid--that only requires two contenders.

I believe some of those factors are reflected in Ed Mango's previous comment "We need competition. The cost for 1 is greater than for 2 or 3."

If they end up with >2 flights/year, I wonder if they might give more flights to the lowest bidder, while still keeping the other one going at a lower flight rate. Keeps the pressure on to reduce costs while also keeping both companies alive.

[spectre9]

With only 1 destination and low flight rates of 4 crew at a time this whole program is just a giant waste.

A giant waste compared to what? Ares I + Orion? Or not flying at all? (always cheaper) 

Multiple destinations allows more launches.

Obviously. But even if CC vehicles only ever flew to ISS, it would not be a waste. If the CC program saves money compared to an in-house NASA program, and allows us to utilize ISS - Then it is not a waste.

A giant waste because NASA is developing 2 extra fully functional extremely expensive spacecraft that might not see any use at all. ISS isn't a planet or moon, it's a disposable space station. It's life compared to the time period these vehicles should be in service is quite small.

Saves money to who?

If saving money was the only goal NASA astronauts would fly on Soyuz until ISS can be cancelled so there is no need for LEO flights.

The goal is to have transport for future LEO space stationS.

[kkattula]

IMO, no way does NASA only contract 2 fl/yr @ $80m per seat. 

It's a good low-end demand estimate that companies can attempt to build a business model on. i.e. If they win, that's the worst case scenario, so they can factor that into their decision of whether it's worth participating in CCDEV & now CCiCAP.

Given one or more vendors offering less per seat at 2 or more flights per year, NASA would be crazy not to contract at least 4 fl/yr across 1 or 2 vendors.

For maybe 20% to 40% more money they would get 100% more flights, 200% more seats if they fly 6 instead of 4 per flight. Compared to the annual ISS budget, it's a small fraction that allows hugely more usage.

[kkattula]

A giant waste because NASA is developing 2 extra fully functional extremely expensive spacecraft that might not see any use at all.
...

NASA isn't developing them, it's providing seed money and technical assistance.

They're not extremely expensive.  Each one is costing NASA less than 10% of what Orion is.

They won't just be used for ISS. They can be used for any crewed LEO missions, including any future LEO space stations, and for Dragon possibly some BEO.

For 0.1% of one year's US budget deficit, it's bloody good value.

[john smith 19]

A giant waste because NASA is developing 2 extra fully functional extremely expensive spacecraft that might not see any use at all.

NASA is not developing them. The suppliers are developing them. It's the difference between a cost plus contract and a fixed price contract. It's also the difference between "insight" and "oversight" and who retains the IP and usage rights.  If you don't know what any of these things are you don't understand why this contract is important.

ISS isn't a planet or moon, it's a disposable space station. It's life compared to the time period these vehicles should be in service is quite small.

It is. But they are not tied either to it or to NASA.

Saves money to who?

If saving money was the only goal NASA astronauts would fly on Soyuz until ISS can be cancelled so there is no need for LEO flights.

Wrong. The *ultimate* way to save money is for NASA to stop sending US (or US sponsored) astronauts to the ISS. With nowhere else to go that would pretty much end NASA human space flight activity for the foreseeable future.

Does that sound like a good idea to you?

Perhaps you are unaware that that Russian seat prices have risen 3x over the last few years. They have very little incentive to stop raising them any further.

Or what about the ULA EELV prices, currently rising about 40% according to Air Force magazine, not to mention the $1Bn/year "assured access" payments USG has to make to ULA.

Both of these situations are a *consequence* of having a *sole* supplier and an insistence on what (up till now) have been *unique* and sometimes unclear detailed requirements ("human rating" for LV's and vehicles docking with ISS, very high launch reliability for EELV)

You appear keen on seeing ISS cancelled ASAP. Do you have some other project in mind that you feel NASA should pursue?

[Rocket Science]

Some have not mentioned the other aspect of this program is to develop another sector orbital tourism. Bigelow is still waiting for services to be in place and SNC and Dream Chaser for Virgin Galactic’s orbital flights. There is a bit more than just ISS flights to service. Speaking of ISS, we could have the CST-100 or Dragon doing long stays as a “life boat” on station and Dream Chaser rotating crews or whichever combination reduces the risk and cost. The point being we still will have multiple launchers and spacecraft which IMHO is a good thing. In the back of my mind has been the CST-100 being developed as a back-up to Orion on SLS down the road in case that program doesn’t go as expected….

[Nomadd]

 Instead of competition, call it "incentive" There's a lot less of it as far as putting your own money into keeping on schedule when you're the only potential supplier.

[spectre9]

A giant waste because NASA is developing 2 extra fully functional extremely expensive spacecraft that might not see any use at all.

NASA is not developing them. The suppliers are developing them. It's the difference between a cost plus contract and a fixed price contract. It's also the difference between "insight" and "oversight" and who retains the IP and usage rights.  If you don't know what any of these things are you don't understand why this contract is important.

ISS isn't a planet or moon, it's a disposable space station. It's life compared to the time period these vehicles should be in service is quite small.

It is. But they are not tied either to it or to NASA.

Saves money to who?

If saving money was the only goal NASA astronauts would fly on Soyuz until ISS can be cancelled so there is no need for LEO flights.

Wrong. The *ultimate* way to save money is for NASA to stop sending US (or US sponsored) astronauts to the ISS. With nowhere else to go that would pretty much end NASA human space flight activity for the foreseeable future.

Does that sound like a good idea to you?

Perhaps you are unaware that that Russian seat prices have risen 3x over the last few years. They have very little incentive to stop raising them any further.

Or what about the ULA EELV prices, currently rising about 40% according to Air Force magazine, not to mention the $1Bn/year "assured access" payments USG has to make to ULA.

Both of these situations are a *consequence* of having a *sole* supplier and an insistence on what (up till now) have been *unique* and sometimes unclear detailed requirements ("human rating" for LV's and vehicles docking with ISS, very high launch reliability for EELV)

You appear keen on seeing ISS cancelled ASAP. Do you have some other project in mind that you feel NASA should pursue?

Ok NASA is helping suppliers develop spacecraft so they don't have to do it themselves because they know if they did it might end up like Ares 1 + CEV. That's probably a bit cynical though, NASA could have built an awesome launcher for Orion, modular using EELV parts. RAC3 SLS would've included some sort of clustered crew launch vehicle that would've been much safer than anything with a giant solid but it was declared unsafe.

NASA can't just stop sending astronauts to ISS. The Soyuz capsules are being paid for and built. That can't be stopped now until at least 2016. The price is actually quite good.

I think that ISS is a bad spot for a space station. It's a great test of what can be done but it was so slow being built I feel it's small and obsolete compared to what could be achieved with more advanced technology.

LEO stations should be easier to get to from the USA, the ISS inclination favours the minor partners to help them out. One Bigelow module should do all the US laboratory needs. JAXA, ESA, CSA would have their own stations and could buy crew services from the USA.

NASA should be focused on a gateway station. First at EML2 then possibly Deimos after some operations at NEAs have paved the way. The bare minimum should be spent on LEO if exploration systems are to be affordable.

[pathfinder_01]

I think that ISS is a bad spot for a space station. It's a great test of what can be done but it was so slow being built I feel it's small and obsolete compared to what could be achieved with more advanced technology.

LEO stations should be easier to get to from the USA, the ISS inclination favours the minor partners to help them out. One Bigelow module should do all the US laboratory needs. JAXA, ESA, CSA would have their own stations and could buy crew services from the USA.

NASA should be focused on a gateway station. First at EML2 then possibly Deimos after some operations at NEAs have paved the way. The bare minimum should be spent on LEO if exploration systems are to be affordable.

ISS is pretty easy to get to from all partner nations. It is just the shuttle that had operational problems getting to the ISS. EELV and Falcon 9 don’t take that much of a hit going to 56 vs. 28 because they can drop fairings or don’t’ carry them. In fact the soviet lunar program was going to depart from that orbit.

Err no the ISS partners might buy additional crew transport via commercial, but the ISS agreement is a trade. NASA provides the crew transport in exchange for lifting cargo ect.. If you had them going to separate stations they would never use US systems to do so.