Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[woods170]

When will we know how much these additional missions will cost NASA?
Have we heard anything indicating that they will be at the same per-mission cost of the initial six PCMs?

The additional missions will be more expensive to NASA.

Are we really expecting these 3 mission to be sold for more than $220M per missions?

Yes, I am expecting them to be significantly more expensive than $220M per misson. SpaceX low-balled the price-tag of the original 6 PCM missions to get the contract.

Similar to what happened with CRS-2, NASA will have to pay considerably more for those 3 addtional missions. My guesstimate is ~$300M to $325M per mission.

Remember, just adjusting for nearly 8 years of inflation (since the signing of the original CCtCAP contract) will bring the price tag well north of $260M per mission.

[woods170]

Lesson to be learned by Gongora and YG1968: contract caps mean exactly nothing. They CAN be changed, as I had already pointed out for CRS.

No, they had to sole-source it in order to get around the maximum amount of missions. It wasn't just picking up an option. I had mentioned that sole-sourcing was a possibility (see below). Incidentally, other companies are allowed to object to the sole-sourcing.

CRS wasn't capped by the number of missions, it was capped by the amount of cargo. So it was easy to extend it.

I should qualify what I said, if the Boeing delays continue, NASA might be forced to sole-source one mission to SpaceX through a new solicitation and contract. I hope that doesn't happen but it is another possibility.

No, you managed to completely miss the point or deliberately read over NASA's own statement: the (up to) three missions will be ADDED to the existing CCtCAP contract.
There will be no new contract for those three additional missions. Basiscally, what NASA will be doing is this: a modification of the existing CCtCAP contract to remove the "maximum of 6 PCM mission" limit. The only other interested party (Boeing) won't object to this, because they are the very cause for this contract modification being necessary. Boeing is in no position to complain or protest. They know it, and they won't file a protest.

[yg1968]

Lesson to be learned by Gongora and YG1968: contract caps mean exactly nothing. They CAN be changed, as I had already pointed out for CRS.

No, they had to sole-source it in order to get around the maximum amount of missions. It wasn't just picking up an option. I had mentioned that sole-sourcing was a possibility (see below). Incidentally, other companies are allowed to object to the sole-sourcing.

CRS wasn't capped by the number of missions, it was capped by the amount of cargo. So it was easy to extend it.

I should qualify what I said, if the Boeing delays continue, NASA might be forced to sole-source one mission to SpaceX through a new solicitation and contract. I hope that doesn't happen but it is another possibility.

No, you managed to completely miss the point or deliberately read over NASA's own statement: the (up to) three missions will be ADDED to the existing CCtCAP contract.
There will be no new contract for those three additional missions. Basiscally, what NASA will be doing is this: a modification of the existing CCtCAP contract to remove the "maximum of 6 PCM mission" limit. The only other interested party (Boeing) won't object to this, because they are the very cause for this contract modification being necessary. Boeing is in no position to complain or protest. They know it, and they won't file a protest.

You are the one that is deliberately missing the point, NASA had to issue a sole source notice which is essentially a new solicitation. Like you said, the price won't be the same as before (thanks for that information by the way). They decided to use the existing terms of CCtCap but it is nevertheless a new solicitation. It wasn't just a matter of issuing a new task order under the existing contract or modifying the contract with SpaceX's approval, a new (sole-source) solicitation had to be issued. Incidentally, I don't think that NASA will be able to add more missions to CCtCap after these 3 new ones unless they issue a new sole-source notice (which would also be a new solicitation). 

Although, I don't know if the language saying that NASA reserves the right to make new modifications to CCtCap means that NASA reserves the right to add more Boeing missions (presumably through another sole-source notice). NASA could argue that it has a need for a redundant commercial crew system. I hope that doesn't happen.

In any event, I hope that I am not wrong in saying that CCSTS is still alive and ongoing. I think that the up to 3 missions language in the notice gives NASA the flexibility of pursuing CCSTS as quickly as possible. 

[Alvian@IDN]

When will we know how much these additional missions will cost NASA?
Have we heard anything indicating that they will be at the same per-mission cost of the initial six PCMs?

The additional missions will be more expensive to NASA.

Are we really expecting these 3 mission to be sold for more than $220M per missions?

Yes, I am expecting them to be significantly more expensive than $220M per misson. SpaceX low-balled the price-tag of the original 6 PCM missions to get the contract.

Similar to what happened with CRS-2, NASA will have to pay considerably more for those 3 addtional missions. My guesstimate is ~$300M to $325M per mission.

Remember, just adjusting for nearly 8 years of inflation (since the signing of the original CCtCAP contract) will bring the price tag well north of $260M per mission.

Will this be the point for detractor to make for "price gouging"?

[yg1968]

And in the end I was still right with the other two being wrong. As I expected (not surprisingly since 3 NASA sources told me so months ago) NASA just added three more Crew Dragon missions to the existing CCtCAP contract:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2021/12/03/nasa-to-secure-additional-commercial-crew-transportation/

Key quotes:

NASA intends to issue a sole source modification to SpaceX to acquire up to three additional crew flights to the International Space Station as part of its Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contract.

The current sole source modification does not preclude NASA from seeking additional contract modifications in the future for additional transportation services as needed.

Lesson to be learned by Gongora and YG1968: contract caps mean exactly nothing. They CAN be changed, as I had already pointed out for CRS.

I think the lesson is that when you have a single possible contractor to supply a national interest critical service, contract limits mean very little. Whom are you gonna contract outside of SpaceX? There's simply no one else to offer such a service within the required timeframe. Thus, a sole-source justified contract extension is the only option. I dare any other company to fill a protest with GAO. It would be thrown out so fast and cause so much bad blood with NASA as to not be an option.
Believe it or not, NASA bureaucracy are capable and resourceful people when not burdened by thumbs in the scale (as in political pressures and such) and federal acquisition regulations do allow for certain common sense.

If I were Sierra Space, I wouldn't object to the sole-source notice provided that NASA assures them that they will proceed with CCSTS. That may have been the point of the paragraph on CCSTS in the sole-source notice.

I wouldn't expect Boeing to protest given that this situation is their fault. The paragraph in the blog, saying that NASA reserves the right to make more changes to CCtCap may have been added to reassure Boeing that NASA hasn't forgotten them either.

[Coastal Ron]

When will we know how much these additional missions will cost NASA?
Have we heard anything indicating that they will be at the same per-mission cost of the initial six PCMs?

The additional missions will be more expensive to NASA.

Are we really expecting these 3 mission to be sold for more than $220M per missions?

Yes, I am expecting them to be significantly more expensive than $220M per misson. SpaceX low-balled the price-tag of the original 6 PCM missions to get the contract.

I would characterize this situation differently.

For the original CCtCAP contract in January of 2014, SpaceX would have been bidding costs based on what it knew back in 2013. As of the end of 2013 SpaceX had flown CRS-2, which was the second cargo mission for Commercial Cargo, so they didn't have a lot of experience yet on what was working and what was not working for their Dragon Cargo vehicle - which they planned to be the basis for their Commercial Crew vehicle.

So I would say that AT THAT TIME SpaceX bid the CCtCAP contract based on what they knew, and what they assumed would happen with their development of the Commercial Crew vehicle.

I think they bid what they thought they needed for CCtCAP, and didn't add in any "fluff" to cover for exceptions.

However, what happens with EVERY development program is that reality is different than what was proposed, for many reasons. So if given the opportunity to update their contract costs to reflect the current reality - and not the reality of 2014 - of course SpaceX would ensure they are not losing money on new contracts.

And the U.S. Government doesn't want service providers to lose money! NASA isn't a for-profit entity, so their goal is just to get the best value for the taxpayer, not to screw over service providers and keep them from making a "reasonable" profit.

Remember the GAO audits contracts, and they would have a LOT of insight into the cost structure of the original CCtCAP contract, which would form the basis for auditing pricing changes to following orders.

So long story short, the service that SpaceX bid in 2014 is not the service they are providing today, and I have no doubt that NASA is happier with the service SpaceX is providing today, and is willing to pay for that.

My $0.02

[Coastal Ron]

If I were Sierra Space, I wouldn't object to the sole-source notice provided that NASA assures them that they will proceed with CCSTS.

It would be unethical (and potential illegal) to "provide assurances" outside of contract agreements.

Besides, extending existing contracts is a normal thing for the U.S. Government, they do it all the time. All they need to do is justify why they need to extend the contract, which in this case is very clear - NASA's other Commercial Crew provider (Boeing) may not be able to provide the services NASA needs, so they need to buy more services from their existing (and fully approved) supplier, which is SpaceX.

That may have been the point of the paragraph on CCSTS in the sole-source notice.

I haven't had much time to keep up with every project NASA has been working on, but I see nothing when I Google "NASA CCSTS", so what are you referring too?

In any case, everyone can read the "NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) TO ISSUE A SOLE SOURCE MODIFICATION – NASA COMMERCIAL CREW SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES" (CCSTS) here:

https://sam.gov/opp/c4e1243132fa417bb40829eaf10fe509/view

And I see no reference to anything related to "CCSTS", or even "STS". However there is this boilerplate text:

Oral communications are not acceptable in response to this notice.

Interested organizations may submit their capabilities and qualifications to perform the effort electronically via email to Brian Hinerth at [email protected] and Joseph Bell at [email protected] not later than 5:00PM EDT on December 18, 2021. Such capabilities/qualifications will be evaluated solely for the purpose of determining whether or not to conduct this acquisition on a competitive basis. A determination by the Government not to compete this acquisition on a full and open competition basis, based upon responses to this notice, is solely within the discretion of the Government.

This is standard CYA text that ensures that anyone who THINKS they should have been able to bid can officially submit a protest - but that the U.S. Government is the sole determinant about what constitutes a potential substitute.

I wouldn't expect Boeing to protest given that this situation is their fault. The paragraph in the sole-source notice, saying that NASA reserves the right to make more changes to CCtCap may have been added to reassure Boeing that NASA hasn't forgotten them either.

I'm sorry, but you are reading WAY too much into standard text.

NASA can't promise Boeing that they will hold back on awarding additional services to SpaceX while Boeing is unable to perform the services NASA needs. That would be highly illegal, and it would potentially harm the ISS program if Boeing can't perform needed services.

Let's step back here and remember that NASA's sole goal with the Commercial Crew program is to keep crew safely at the ISS. NASA doesn't care who provides the transportation services, it only cares that transportation services are available WHEN NEEDED.

Boeing may not be able to provide the services that NASA needs WHEN NEEDED, so NASA is going to ensure it has contractual options in place to ensure that if Boeing is unable to provide the needed services, that someone else (i.e. SpaceX) will be able to provide the services.

There is no mystery here folks. No secret messages. NASA is just focused on what THEIR needs are, not their contractors.

NOTE: Updated above thanks to kdhilliard - and a good example where defining an acronym is good to do, since not everyone can keep up with official and unofficial acronyms.

[woods170]

When will we know how much these additional missions will cost NASA?
Have we heard anything indicating that they will be at the same per-mission cost of the initial six PCMs?

The additional missions will be more expensive to NASA.

Are we really expecting these 3 mission to be sold for more than $220M per missions?

Yes, I am expecting them to be significantly more expensive than $220M per misson. SpaceX low-balled the price-tag of the original 6 PCM missions to get the contract.

Similar to what happened with CRS-2, NASA will have to pay considerably more for those 3 addtional missions. My guesstimate is ~$300M to $325M per mission.

Remember, just adjusting for nearly 8 years of inflation (since the signing of the original CCtCAP contract) will bring the price tag well north of $260M per mission.

Will this be the point for detractor to make for "price gouging"?

No, because the per-mission price tag, for the PCMs of the other contractor, is a similar figure ($320M per Starliner PCM mission).
A detractor yelling "they're charging the same as Boeing" would be laughed at.

[yg1968]

If I were Sierra Space, I wouldn't object to the sole-source notice provided that NASA assures them that they will proceed with CCSTS.

It would be unethical (and potential illegal) to "provide assurances" outside of contract agreements.

Besides, extending existing contracts is a normal thing for the U.S. Government, they do it all the time. All they need to do is justify why they need to extend the contract, which in this case is very clear - NASA's other Commercial Crew provider (Boeing) may not be able to provide the services NASA needs, so they need to buy more services from their existing (and fully approved) supplier, which is SpaceX.

That may have been the point of the paragraph on CCSTS in the sole-source notice.

I haven't had much time to keep up with every project NASA has been working on, but I see nothing when I Google "NASA CCSTS", so what are you referring too?

In any case, everyone can read the "NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) TO ISSUE A SOLE SOURCE MODIFICATION – NASA COMMERCIAL CREW SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES" here:

https://sam.gov/opp/c4e1243132fa417bb40829eaf10fe509/view

And I see no reference to anything related to "CCSTS", or even "STS". However there is this boilerplate text:

Oral communications are not acceptable in response to this notice.

Interested organizations may submit their capabilities and qualifications to perform the effort electronically via email to Brian Hinerth at [email protected] and Joseph Bell at [email protected] not later than 5:00PM EDT on December 18, 2021. Such capabilities/qualifications will be evaluated solely for the purpose of determining whether or not to conduct this acquisition on a competitive basis. A determination by the Government not to compete this acquisition on a full and open competition basis, based upon responses to this notice, is solely within the discretion of the Government.

This is standard CYA text that ensures that anyone who THINKS they should have been able to bid can officially submit a protest - but that the U.S. Government is the sole determinant about what constitutes a potential substitute.

I wouldn't expect Boeing to protest given that this situation is their fault. The paragraph in the sole-source notice, saying that NASA reserves the right to make more changes to CCtCap may have been added to reassure Boeing that NASA hasn't forgotten them either.

I'm sorry, but you are reading WAY too much into standard text.

NASA can't promise Boeing that they will hold back on awarding additional services to SpaceX while Boeing is unable to perform the services NASA needs. That would be highly illegal, and it would potentially harm the ISS program if Boeing can't perform needed services.

Let's step back here and remember that NASA's sole goal with the Commercial Crew program is to keep crew safely at the ISS. NASA doesn't care who provides the transportation services, it only cares that transportation services are available WHEN NEEDED.

Boeing may not be able to provide the services that NASA needs WHEN NEEDED, so NASA is going to ensure it has contractual options in place to ensure that if Boeing is unable to provide the needed services, that someone else (i.e. SpaceX) will be able to provide the services.

There is no mystery here folks. No secret messages. NASA is just focused on what THEIR needs are, not their contractors.

It is not illegal for NASA to indicate to Sierra Space and others what their plans are for the future for other post-certification missions. It's ridiculous to even suggest that it is. NASA has already told the providers through their October 20th RFI what their plans are.

CCSTS = Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services. The paragraph that I am referring to on CCSTS is this one and it relates to the October 20th RFI on CCSTS:

"FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: An RFI was posted on October 20, 2021, requesting information from industry to help NASA formulate an acquisition approach for the procurement of additional PCMs. Responses to the October 20, 2021, RFI will be used to inform NASA’s planning for an acquisition approach."

There is a separate thread on this October 20th CCSTS RFI (it's essentially a new commercial crew competition that would allow new entrants):
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55039.0

In terms of additional Boeing post-certification missions, Steve Stich indicates in the video at the bottom of this post that they would be giving SpaceX's new post-certification missions and that Boeing would be given a similar opportunity later on. If NASA is doing something illegal, please be sure to let them know now!

Like I said, the paragraph below in the blog may have been added in order to indicate to Boeing that more post-certification missions may also come their way later on (it's hard to say why they felt the need to include that paragraph in their blog):

The current sole source modification does not preclude NASA from seeking additional contract modifications in the future for additional transportation services as needed.

As always, your posts are just a bunch of nitpicking and putting words into my mouth. Admittingly, the word "assures" in my prior post wasn't the best choice of word but if I were Sierra Space and Boeing, I would want to know what the plans are going forward for other post-certification missions before deciding to protest or not. That is all that I was trying to say, I wasn't suggesting anything illegal.

At 26m of this video, the issue of what happens after SpaceX post-certification mission 6 was asked by Joey Roulette. Steve Stich said that they are in the early phases of looking at what they can do with SpaceX for missions after their 6th mission and he said that they will look at what they can do with Boeing at some point in the future. He said that he can't talk about it too much but that they were working on it now.

[Coastal Ron]

It is not illegal for NASA to indicate to Sierra Space and others what their plans are for the future for other post-certification missions. It's ridiculous to even suggest that it is. NASA has already told the providers through their October 20th RFI what their plans are.

My point was that it seemed like you were implying that NASA was promising something SPECIFICALLY to Sierra Space, which would be a quid pro quo if someone at NASA was doing that so that Sierra Space did not protest the sole source contract to SpaceX.

Because if NASA's plans for the future were already public, why would you suggest that NASA would reach out to Sierra Space specifically about this award? Why would they need to?

CCSTS = Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services. The paragraph that I am referring to on CCSTS is this one and it relates to the October 20th RFI on CCSTS:

Thank you for defining it now, and I corrected my original post based on a nice PM from kdhilliard.

Acronyms save time in typing, and in reading too no doubt, but sometimes they need to be expressly defined while they are new. We all struggle with this, so nothing about you specifically, I'm just mentioning this as a general comment.

As to the RFI, it is separate from the Sole Source contract award for 3 SpaceX missions, as NASA needs to rely upon already certified providers for those 3 missions since they are too near-term for onboarding new crew providers.

There is a separate thread on this October 20th CCSTS RFI (it's essentially a new commercial crew competition that would allow new entrants):
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55039.0

And here is the RFI, which we've known NASA was going to pursue for years:

https://sam.gov/opp/3ae9296c494a4e3698c7fbc01865b764/view

In terms of additional Boeing post-certification missions, Steve Stich indicates in the video at the bottom of this post that they would be giving SpaceX's new post-certification missions and that Boeing would be given a similar opportunity later on.

Key word is "opportunity". If Boeing doesn't get certified then NASA will keep creating Sole Source justifications for giving SpaceX more crew service contracts, so NASA is promising NOTHING.

Which was my point - NASA can't promise Boeing anything, they can only abide by the contract already negotiated, which anticipates that the provider (Boeing) MAY NOT be able to provide the contracted services, and that NASA is free to seek replacement services. It is the same with the SpaceX contract, but SpaceX is actually certified to provide their crew service, and have been able to complete missions as contracted.

Like I said, the paragraph below in the blog may have been added in order to indicate to Boeing that more post-certification missions may also come their way later on (it's hard to say why they felt the need to include that paragraph in their blog):

The current sole source modification does not preclude NASA from seeking additional contract modifications in the future for additional transportation services as needed.

Nope, that is just standard contractual wording. It promising nothing to anyone.

As always, your posts are just a bunch of nitpicking and putting words into my mouth. Admittingly, the word "assures" in my prior post wasn't the best choice of word but if I were Sierra Space and Boeing, I would want to know what the plans are going forward for other post-certification missions before deciding to protest or not. That is all that I was trying to say, I wasn't suggesting anything illegal.

I'm not a rocket engineer, but I do have experience with government contracts from working at government contractors. So I view it is important to make sure that people are not implying that NASA can promise things that they clearly can't, or implying that NASA is sending messages through RFI and other government contracts. Government contracts are reviewed at multiple levels to ensure that they are not only accurate, but legally defensive-able, so no one at NASA can slip in some "wink wink" message to keep a contractor from protesting a Sole Source award - which was the topic I was responding to.

[yg1968]

My point was that unless NASA continues with the CCSTS RFI/RFP, Sierra Space would and should feel that it is being treated unfairly with a sole-source contract that keeps them out.

For Boeing, it might also feel that it is being treated unfairly if it isn't being given a chance to bid for other post certification missions after these SpaceX sole-sourced ones. In my opinion, additional Boeing missions are likely to be granted through the new CCSTS round. NASA could sole-source them instead but I hope that they don't.

In any event, I like that what NASA is doing. It's sole-sourcing up to three missions to SpaceX because it has no choice. But starting in 2027 (at the latest), NASA intends to procure its commercial crew services through this new CCSTS round. At least that is my understanding of the October 20th RFI and this recent sole-sourcing notice.

[Coastal Ron]

My point was that unless NASA continues with the CCSTS RFI/RFP, Sierra Space would and should feel that it is being treated unfairly with a sole-source contract that keeps them out.

Sierra Space would not feel like they are being treated unfairly, because there is no way Sierra Space could have competed for missions under CCtCap - which is the current Commercial Crew transportation contract.

Plus, I guess you missed that NASA isn't considering crew transportation systems that are not certified as of today, because otherwise they would have awarded the contract to Boeing - who is not yet certified.

So I'm not understand your logic.

For Boeing, it might also feel that it is being treated unfairly if it isn't being given a chance to bid for other post certification missions after these SpaceX sole-sourced ones.

Bid? Boeing can't "bid" on CCtCap missions because THEY ARE ALREADY under contract for CCtCap. This is a matter of NASA exercising their right to determine which of the certified CCtCap providers will be assigned to which ISS missions. However as we all know, Boeing is NOT yet certified, so NASA had no choice but to add more missions to SpaceX - who is the ONLY certified crew transportation provider. Hence the Sole Source justification.

Nothing political here, this is all covered in the contracts that Boeing and SpaceX signed for CCtCap.

In my opinion, additional Boeing missions are likely to be granted through the new CCSTS round. NASA could sole-source them instead but I hope that they don't.

Keep in mind that Boeing is at fault here for not getting Starliner certified, not NASA. So NASA owes Boeing NOTHING beyond what their contractual obligations call out.

As to how a Sole Source justification works, you are implying that NASA would justify not giving SpaceX (or someone else) a crew transportation contract because Boeing screwed up, and Boeing needs the money? That logic would not survive a court challenge.

In any event, I like that what NASA is doing. It's sole-sourcing up to three missions to SpaceX because it has no choice.

That is correct. It is up to NASA to look out for NASA's needs, not their contractors needs. And Boeing won't go out of business if they don't get as many missions as they hoped. Maybe that will be a corporate lesson that will actually get learned?

But starting in 2027 (at the latest), NASA intends to procure its commercial crew services through this new CCSTS round. At least that is my understanding of the October 20th RFI and this recent sole-sourcing notice.

Redundancy is good, and competition is good. And I say that as a SpaceX supporter, since monopolies are bad for industries.

That said, there is no guarantee that Boeing will win any missions on a future CCSTS contract.

[Joseph Peterson]

I understand the government pays more than the private sector for launch services but I will be disappointed if NASA's cost per Dragon seat goes up because:

Besides fulfilling his dream of flying in space, Jared Isaacman announced Monday that he aims to use the private trip to raise $200 million for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, half coming from his own pockets.

....

Isaacman would not divulge how much he’s paying SpaceX, except to say that the anticipated donation to St. Jude “vastly exceeds the cost of the mission.”

https://apnews.com/article/jared-isaacman-buys-spacex-flight-fd4647bbf41551b1d7a8adff71705ecb

[Rebel44]

I understand the government pays more than the private sector for launch services but I will be disappointed if NASA's cost per Dragon seat goes up because:

Besides fulfilling his dream of flying in space, Jared Isaacman announced Monday that he aims to use the private trip to raise $200 million for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, half coming from his own pockets.

....

Isaacman would not divulge how much he’s paying SpaceX, except to say that the anticipated donation to St. Jude “vastly exceeds the cost of the mission.”

https://apnews.com/article/jared-isaacman-buys-spacex-flight-fd4647bbf41551b1d7a8adff71705ecb

You need to remember that besides the usual pile of paperwork necessary for critical government missions, NASA crew flights to the ISS also include 6 months of 24/7 monitoring/support and other services that were not needed for Inspiration4 3-day free flight mission.

[Joseph Peterson]

You need to remember that besides the usual pile of paperwork necessary for critical government missions, NASA crew flights to the ISS also include 6 months of 24/7 monitoring/support and other services that were not needed for Inspiration4 3-day free flight mission.

Why did you assume I forgot?

[abaddon]

It was kinder than assuming you were being disingenuous.

[yg1968]

My point was that unless NASA continues with the CCSTS RFI/RFP, Sierra Space would and should feel that it is being treated unfairly with a sole-source contract that keeps them out.

Sierra Space would not feel like they are being treated unfairly, because there is no way Sierra Space could have competed for missions under CCtCap - which is the current Commercial Crew transportation contract.

Plus, I guess you missed that NASA isn't considering crew transportation systems that are not certified as of today, because otherwise they would have awarded the contract to Boeing - who is not yet certified.

So I'm not understand your logic.

For Boeing, it might also feel that it is being treated unfairly if it isn't being given a chance to bid for other post certification missions after these SpaceX sole-sourced ones.

Bid? Boeing can't "bid" on CCtCap missions because THEY ARE ALREADY under contract for CCtCap. This is a matter of NASA exercising their right to determine which of the certified CCtCap providers will be assigned to which ISS missions. However as we all know, Boeing is NOT yet certified, so NASA had no choice but to add more missions to SpaceX - who is the ONLY certified crew transportation provider. Hence the Sole Source justification.

Nothing political here, this is all covered in the contracts that Boeing and SpaceX signed for CCtCap.

In my opinion, additional Boeing missions are likely to be granted through the new CCSTS round. NASA could sole-source them instead but I hope that they don't.

Keep in mind that Boeing is at fault here for not getting Starliner certified, not NASA. So NASA owes Boeing NOTHING beyond what their contractual obligations call out.

As to how a Sole Source justification works, you are implying that NASA would justify not giving SpaceX (or someone else) a crew transportation contract because Boeing screwed up, and Boeing needs the money? That logic would not survive a court challenge.

A sole source contract is a new solicitation. By definition a sole-source contract means that other providers were excluded. NASA could have decided to use the CCSTS round for these post-certification missions but it didn't. This isn't terribly hard to understand. I don't think that NASA made the wrong decision but I am sure that Sierra Space would have liked to have been able to bid on these new missions (had they been announced earlier).

Boeing can bid on a new solicitation provided that it is not sole-sourced. How hard is that to understand. You can argue that Boeing won't be ready on time for some of these missions but probably not all of them. I think that is why NASA said up to 3 missions will be sole-sourced to SpaceX, it may end up being less than 3. 

Stop nitpicking my posts, it's annoying and it adds nothing to the conversation.

[DanClemmensen]

I understand the government pays more than the private sector for launch services but I will be disappointed if NASA's cost per Dragon seat goes up because:

Besides fulfilling his dream of flying in space, Jared Isaacman announced Monday that he aims to use the private trip to raise $200 million for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, half coming from his own pockets.

....

Isaacman would not divulge how much he’s paying SpaceX, except to say that the anticipated donation to St. Jude “vastly exceeds the cost of the mission.”

https://apnews.com/article/jared-isaacman-buys-spacex-flight-fd4647bbf41551b1d7a8adff71705ecb

You need to remember that besides the usual pile of paperwork necessary for critical government missions, NASA crew flights to the ISS also include 6 months of 24/7 monitoring/support and other services that were not needed for Inspiration4 3-day free flight mission.

There is also the opportunity cost or "rent" on the capsule. If the capsule is attached to ISS, then it cannot be use during the six month for tourist flights. If it were available, SpaceX might be able to use it at least once more and possibly twice more.

[Coastal Ron]

A sole source contract is a new solicitation.

Read the Sole Source Modification document (link here), and you will see it says:

NASA Kennedy Space Center intends to issue a sole source modification to SpaceX under the authority of FAR 6.302-1 to acquire up to three Post Certification Missions (PCMs) under the Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contract NNK14MA74C in order to enable NASA to meet its mission requirements to maintain crew onboard the International Space Station (ISS) and to meet obligations under agreements with its International Partners.

So this is NOT a new solicitation, this is just a modification of the existing CCtCap contract.

By definition it means that other providers were excluded.

As a reminder for everyone, the CCtCap contract only has SpaceX and Boeing as providers, and this Sole Source Modification is being done because Boeing is unable to provide the transportation services that NASA requires. Which means that NASA needs to rely on the only certified crew transportation provider, SpaceX, more than they anticipated. And as the customer, NASA has the right to make such decisions.

NASA could have decided to use the CCSTS round for these post-certification missions but it didn't.

No, they could not have done that, because the CCSTS is only an RFI, not a funded program. RFI's are only mechanisms for soliciting information, they are NOT a mechanism for competing and awarding contracts for services.

Boeing can bid on a new solicitation provided that it is not sole-sourced.

Um, of course. Who said otherwise?

You can argue that Boeing won't be ready on time for some of these missions but probably not all of them.

I never argued that. I only stated that Boeing was not guaranteed to win anything under a new contract beyond CCtCap. They have always been the most expensive option for crew transportation services, and if Sierra Space gets Dream Chaser into a more mature position than they were with the CCtCap competition, they could push Boeing out of the #2 spot.

I think that is why NASA said up to 3 missions will be sole-sourced to SpaceX, it may end up being less than 3.

The Sole Source Modification states "acquire up to three Post Certification Missions (PCMs)", so of course NASA is allowing for the possibility that Boeing will finally (Finally!) get Starliner operational and certified. But NASA is also making sure they have the flexibility in case Boeing is not ready.

From NASA's standpoint they are just being prudent in looking out for their own needs, not Boeing's needs.

[DanClemmensen]

Keep in mind that Boeing is at fault here for not getting Starliner certified, not NASA. So NASA owes Boeing NOTHING beyond what their contractual obligations call out.

As to how a Sole Source justification works, you are implying that NASA would justify not giving SpaceX (or someone else) a crew transportation contract because Boeing screwed up, and Boeing needs the money? That logic would not survive a court challenge.

A sole source contract is a new solicitation. By definition a sole-source contract means that other providers were excluded. NASA could have decided to use the CCSTS round for these post-certification missions but it didn't. This isn't terribly hard to understand. I don't think that NASA made the wrong decision but I am sure that Sierra Space would have liked to have been able to bid on these new missions (had they been announced earlier).

Boeing can bid on a new solicitation provided that it is not sole-sourced. How hard is that to understand. You can argue that Boeing won't be ready on time for some of these missions but probably not all of them. I think that is why NASA said up to 3 missions will be sole-sourced to SpaceX, it may end up being less than 3. 
[/quote]
Boeing has no need to bid on CCP flights in 2023 and beyond. They already won that bid and NASA will pay them for six flights, with the plan of alternating Starliner flights with Crew Dragon flights. This sole-source contract obligates SpaceX to provide extra flights in the even that Boeing cannot fulfill their contractual obligation to provide Starliner flights. If Starliner by some miracle becomes operational before the seventh Crew Dragon flight is needed, then Starliner will fly that flight instead. If Boeing can sustain a twice-yearly pace, then NASA can choose to use Starliner for six consecutive flights: they are under no obligation to actually use the three new Crew Dragon flights.  I think NASA would prefer to use flights under the new CCSTS contract, but that contract cannot magically cause crew-certified spacecraft to come into existence in 2023. That means NASA must fly on either Starliner, Crew Dragon, or Soyuz. They needed a contract mechanism that lets them fly on Crew Dragon if Starliner is not available, and a sole-source extension to CCtCap for additional contingent flights is the simplest contract mechanism for this.

If by some miracle Starliner becomes operational before Crew-7 flys and CCSTS contracts are awarded to some group of bidders and crew-qualified vehicles are operational before Starliner flies all six of its CCtCap flights, then the three new Crew Dragon flights will not fly.

Whenever Boeing finally gets Starliner operational, NASA is obligated to pay Boeing at full CCtCap prices for six flights, even if Crew Dragon CCtCap flights are cheaper and even flights under CCTSTS (from Crew Dragon, Starliner, or other) are available.

A strong case can be made that a failure to make this sole-source award is prejudicial to potential CTSTS bidders, because if NASA has no contingency, the CCSTS schedule would need to require a crew-certified vehicle in 2023, and that would basically exclude anything except Crew Dragon and Starliner.

What alternative would you propose?