Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[ThomasGadd]

Even if congress funds ISS through 2030 there is a real risk of it failing before then or lasting few years longer. 
NASA hates single sourcing with Crew Dragon but they don't have choice.  Once Starliner is certified it will alternate Crew Dragon. 
If Starliner becomes in 2024 that gives then six years, more or less, of flights. 

[yg1968]

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 event 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?

I am guessing that your question is addressed to me (but you may want to fix the quote in your post  above this one).

I wasn't proposing any alternative. I think that what NASA is doing is great. I was simply trying to state that it would be better for NASA to proceed with the CCSTS as quickly as possible and I believe that is what they are doing.

If I were Sierra Space, I would want NASA to proceed as quickly as possible with the CCSTS round in order for them to get a contract for new missions.

If I were Boeing, I would want NASA to proceed with the CCSTS round in order for them to get more post certification missions, starting in 2027 (they only have six as of now).

[DanClemmensen]

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 event 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?

I am guessing that your question is addressed to me (but you may want to fix the quote in your post  above this one).

I wasn't proposing any alternative. I think that what NASA is doing is great. I was simply trying to state that it would be better for NASA to proceed with the CCSTS as quickly as possible and I believe that is what they are doing.

If I were Sierra Space, I would want NASA to proceed as quickly as possible with the CCSTS round in order for them to get a contract for new missions.

If I were Boeing, I would want NASA to proceed with the CCSTS round in order for them to get more post certification missions, starting in 2027 (they only have six as of now).

If I were SpaceX, I would also want to see CCSTS as quickly as possible. My only problem would be how to decide how much to charge per mission. If CCSTS is to be structured like CCP, then each vendor proposed a schedule of milestones and milestone payments, and a price for each operational launch. SpaceX is in a position to propose Crew Dragon at $0 for any milestone prior to the first operational mission and propose a per-mission price that they think is slightly below the next-lowest bidder. They can even gamble and bid a higher per-mission price, guessing that NASA will fund two contracts and that they are almost certain to be one of them because they are the lowest-risk option.

SpaceX may also choose to make two separate bids, one for Crew Dragon and one for Starship. If they do, it will be interesting to see how NASA responds.

[Joseph Peterson]

It was kinder than assuming you were being disingenuous.

That would have also been a bad assumption.

Here are a couple points that I argue are not bad assumptions.

- CCtCap bids were due in August 2013.  SpaceX wouldn't land a booster until December 2015 and reflight didn't happen until June 2017.  I believe it is reasonable to argue that when SpaceX crafted their CCtCap bid they did so assuming launches would happen on expended Falcons.

- Back in August 2013 private sector demand was unproven and NASA demand could be limited as few as two total operational missions at a tempo of one mission per year.  I believe it is reasonable to argue SpaceX crafted their CCtCap bid assuming one mission per year.

Reusing boosters and higher tempo are both things that should reduce SpaceX's per mission costs.  Whether or not these savings have already recovered unexpected Dragon 2 costs is something we don't know based on public information.  I would be disappointed in SpaceX cost estimating ability back in 2013 if they haven't done so by the time the six originally contracted missions have been completed though.


Returning to my original point, we need to reduce the cost to access space if we want to move beyond Earth in earnest.  Through no fault of their own SpaceX currently has a monopoly on American crew access to space.  I understand SpaceX can choose to profit from this monopoly.  I will be disappointed if we move further from the greater goal.

[yg1968]

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 event 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?

I am guessing that your question is addressed to me (but you may want to fix the quote in your post  above this one).

I wasn't proposing any alternative. I think that what NASA is doing is great. I was simply trying to state that it would be better for NASA to proceed with the CCSTS as quickly as possible and I believe that is what they are doing.

If I were Sierra Space, I would want NASA to proceed as quickly as possible with the CCSTS round in order for them to get a contract for new missions.

If I were Boeing, I would want NASA to proceed with the CCSTS round in order for them to get more post certification missions, starting in 2027 (they only have six as of now).

If I were SpaceX, I would also want to see CCSTS as quickly as possible. My only problem would be how to decide how much to charge per mission. If CCSTS is to be structured like CCP, then each vendor proposed a schedule of milestones and milestone payments, and a price for each operational launch. SpaceX is in a position to propose Crew Dragon at $0 for any milestone prior to the first operational mission and propose a per-mission price that they think is slightly below the next-lowest bidder. They can even gamble and bid a higher per-mission price, guessing that NASA will fund two contracts and that they are almost certain to be one of them because they are the lowest-risk option.

SpaceX may also choose to make two separate bids, one for Crew Dragon and one for Starship. If they do, it will be interesting to see how NASA responds.

In the CCSTS RFI, it seems that NASA is considering having two parts to this round. One of them is for certification activities and the other is for services. It seems that NASA is considering having the option to buy the entire flight or only certain seats on the flights.

In the past companies such as NG and SpaceX with CRS2 have offered NASA more than one option and then let NASA decide what option it prefers (e.g. SpaceX offered both Dragon 1 and 2 for CRS2). I suspect that is what SpaceX will do for crewed Dragon and Starship. The additional complication for Starship is that it would need to be certified. I would expect that NASA will require at least one crewed demo mission prior to certifying a new system. I would expect SpaceX to also propose an uncrewed Starship demo mission.   

[yg1968]

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.

1- 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.

2- 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.

3- 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.

4- Um, of course. Who said otherwise?

5- 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.

1- It is still a new solicitation, even though it modifies an existing contract.

Noncompetitive Proposals (Sole Sourcing) Procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/sole-sourcing

2- I was referring to CCSTS. It was fairly obvious from the context (the second sentence explains the meaning of the first one).

3- An RFI is the start of the process. I meant that NASA could have used the RFP that will likely follow this RFI to purchase these additional missions. This was also fairly obvious from the context.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/sole-sourcing

4- I was just making a general point about the difference between CCSTS and the sole-sourcing contract modification.

5- I meant a general "you", not you specifically.

[DanClemmensen]

[...]
SpaceX may also choose to make two separate bids, one for Crew Dragon and one for Starship. If they do, it will be interesting to see how NASA responds.

[...]
In the past companies such as NG and SpaceX with CRS2 have offered NASA more than one option and then let NASA decide what option it prefers (e.g. SpaceX offered both Dragon 1 and 2 for CRS2). I suspect that is what SpaceX will do for crewed Dragon and Starship. The additional complication for Starship is that it would need to be certified. I would expect that NASA will require at least one crewed demo mission prior to certifying a new system. I would expect SpaceX to also propose an uncrewed Starship demo mission.

Yes: in this case two radically different proposals. Crew Dragon: $0 development, $70 million per seat operational.  Starship: $1 billion development (mostly for certification and testing), $50 million/flight for the first 5 seats + 50 tons of cargo and and $1million/seat for up to 50 additional seats per flight. They are so different that NASA should choose both, if they can see a way to crew-certify Starship.

If NASA and SpaceX cannot agree on a way to certify without an LES, SpaceX could choose to implement one. Hideously expensive and kludgy but doable, requiring a higher development cost, lower max crew size, and a higher per-flight price. The crew launches in ejection pods, say 4 crew per pod, say 5 pods, which eject on the dorsal side of the Starship at a 45 degree angle toward the bow. This uses up a huge amount of the mass budget. I really want to see the video of the launch abort test. 

[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.

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

1- It is still a new solicitation, even though it modifies an existing contract.

No. I've worked for companies that have received many sole source contract awards, and this is not an award of a contract, this is a MODIFICATION of an existing contract. In order to have a solicitation they would have needed a work description, which they didn't need because this is just a modification of an EXISTING contract, not the creation of a NEW contract.

The existing CCtCap contract put a cap on mission awards, so this contract modification increases the missions that SpaceX can perform under the existing contract. No new contract required. This is pretty standard stuff if you have worked in the government contracting world.

By definition it means that other providers were excluded.

2- 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.

2- I was referring to CCSTS. It was fairly obvious from the context (the second sentence explains the meaning of the first one)

You couldn't have been referring to the CCSTS RFI since the RFI doesn't exclude anyone - it is asking for industry input. How could they have excluded anyone?

And you were talking about a "sole source contract", and that could only have been the CCtCap contract, since NASA states specifically that this was a modification to CCtCap.

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

3- 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.

3- An RFI is the start of the process. I meant that NASA could have used the RFP that will likely follow this RFI to purchase these additional missions. This was also fairly obvious from the context.

No, not obvious from the context, since RFI's don't always lead to RFQ's, and RFQ's don't always lead to contracts.

I assume you are being more specific when you state something, and not being nebulous. Is that a bad assumption?

5- 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.

5- I meant a general "you", not you specifically.

You said "you". If you meant the public in general you would have said something like "Many could argue...", but instead you wrote "you" in response to my post. I'm not a mind reader, so I assumed you actually meant what you wrote.

If you don't want me to assume you mean EXACTLY what you write, then you should put a disclaimer on your posts... 

Also, while I appreciate the numbering system you employed, responding in-line would be easier to understand, because otherwise the audience has to jump up and down between my statements and your answers to try and figure out what is being said.

[yg1968]

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.

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

1- It is still a new solicitation, even though it modifies an existing contract.

No. I've worked for companies that have received many sole source contract awards, and this is not an award of a contract, this is a MODIFICATION of an existing contract. In order to have a solicitation they would have needed a work description, which they didn't need because this is just a modification of an EXISTING contract, not the creation of a NEW contract.

The existing CCtCap contract put a cap on mission awards, so this contract modification increases the missions that SpaceX can perform under the existing contract. No new contract required. This is pretty standard stuff if you have worked in the government contracting world.

The Google (Oxford Languages) definition of solicitation is the following "the act of asking for or trying to obtain something from someone.". By that definition the sole source contract modification for SpaceX is a solicitation. I never said that it wasn't a modification of the contract. You are putting words in my mouth again...

You said "you". If you meant the public in general you would have said something like "Many could argue...", but instead you wrote "you" in response to my post.

It is possible to use you in a generic way (to mean a person in general):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

The rest of your post is more nitpicking at my posts and adds nothing to the conversation. So I prefer not to encourage your nitpicking.

[deadman719]

With news that Russia will launch a cosmonaut to the ISS on a Dragon, what happens when Starliner begins flying operational missions? Roscomos was hesitant to allow crews to use Dragon due to safety concerns. How many Starliner flights does the form believe are required to allay any similar safety concerns?

How does the US maintain a constant presence if Roscosmos doesn't fly on Starliner for the first few operational missions? Could NASA secure a seat on a Soyuz via a purchase by Boeing?  From a contractual point of view, NASA could seek consideration from Boeing as a way to pay for the seat.

I don't recall seeing this issue discussed previously.

Respectfully,
Rob

[Rebel44]

With news that Russia will launch a cosmonaut to the ISS on a Dragon, what happens when Starliner begins flying operational missions? Roscomos was hesitant to allow crews to use Dragon due to safety concerns. How many Starliner flights does the form believe are required to allay any similar safety concerns?

How does the US maintain a constant presence if Roscosmos doesn't fly on Starliner for the first few operational missions? Could NASA secure a seat on a Soyuz via a purchase by Boeing?  From a contractual point of view, NASA could seek consideration from Boeing as a way to pay for the seat.

I don't recall seeing this issue discussed previously.

Respectfully,
Rob

I would expect that Russia might not allow their cosmonauts to use Starliner before 3-4 consecutive successful crewed missions - just like they did with Crew Dragon. I have no idea how will NASA deal with that situation.

[Zed_Noir]

With news that Russia will launch a cosmonaut to the ISS on a Dragon, what happens when Starliner begins flying operational missions? Roscomos was hesitant to allow crews to use Dragon due to safety concerns. How many Starliner flights does the form believe are required to allay any similar safety concerns?

How does the US maintain a constant presence if Roscosmos doesn't fly on Starliner for the first few operational missions? Could NASA secure a seat on a Soyuz via a purchase by Boeing?  From a contractual point of view, NASA could seek consideration from Boeing as a way to pay for the seat.

I don't recall seeing this issue discussed previously.

Respectfully,
Rob

I would expect that Russia might not allow their cosmonauts to use Starliner before 3-4 consecutive successful crewed missions - just like they did with Crew Dragon. I have no idea how will NASA deal with that situation.

Presuming NASA don't have consecutive operational Starliner flights. NASA could deal with this particular situation by buying a few seats on Axiom missions with one cosmonaut going up and one astronaut coming down. The cosmonaut comes back in a later Crew Dragon.


And I don't think the Russians will let any of their crew fly on the Starliner until after the fourth operational flight if there is no more issues.

[su27k]

Interesting interview of Phil McAlister, Director of Commercial Spaceflight at NASA, covers COTS, Commercial Crew and CLD: https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/205

[yg1968]

Interesting interview of Phil McAlister, Director of Commercial Spaceflight at NASA, covers COTS, Commercial Crew and CLD: https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/205

Yes, very interesting. McAlister is great. One of the things that McAlister said at the beginning of the interview is that he wished that NASA had continued with SAAs for commercial crew for a longer time that it did.

I agree with him, my own view (which I had expressed at the time) is that the optional milestones under CCiCap (which was governed by SAAs) should have been exercised and NASA should have continued under CCiCap until the demo crewed flights were completed. In other words, CCtCap (which is under FAR) should have started only after the demo flights.

[Coastal Ron]

Interesting interview of Phil McAlister, Director of Commercial Spaceflight at NASA, covers COTS, Commercial Crew and CLD: https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/205

Yes, very interesting. McAlister is great. One of the things that McAlister said at the beginning of the interview is that he wished that NASA had continued with SAAs for commercial crew for a longer time that it did.

I agree with him, my own view (which I had expressed at the time) is that the optional milestones under CCiCap (which was governed by SAAs) should have been exercised and NASA should have continued under CCiCap until the demo crewed flights were completed. In other words, CCtCap (which is under FAR) should have started only after the demo flights.

Lots of lessons learned with the Commercial Crew development program, with some more to go (*cough* Boeing *cough*).

Contracts are important for both the buyer and the provider, and while SAA's are convenient for unpaid and/or not-too-well structured activities, providers may actually want firm contracts when significant amounts of money are at stake.

So it would interesting to see what Phil McAlister thought would be accomplished by extending the use of SAA's in major programs. Was he hoping for risk reduction of some sort? Or better insight into what the actual cost would be for both NASA and the providers?

[DigitalMan]

Interesting interview of Phil McAlister, Director of Commercial Spaceflight at NASA, covers COTS, Commercial Crew and CLD: https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/205

Yes, very interesting. McAlister is great. One of the things that McAlister said at the beginning of the interview is that he wished that NASA had continued with SAAs for commercial crew for a longer time that it did.

I agree with him, my own view (which I had expressed at the time) is that the optional milestones under CCiCap (which was governed by SAAs) should have been exercised and NASA should have continued under CCiCap until the demo crewed flights were completed. In other words, CCtCap (which is under FAR) should have started only after the demo flights.

My view is the issue is about control. Perhaps it is too big a step to take what some congress persons consider should be government owned programs and make them completely commercial programs.

They have a hard time letting go.

[yg1968]

Interesting interview of Phil McAlister, Director of Commercial Spaceflight at NASA, covers COTS, Commercial Crew and CLD: https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/205

Yes, very interesting. McAlister is great. One of the things that McAlister said at the beginning of the interview is that he wished that NASA had continued with SAAs for commercial crew for a longer time that it did.

I agree with him, my own view (which I had expressed at the time) is that the optional milestones under CCiCap (which was governed by SAAs) should have been exercised and NASA should have continued under CCiCap until the demo crewed flights were completed. In other words, CCtCap (which is under FAR) should have started only after the demo flights.

Lots of lessons learned with the Commercial Crew development program, with some more to go (*cough* Boeing *cough*).

Contracts are important for both the buyer and the provider, and while SAA's are convenient for unpaid and/or not-too-well structured activities, providers may actually want firm contracts when significant amounts of money are at stake.

So it would interesting to see what Phil McAlister thought would be accomplished by extending the use of SAA's in major programs. Was he hoping for risk reduction of some sort? Or better insight into what the actual cost would be for both NASA and the providers?

He was talking about commercial crew specifically. The question was what would he have done differently for commercial crew if he had the chance. CCiCap was under SAAs and had optional demo missions which weren't exercised (incidentally, COTS was under SAAs and also had demo missions). So I am guessing that may have been what he meant by extending SAAs for a longer time for commercial crew but it is only a guess because he didn't really elaborate on it.

[SoftwareDude]

Interesting interview of Phil McAlister, Director of Commercial Spaceflight at NASA, covers COTS, Commercial Crew and CLD: https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/205

Yes, very interesting. McAlister is great. One of the things that McAlister said at the beginning of the interview is that he wished that NASA had continued with SAAs for commercial crew for a longer time that it did.

I agree with him, my own view (which I had expressed at the time) is that the optional milestones under CCiCap (which was governed by SAAs) should have been exercised and NASA should have continued under CCiCap until the demo crewed flights were completed. In other words, CCtCap (which is under FAR) should have started only after the demo flights.

My view is the issue is about control. Perhaps it is too big a step to take what some congress persons consider should be government owned programs and make them completely commercial programs.

They have a hard time letting go.

I don't understand, the federal government owns and operates thousands of highly sophisticated crewed fighter jets most of which are more sophisticated than Dragon or Starliner.  I don't understand how any objection to NASA having the same companies and others build such things to spec as is already done for the Air Force and Navy.

[pathfinder_01]

I don't understand, the federal government owns and operates thousands of highly sophisticated crewed fighter jets most of which are more sophisticated than Dragon or Starliner.  I don't understand how any objection to NASA having the same companies and others build such things to spec as is already done for the Air Force and Navy.

The idea of commercial HSF is to expand HSF beyond just being NASA only and to lower the cost of HSF through private ownership/control as well as competition. It is also to increase investment in space from non government sources or at least non NASA sources.

The problem is that unlike the militarily where commercial contracts have been around since ancient times(The Romans had military contracting). NASA was a relatively new Organization that was given the task of putting a man on the moon using the technology that was available(or could be developed quickly) in the 60ies and latter the task of building the shuttle. So it created it own infrastructure and systems that created political support but over time industry has developed to the point were it can do roles that NASA once did for itself. However where as the military has many aspects that it can contract over NASA has fewer and is much more under the thumb of Congress and this control isn't checked by the fear that national security may be compromised by it.

A good example would be commercial crew and cargo. Orion launched on Ares-1 was supposed to do BOTH jobs but NASA choose to develop the Ares-1 rather than upgrade the existing launch vehicles owned by ULA and the program was both expensive(Ares 1 was estimated to cost 800 million per launch at the time), and duplicative Atlas V could have handled both. Ares-1 would have created/saved more shuttle jobs but the EELV would be much cheaper and would have been ready much sooner.  Only when CxP began to run late and way over budget did NASA embrace commercial Cargo and the low cost of the commercial cargo program led to the Commercial Crew Program.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1483473369160953862