Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis

[QuantumG]

Failure to take into account the shortfalls is what caused the delays. NASA is supposed to work with the budget they're given, not throw tantrums.

[yg1968]

Failure to take into account the shortfalls is what caused the delays. NASA is supposed to work with the budget they're given, not throw tantrums.

The only way to work within the budget would have been to continue with SAAs for certification. But Congress made sure that this wasn't an option by mandating the use of FAR for Phase 1 of certification and for CCtCap. Another option would have been to downselect to one provider. But that would have meant Boeing being able to charge whatever they want. The delay to 2017 or 2018 wasn't the worst potential outcome.

[woods170]

Failure to take into account the shortfalls is what caused the delays. NASA is supposed to work with the budget they're given, not throw tantrums.

IMO NASA cannot work with the budget given because they don't know in advance what budget they will be given. That is the one reason why there are such pesky little things known as budget-requests. They (NASA) request a certain budget and calcu-estimate what can be done with the requested budget. Planning is based on that and often communicated to the outside world before the actual budget is appropriated.

Now, if US Congress steps in and says "Hey NASA, we will give you considerably less than the amount requested" (which in the case of commercial crew has happened more than once) it will naturally lead to the original planning being thrown out the window and NASA communicating this to the outside world. You simply can't do the same amount of work, at the same quality levels, in the same amount of time with less money, without moving to a low-wages country. Given that the latter is not happening, delays will be inevitable and they are tantrums not thrown by NASA but by those folks pulling the purse-strings.

IMO if there is anybody to blame for the prior years commercial crew delays it is not NASA, not SpaceX, not Boeing but primarily the folks at Capitol Hill. They are the ones that tried to kill commercial crew for years by substantially under-funding it. Ultimately they failed to do so and with changes in the geopolitical landscape in recent years they are now reluctantly committed to funding commercial crew in full.

[Rocket Science]

As Charlie retires off to the sunset singing "I told you so"...

[baldusi]

Not to mention, that Commercial Crew is done as a fixed price milestones program. So delay are expected but won't impact the program cost. In other words it is in the contractors best interest to actually be on schedule. If they don't then it is because technically it is important. Like in astronaut's safety important.
Delays for an operative service that needs the most extremes assurance (i.e. carrying people) are expected. But those delays will only happen once they actually have a budget.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Failure to take into account the shortfalls is what caused the delays. NASA is supposed to work with the budget they're given, not throw tantrums.

LOL, so they are supposed to do more with less money than needed?! One of the rules for any business is:
Good- Fast- Cheap, pick two!
You want it good and fast, it wont be cheap. You want it cheap and good, it wont be fast, which is exactly the situation with Commercial Crew right now.

[llanitedave]

Failure to take into account the shortfalls is what caused the delays. NASA is supposed to work with the budget they're given, not throw tantrums.

"Gather your own straw, but your quota is the same.  Not a single brick less!"


Is this what you have in mind?

[QuantumG]

Not to mention, that Commercial Crew is done as a fixed price milestones program. So delay are expected but won't impact the program cost.

That doesn't make any sense. We should be seeing milestones completed and NASA not having the money to pay, but we're not.

[abaddon]

That doesn't make any sense. We should be seeing milestones completed and NASA not having the money to pay, but we're not.

NASA is not allowed to spend money it does not have.  That would be illegal.  Instead, they have to issue stop work orders or otherwise manage the schedule to keep within the allocated budget.

So no, we should not be seeing that.

[joek]

Not to mention, that Commercial Crew is done as a fixed price milestones program. So delay are expected but won't impact the program cost.

Contractor must notify NASA if funds allocated are insufficient to complete work within the coming 60 days.  If that happens, they have a discussion which may lead to: (a) contract termination; (b) adjustment of dates; (c) adjustment of payment amounts; or both (b) and (c).

Undoubtedly both (b) and (c) have occurred, with payments going up as dates shift to the right--if in fact it is caused by NASA or lack of funding.  That is, where the contractor is not at fault.

That doesn't make any sense. We should be seeing milestones completed and NASA not having the money to pay, but we're not.

NASA is not allowed to spend money it does not have.  That would be illegal.  Instead, they have to issue stop work orders or otherwise manage the schedule to keep within the allocated budget.
...

There are CCtCap contract terms which limit NASA's liability and reduce the need for stop-work orders in the case of a funding shortfall.  Boeing or SpaceX can continue work without NASA funding, but NASA is not obligated to pay more than for work completed or a portion (I think it is up to 75%) of the funds allocated at that time.  Presumably if funding were lacking, that would also mean interim financing payments would also disappear; SpaceX and Boeing would have to fund their efforts out-of-pocket and risk losing it.  NASA still reserves the right to issue stop-work orders as there are other reasons where it may be desirable or necessary (beyond funding issues).

In any case, I agree that NASA managing schedule and budget in concert with the contractors is more constructive and more likely.  The alternatives would be very disruptive and unlikely unless someone intended to terminate a contract.

[QuantumG]

None of that has happened.

[joek]

None of that has happened.

Source?  Certainly agreements must have been amended.  The milestone dates in the CCtCap contract are defunct, and the quoted funding is long gone--even accounting for the last published amendments (late 2014).  Unfortunately I can find no public record of subsequent amendments since.

[yg1968]

None of that has happened.

Source?  Certainly agreements must have been amended.  The milestone dates in the CCtCap contract are defunct, and the quoted funding is long gone--even accounting for the last published amendments (late 2014).  Unfortunately I can find no public record of subsequent amendments since.

Based on what we do know, there hasn't been any funding shortfall for any of the milestones. It's usually been the opposite, the milestones have moved to the right for technical, non-financial reasons. Part of the reason that there hasn't been a shortfall in funding is that NASA waited to make awards until it had a better idea of it's budget. Prior to CCtCap, NASA also used optional milestones in order to adjust the amount of the awards to its budget.

[joek]

Based on what we do know, there hasn't been any funding shortfall for any of the milestones. It's usually been the opposite, the milestones have moved to the right for technical, non-financial reasons. Part of the reason that there hasn't been shortfall in funding is that NASA waited to make awards until it had a better idea of it's budget. Prior to CCtCap, NASA also used optional milestones in order to adjust the amount of the awards to its budget.

I am not arguing one way or another. edit... The evidence presented is not pursuasive, and I would like to see something more concrete than a vague statement that "what we know...", because as far as I can tell, the evidence of what we know is squat.

We've heard arguments that if NASA had been given more funding sooner, CCtCap would be farther ahead.  Probably some truth there.  We've also heard arguments that there is no funding shortfall, and this is simply Boeing and SpaceX slipping.  Also probably some truth there.

If you start the clock before FY2014, you can credibly argue it is (or was) a funding issue.  If you start the clock later (contract award), you can credibly argue it is a Boeing and SpaceX issue.  And given the typical issues with these types of programs, you can also credibly argue that NASA knew it would take longer than expected from contract award--and that the inevitable schedule compression due to a late CCtCap start is part of the problem.

Which makes both arguments defensible.

We've also heard arguments that we would have seen (clear?) indications of one or the other.  Which we have not, and likely will not unless there is a melt-down (contractor performance goes off the rails or Congresss significantly reduces funding); e.g., a stop-work order or contract termination.

There is no objective evidence (has not been since the last CCtCap amendments published late 2014 that I can find) of one or the other.  Those amendments last indicated: (a) Boeing was consuming funds and hitting milestones at a nominal rate ($439.5M through 2-Feb-2015); and (b) SpaceX had to eat a schedule slip with no funding adjustment ($129.3M through unknown).  Those are obviously dated; what has happened since is anyone's guess.


p.s. There are no optional CCtCap milestones.  Cannot do that under these FAR contracts: you do or you don't.  And if you want to make it to the finish line, you do; no in-between.  The only reasonable knob NASA has is the award of post-certification missions, and milestone and interim financing payment schedules.

[yg1968]

p.s. There are no optional CCtCap milestones.  Cannot do that under these FAR contracts: you do or you don't.  And if you want to make it to the finish line, you do; no in-between.  The only reasonable knob NASA has is the award of post-certification missions, and milestone and interim financing payment schedules.

Yes, I know. I meant for prior rounds. So far, CCtCap has received the amount of funding that the President has requested.

[joek]

Resurrected and old spreadsheet I was working on to try and track progress. A bit dated as the latest is from Nov-2015 presentation.  Obviously some dates have changed since (e.g., Boeing flight dates), but I don't have credible information on changes since Nov-2015.

[QuantumG]

It's been obvious for a while that commercial crew is now overfunded. It's probably not a ploy by Congress to demonstrate that the claim that funding was the schedule limitation was false.. they're not smart enough for that.. but it may work out that way if they continue to slip.

[joek]

It's been obvious for a while that commercial crew is now overfunded. It's probably not a ploy by Congress to demonstrate that the claim that funding was the schedule limitation was false.. they're not smart enough for that.. but it may work out that way if they continue to slip.

Don't see that.  The FY14 Congressional Committee report suggested that the ~$800M would be sufficient for one provider, (in addition to other CCP needs) which is what they appropriated.  We are a bit more than 18 months in to CCtCap with two providers in FY15 ("fully funded"), and ~6 months since the last credible schedule update.

Given a few more data points (maybe another 6-9 months?), we might be able to make a call.  Especially if we knew or could infer what schedule changes were due to contractor performance vs. NASA changing or adding requirements.  But we don't--or at least not that I have  seen except at the margin.

If you know, please tell.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

It's been obvious for a while that commercial crew is now overfunded. It's probably not a ploy by Congress to demonstrate that the claim that funding was the schedule limitation was false.. they're not smart enough for that.. but it may work out that way if they continue to slip.

The problem is not the amount of money (beyond a certain point) but the stability and predictability of income. The second is far more important when attempting to create an accurate schedule. The second has not been forthcoming. Basic economic reality is that people cannot stick to a preplanned economic calculus when you keep jimmying the inputs, inevitable and concurrent engineering realities aside.

All the alternatives are either more expensive and/or less predictable. Orion? More expensive. Soyuz? Less predictable. Commercial crew has been a widely successful program so far for being able to make progress under the conditions both NASA and the providers have been handed.

[QuantumG]

Nope. Again, there's been no point where the partners have been ahead of the funding. The claim that somehow the funding hasn't been sufficient is the argument of a politician to other politicians.

For the rest of us, it's much more obvious that Boeing has a lack of commitment and SpaceX is suffering from feature creepage.