Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[Coastal Ron]

     I'm not saying Bolden isn't a good director of Nasa, but we NEED someone who can go to Congress and explain to them, quite simply...

Mike Griffin tried to do that, and they rewarded him with the mandate to land people on the Moon and then Mars while giving him a tenth of the money he said he needed to do it.

No, Griffin became NASA Administrator after the Constellation program was started.  Griffin did reshape it though based on the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), which is when Griffin tilted the scale on the hardware side to things he wanted to do - like the Ares I and the "Apollo on steroids" Orion capsule.

Regarding the role of the NASA Administrator, per NASA's website:

3.2.1 NASA Administrator
The Administrator is the Agency's highest level decisionmaker, providing clarity to the Agency's vision and serving as the source of internal leadership to achieve NASA's mission. The Administrator aligns the strategic and policy direction of NASA with the interests and requirements of the Agency's stakeholders and constituent groups.

The Administrator and immediate senior staff provide overall strategic direction and policies for the organization and establish the Agency's relative priorities, associated budget guidelines, and performance assessment. Senior staff officials within the Office of the Administrator include the Deputy Administrator, Associate Deputy Administrator, Associate Deputy Administrator (Technical), Chief Engineer, Chief Information Officer, Chief Scientist, and the Chief Technologist.

Their official role does not include coming up with policy and then advocating it within the legislative branch - unless the President they serve wants them to.

But I think the angst we have about whether the NASA Administrator is doing enough advocating or not is really part of the whole "what are we really DOING in space?" question.

If our goal is to expand humanity out into space, the Commercial Crew makes a lot of sense.  But if the goal is to just use NASA as a funding stream for certain constituents, then Commercial Crew is not really necessary.

[Patchouli]

Griffin threw out the spiral development plan which could have gotten something flying in LEO before the rest of lunar architecture was ready.

[arachnitect]

Without going too much into the details, I'll point out that getting a top line budget increase for anything discretionary is basically impossible right now.

NASA got a top line budget increase.

Not as big as requested, and even with the proposed top line increase the Commercial Crew bump was to be offset by a decrease in SLS/Orion funding.

One point (which I think you'd agree with) is that it's helpful to recognize congress isn't "cutting" CC or denying them a shot at readily available money, they're just refusing to fund it out of their own priorities.

My larger point is that while the $300M that would make a difference here is a drop in the Federal bucket, in reality it has to be "stolen" from someone's favorite program.

[Patchouli]

The NSA and DEA probably could afford a budget cut of a few hundred million as they seem to have too much money or even just do away with the TSA there's 8 billion a year there.

[A_M_Swallow]

The thing that gets me is Congress says they're saving money by cutting $300 million from commercial crew, but it's turning around and spending almost the same amount on Soyuz seats in that same period.

{snip}

Does reducing Commercial Crew by $300 million mean that the Orion/SLS budget will have to be cut by say $400 million to buy Soyuz seats?

Also the programme will probably take an extra year to complete and the total spend increase.

[sanman]

Article:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/spacex-and-the-russian-rocket-mess-1434149145


Have Musk or any other US commercial crew players officially reacted yet?

[woods170]

A little crystal-ball gazing, just for discussion purposes:

Baseline response: NASA eats the cut, stretches out Commercial Crew, has to pay another ~$210M to Russia (estimating $70M/seat at three seats/year), which has to come out of CC, which stretches it out even farther. Boeing and/or SpaceX have first flight 2019-2020.

Minor nit: Soyuz seats are paid out of the ISS budget, not the CCP budget.

[woods170]

$8B is a lot to ask.. if you can't answer basic questions as to why you need to spend that much money, you really shouldn't be surprised when they don't give it to you.

Yup, and exactly the same thing got CxP canned. That's why I think that under the next president CCP will get axed swiftly. With current funding levels neither SpaceX nor Boeing will have anything operational at the beginning of 2017. Also: there already is a mandated-by-law back-up to Soyuz. It's called Orion.

What I think will happen is this: next president is going to be a Republican.
CCP will be axed early 2017 with the former CCP funding added to the Orion budgetline to speed up her development to get her flying in manned-LEO-capable form in early 2019. Soyuz will remain the prime crew-rotation vehicle until ISS-splash in 2024 (unless Putin starts a nuclear war or something similarly nuts)

[woods170]

NASA does not have all those options.  NASA is committed--unless Congress intervenes--to fulfilling the awarded CCtCap contracts with both Boeing and SpaceX.

Not quite. Both contracts hold dissolve clauses for the situation that US Congress chooses to NOT fully fund CCtCAP. If and when that happens (and it looks like it will happen soon) NASA can do-away with the current contracts and re-compete to a single provider.
In that case that single provider will be Boeing, as they scored highest on the current CCtCAP-contract score-card. That will not have changed significantly by the time a re-compete becomes reality.

Note: I don't think the above scenario will come into reality any time soon. IMO Bolden will rather stretch development of both CCP vehicles than down-select to one, just to make US Congress look bad.

[QuantumG]

Mike Griffin tried to do that, and they rewarded him with the mandate to land people on the Moon and then Mars while giving him a tenth of the money he said he needed to do it.

That's not the way he saw it.

By the end, just to keep things going, hoping for that balloon payment at the end when it's time to start flying,

Jeez, anyone would think you're saying Griffin invented go-as-you-pay.

[Rebel44]

$8B is a lot to ask.. if you can't answer basic questions as to why you need to spend that much money, you really shouldn't be surprised when they don't give it to you.

Yup, and exactly the same thing got CxP canned. That's why I think that under the next president CCP will get axed swiftly. With current funding levels neither SpaceX nor Boeing will have anything operational at the beginning of 2017. Also: there already is a mandated-by-law back-up to Soyuz. It's called Orion.

What I think will happen is this: next president is going to be a Republican.
CCP will be axed early 2017 with the former CCP funding added to the Orion budgetline to speed up her development to get her flying in manned-LEO-capable form in early 2019. Soyuz will remain the prime crew-rotation vehicle until ISS-splash in 2024 (unless Putin starts a nuclear war or something similarly nuts)

Given current relations with russians, I doubt, that someone would actually try to cancel Commercial Crew, simple because it could later blow up in their face. Politicians dont take more risk than is necessary, unless there is a large advantage to it.

[kevinof]

NASA does not have all those options.  NASA is committed--unless Congress intervenes--to fulfilling the awarded CCtCap contracts with both Boeing and SpaceX.

Not quite. Both contracts hold dissolve clauses for the situation that US Congress chooses to NOT fully fund CCtCAP. If and when that happens (and it looks like it will happen soon) NASA can do-away with the current contracts and re-compete to a single provider.
In that case that single provider will be Boeing, as they scored highest on the current CCtCAP-contract score-card. That will not have changed significantly by the time a re-compete becomes reality.

Note: I don't think the above scenario will come into reality any time soon. IMO Bolden will rather stretch development of both CCP vehicles than down-select to one, just to make US Congress look bad.

Yes Boeing scored higher on the bids but I suspect SpaceX are closer to a flying vehicle than Boeing, plus they are cheaper. You could have Bolden going the SpaceX route because of this and then waiting for a response from congress. It will either be 1) ok fine, correct decision on cost/timelines etc or 2) no way. We want Boeing even if it's more expensive, takes more time etc.

I think you are correct with Bolden. He want's two providers to keep long term costs down, and provide redundancy , and will do what he can to keep both going.

[kdhilliard]

At the CCtCap announcement they said they'd recompete if they don't get the funding...

That was not said at either the or the with Kathy Lueders.

Charles Lurio asked, but Lueders dodged the question:

33:55 K. Lueders: Our plan to execute the contract is per the proposed budget as outlined in the 2015 NASA request.

34:55 C. Lurio: How long are you committed to maintaining the two contractors?  Is there any circumstance under which you would be, because of a combination of low budgets and time pressure, obliged to pull back to a single contractor?

35:23 K. Lueders: We're executing our plan to that five year budget.  We're confident that our providers will be able to execute to the plan and schedule they have in front of them.

The closest they came in the announcement itself was:

29:15  Irene Klotz, Reuters: "Are these awards at all dependent on NASA having more than a continuing resolution for this year's budget?"

30:03 Charles Bolden: "In order for us to get to 2017 what we really need is for the congress to support the president's request.  We are confident that given where we are right now with the 2014 budget and its outrun, we can make the 2017 launch date.  But that again depends on congress fully funding the budget as requested by the president."

~Kirk

[Rocket Science]

The folly started when they decided to retire the Shuttle without an operational replacement thus shooting themselves in the foot and needing to rely on Russia...

The Shuttle was never a replacement for the Soyuz, since it could only stay in space for two weeks maximum, and the requirement is to have a vehicle (i.e. a lifeboat) available at all times during a normal crew mission (typically 6 months).  The Shuttle could provide temporary access, and it could swap out crew, but it couldn't keep crew at the ISS for longer than two weeks.

The real root of this situation goes back to the beginning of the ISS program, when it was known back then that only the Soyuz was available for lifeboat duty.  The X-38 was to be the U.S. lifeboat vehicle (still would need the Shuttle for swapping crew though), but it was cancelled in 2002 due to budget cuts.  Of course we were far friendlier with Russia back then, and even then the Soyuz had a long and safe flight history.

So our current dependence on Russia for keeping crew at the ISS goes back to decisions made in 2002.

Yes Ron that was before Orion/Ares-1 and before the X-38 it was the HL-20 once the station was completed. This is the core of problem with NASA; it keeps getting re-invented with each administration leading to wasted time, money and no coherent sustainable plan.

[rayleighscatter]

A little crystal-ball gazing, just for discussion purposes:

Baseline response: NASA eats the cut, stretches out Commercial Crew, has to pay another ~$210M to Russia (estimating $70M/seat at three seats/year), which has to come out of CC, which stretches it out even farther. Boeing and/or SpaceX have first flight 2019-2020.

Minor nit: Soyuz seats are paid out of the ISS budget, not the CCP budget.

As will CCP seats later. It's why the CCP budget is projected to be nearly zero in about 3 years.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

A little crystal-ball gazing, just for discussion purposes:

Baseline response: NASA eats the cut, stretches out Commercial Crew, has to pay another ~$210M to Russia (estimating $70M/seat at three seats/year), which has to come out of CC, which stretches it out even farther. Boeing and/or SpaceX have first flight 2019-2020.

Minor nit: Soyuz seats are paid out of the ISS budget, not the CCP budget.

As will CCP seats later. It's why the CCP budget is projected to be nearly zero in about 3 years.

Almost certainly higher if CCP is delayed by cuts. If it isn't higher, a downselect will happen (one of arguable objectivity) and much exercise would have been frivolous.

[joek]

From my basic knowledge of government RFPs, albeit from a different jurisdiction and without knowing the specific wording, I don't think NASA can simply down select to 1 unless it does so based on the criteria of the RFP.

If by "based on the criteria of the RFP" you mean that there is some objective criteria in the RFP that would allow NASA to select one provider vs. another, and thus terminate the contract of one provider based on that criteria, there is not.  That ship sailed when NASA awarded two CCtCap contracts.

Assuming both awardees nominally perform per the terms of the contract, terminating one would fall under "Termination for the Convenience of the Government" or possibly "Limitation of Funds" contract clauses.

[joek]

NASA does not have all those options.  NASA is committed--unless Congress intervenes--to fulfilling the awarded CCtCap contracts with both Boeing and SpaceX.

Not quite. Both contracts hold dissolve clauses for the situation that US Congress chooses to NOT fully fund CCtCAP. If and when that happens (and it looks like it will happen soon) NASA can do-away with the current contracts and re-compete to a single provider.

You might want to review those "dissolve clauses"; they are standard FAR boilerplate (included by reference in the RFP/contracts). There is nothing in those clauses which allows re-compete unless there is a failure to perform.*

Under the current contracts, if there are funding limitations, NASA could choose to stretch both contracts, or possibly terminate one.  However, in the latter case, you can bet there will be a challenge unless termination is due to a failure to perform by the loser.

In short, NASA is contractually committed to two CCtCap providers.  The only thing likely to change that is Congressional legislation which overrides those commitments.


* edit: Or obviously Congressional action.

[Coastal Ron]

This is the core of problem with NASA; it keeps getting re-invented with each administration leading to wasted time, money and no coherent sustainable plan.

Yep, it's non-optimal.

[guckyfan]

Under the current contracts, if there are funding limitations, NASA could choose to stretch both contracts, or possibly terminate one.  However, in the latter case, you can bet there will be a challenge unless termination is due to a failure to perform by the loser.

What would failure to perform be? Missing a single milestone date by a month?