NASA News Conference on the Completion of the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program

[John44]

NASA Administrator Bolden to Hail Success of Commercial Cargo Program

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden will discuss the success of the agency's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) initiative during a televised news briefing at 11:30 a.m. EST Wednesday, Nov. 13.

Through COTS, NASA's partners Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences Corp., developed new U.S. rockets and spacecraft, launched from U.S. soil, capable of transporting cargo to low-Earth orbit and the International Space Station.

A successful Orbital Sciences demonstration mission to the space station was completed in October, signifying the end of COTS development. SpaceX made its first trip to the space station in May 2012 and completed its COTS partnership with NASA the same year. The agency now contracts space station cargo resupply missions with both companies.

The briefing will be held in the James E. Webb Auditorium at NASA Headquarters at 300 E St. SW in Washington. It will be broadcast live on NASA Television and streamed on the agency's website.

The participants will be:

-- Charles Bolden, NASA Administrator
-- Alan Lindenmoyer, Manager of Commercial Crew and Cargo Program, NASA
-- Gwynne Shotwell, President, SpaceX
-- Frank Culbertson, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Orbital Sciences Advanced Programs Group
-- Frank Slazer, Vice President of Space Systems, Aerospace Industries Association
-- Phil McAlister, Director of Commercial Spaceflight Development, NASA


NASA News Conference on the Completion of the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8587

[yg1968]

Some discussion on commercial crew during the question period. McCalister says that competition is still very important to NASA. He said that NASA is always going to have budget issues but insisted that NASA must have a program that works for them and they think that having competition is in their best interest.  I completely agree with him.

[jongoff]

I wish CC* was taking an approach closer to what has worked so well for the COTS program. If Congress gets its way and forces a downselect to one provider with cost-plus FAR based contracting and traditional NASA oversight, they should rename the program and remove the word "commercial" entirely, because it'll have nothing in common at that point with COTS other than the destination. I just don't want "commercial" taking the fall for business as usual results from business as usual approaches.

~Jon

[clongton]

I wish CC* was taking an approach closer to what has worked so well for the COTS program. If Congress gets its way and forces a downselect to one provider with cost-plus FAR based contracting and traditional NASA oversight, they should rename the program and remove the word "commercial" entirely, because it'll have nothing in common at that point with COTS other than the destination. I just don't want "commercial" taking the fall for business as usual results from business as usual approaches.

~Jon

I completely agree. NASA should simply set the standards it wants adhered to and then get the hell out of the way. Above and beyond that, NASA's involvement should be limited to just buying tickets and boarding passes from approved carriers. - Nothing more.

[joek]

I wish CC* was taking an approach closer to what has worked so well for the COTS program. If Congress gets its way and forces a downselect to one provider with cost-plus FAR based contracting and traditional NASA oversight, they should rename the program and remove the word "commercial" entirely, because it'll have nothing in common at that point with COTS other than the destination. I just don't want "commercial" taking the fall for business as usual results from business as usual approaches.

I completely agree. NASA should simply set the standards it wants adhered to and then get the hell out of the way. Above and beyond that, NASA's involvement should be limited to just buying tickets and boarding passes from approved carriers. - Nothing more.

I think NASA et. al. will get there, but this whole "commercial" approach is relatively new for them, and they're still trying to figure it out.  Ideally we would have harmonized standards between NASA the FAA and the USAF (when using USAF ranges). Unfortunately we're not there yet.  However, I think NASA's CC* heart is in the right place, and they are pedaling as fast as they can.  Are they progressing as fast as I would like?  No.  Are they headed in the right direction?  By all indications, yes.

[Lar]

I wish CC* was taking an approach closer to what has worked so well for the COTS program. If Congress gets its way and forces a downselect to one provider with cost-plus FAR based contracting and traditional NASA oversight, they should rename the program and remove the word "commercial" entirely, because it'll have nothing in common at that point with COTS other than the destination. I just don't want "commercial" taking the fall for business as usual results from business as usual approaches.

I completely agree. NASA should simply set the standards it wants adhered to and then get the hell out of the way. Above and beyond that, NASA's involvement should be limited to just buying tickets and boarding passes from approved carriers. - Nothing more.

I think NASA et. al. will get there, but this whole "commercial" approach is relatively new for them, and they're still trying to figure it out.  Ideally we would have harmonized standards between NASA the FAA and the USAF (when using USAF ranges). Unfortunately we're not there yet.  However, I think NASA's CC* heart is in the right place, and they are pedaling as fast as they can.  Are they progressing as fast as I would like?  No.  Are they headed in the right direction?  By all indications, yes.

The problem isn't NASA itself (IMHO) it's the congresscritters that want to force things (and possibly kill the program?)...

[Jim]

Ideally we would have harmonized standards between NASA the FAA and the USAF (when using USAF ranges). Unfortunately we're not there yet.

Yes, they have.  The FAA standards are similar to the USAF.  NASA doesn't matter because it doen't manage ranges.

[Chris Bergin]

Will look to write an article on this today (or part of a later feature), as it's a milestone.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I wish CC* was taking an approach closer to what has worked so well for the COTS program. If Congress gets its way and forces a downselect to one provider with cost-plus FAR based contracting and traditional NASA oversight, they should rename the program and remove the word "commercial" entirely, because it'll have nothing in common at that point with COTS other than the destination. I just don't want "commercial" taking the fall for business as usual results from business as usual approaches.
~Jon

Exactly what I think as well!

[muomega0]

I wish CC* was taking an approach closer to what has worked so well for the COTS program. If Congress gets its way and forces a downselect to one provider with cost-plus FAR based contracting and traditional NASA oversight, they should rename the program and remove the word "commercial" entirely, because it'll have nothing in common at that point with COTS other than the destination. I just don't want "commercial" taking the fall for business as usual results from business as usual approaches.

I completely agree. NASA should simply set the standards it wants adhered to and then get the hell out of the way. Above and beyond that, NASA's involvement should be limited to just buying tickets and boarding passes from approved carriers. - Nothing more.

I think NASA et. al. will get there, but this whole "commercial" approach is relatively new for them, and they're still trying to figure it out.  Ideally we would have harmonized standards between NASA the FAA and the USAF (when using USAF ranges). Unfortunately we're not there yet.  However, I think NASA's CC* heart is in the right place, and they are pedaling as fast as they can.  Are they progressing as fast as I would like?  No.  Are they headed in the right direction?  By all indications, yes.

NASA has been procuring services and hardware for decades, mostly by requirements and not specifications, so this is really not a new approach.  Recall that NASA is at least 80% outsourced.
The issue is available budget vs missions  vs demonstrations vs technology vs future economics, politics, etc...

Can you clarify what you mean by "get of the way"? 

It would seem that a careful balance is required and stating get of the way is too simplistic.   With inexperience or something else, which can result from being out of the way, it does not take congress to "require" less efficient approaches.

Everyone wants the success story and history has shown all sides.  Ever had a low bid deliver or not deliver on that home or work project/service?   Ever hear of the $8B space station?  Ever heard of a prime contractor have a subcontract not deliver, then ask the government for more money when the government, by definition, is "out of the way"?

Which part of the government do you want to get out of the way when the downselect date is a) soon  b) optimal, c)  20 years from now?   With or without government funding?   Is it in the best interests to allow the "government" to be (hopefully efficiently) involved. What if all the providers deliver and ISS splashdown occurs in 2016?   Perhaps Jon's suggestion should be considered rather than get of the way?

Check out Joint Confidence Level Paradox - A History of Denial

[joek]

Ideally we would have harmonized standards between NASA the FAA and the USAF (when using USAF ranges). Unfortunately we're not there yet.

Yes, they have.  The FAA standards are similar to the USAF.  NASA doesn't matter because it doen't manage ranges.

The context is specifically human space flight.   In that context, as stated by the IG and with NASA management's concurrence, they are not harmonized.  Which is why a new NASA-FAA-USAF authority is being created to deal with the issue.

[newpylong]

I wish CC* was taking an approach closer to what has worked so well for the COTS program. If Congress gets its way and forces a downselect to one provider with cost-plus FAR based contracting and traditional NASA oversight, they should rename the program and remove the word "commercial" entirely, because it'll have nothing in common at that point with COTS other than the destination. I just don't want "commercial" taking the fall for business as usual results from business as usual approaches.

~Jon

I completely agree. NASA should simply set the standards it wants adhered to and then get the hell out of the way. Above and beyond that, NASA's involvement should be limited to just buying tickets and boarding passes from approved carriers. - Nothing more.

Why should NASA "get out of the way"? Is it because SpaceX and SNC, etc. have such a long history of human spaceflight? Have you taken a moment to think that these companies are actively seeking guidance from the agency?

[Sesquipedalian]

I completely agree. NASA should simply set the standards it wants adhered to and then get the hell out of the way. Above and beyond that, NASA's involvement should be limited to just buying tickets and boarding passes from approved carriers. - Nothing more.

Why should NASA "get out of the way"? Is it because SpaceX and SNC, etc. have such a long history of human spaceflight? Have you taken a moment to think that these companies are actively seeking guidance from the agency?

This is a ridiculous misreading of his point.  "Getting out of the way" means not standing in the way and handicapping progress by micromanagement or improper direction.  "Getting out of the way" by no means precludes "running alongside" providing advice and consultation.

[jongoff]

I wish CC* was taking an approach closer to what has worked so well for the COTS program. If Congress gets its way and forces a downselect to one provider with cost-plus FAR based contracting and traditional NASA oversight, they should rename the program and remove the word "commercial" entirely, because it'll have nothing in common at that point with COTS other than the destination. I just don't want "commercial" taking the fall for business as usual results from business as usual approaches.

~Jon

I completely agree. NASA should simply set the standards it wants adhered to and then get the hell out of the way. Above and beyond that, NASA's involvement should be limited to just buying tickets and boarding passes from approved carriers. - Nothing more.

Why should NASA "get out of the way"? Is it because SpaceX and SNC, etc. have such a long history of human spaceflight? Have you taken a moment to think that these companies are actively seeking guidance from the agency?

I think "get out of the way" is the wrong way to phrase it. I think taking a lightweight "insight" approach vs. a traditional "oversight" approach can make sense here, like it did for COTS. For COTS NASA also wanted to increase the odds that the cargo would arrive safely, and that the vehicles would not damage ISS. So they had insight into the planned processes, and could suggest changes/improvements (which the companies, AIUI typically tried to incorporate into their plans). It's not getting out of the way per se, but allowing companies the freedom to innovate, just with NASA as an advisor/source of niche knowledge/experience.

If you get rid of the cost share, downselect to one supplier, and go with FAR cost-plus contracts, with traditional oversight instead of insight, there's now absolutely nothing commercial about the approach. As I said above, if they're going to do this the same way as SLS/Orion, just with smaller partners than the traditional primes, they should ditch the "commercial" name, because it now has nothing in common anymore with what worked for COTS.

~Jon

[newpylong]

I completely agree. NASA should simply set the standards it wants adhered to and then get the hell out of the way. Above and beyond that, NASA's involvement should be limited to just buying tickets and boarding passes from approved carriers. - Nothing more.

Why should NASA "get out of the way"? Is it because SpaceX and SNC, etc. have such a long history of human spaceflight? Have you taken a moment to think that these companies are actively seeking guidance from the agency?

This is a ridiculous misreading of his point.  "Getting out of the way" means not standing in the way and handicapping progress by micromanagement or improper direction.  "Getting out of the way" by no means precludes "running alongside" providing advice and consultation.

I suggest re-reading what was written if you think that point was supposed to be abundantly clear.

Furthermore, is there evidence of micromanagement and improper direction from the NASA side hampering Commercial Crew development? I haven't seen any.

[Elmar Moelzer]

If you get rid of the cost share, downselect to one supplier, and go with FAR cost-plus contracts, with traditional oversight instead of insight, there's now absolutely nothing commercial about the approach. As I said above, if they're going to do this the same way as SLS/Orion, just with smaller partners than the traditional primes, they should ditch the "commercial" name, because it now has nothing in common anymore with what worked for COTS.

~Jon

Agreed!