Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[woods170]

This makes me physically sick to my stomach. Is there anything SpaceX could get out of suing NASA over this? How does Boeing manage to extract cost+ money out of a fixed price contract? How is this even moral or even legal?

Is this moral? IMO no

Is it legal? Yes it is. NASA has the right to modify the contract stipulations and to re-negotiate aspects of said contract.

Also, it's not cost+ money. What basiscally happened is that Boeing and NASA went into negotiations and agreed to modify the total value of the Firm Fixed Price contract for Starliner.

[b0objunior]

This makes me physically sick to my stomach. Is there anything SpaceX could get out of suing NASA over this? How does Boeing manage to extract cost+ money out of a fixed price contract? How is this even moral or even legal?

Well, they negociated their contract. They even admitted that they could have gotten more out of it if they had done their homework.

[mlindner]

This makes me physically sick to my stomach. Is there anything SpaceX could get out of suing NASA over this? How does Boeing manage to extract cost+ money out of a fixed price contract? How is this even moral or even legal?

Is this moral? IMO no

Is it legal? Yes it is. NASA has the right to modify the contract stipulations and to re-negotiate aspects of said contract.

Also, it's not cost+ money. What basiscally happened is that Boeing and NASA went into negotiations and agreed to modify the total value of the Firm Fixed Price contract for Starliner.

I should have phrased it better, I meant "cost+ style money".

It's turning out more and more that the "Firm" in "Firm Fixed Price" is not very "Firm".

[mlindner]

Eric's tweet is also pretty good as well:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1195059845390635009

[mlindner]

I didn't see the pdf linked, but here's the whole OIG document. Lots of details in it.

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-20-005.pdf

[ncb1397]

This makes me physically sick to my stomach. Is there anything SpaceX could get out of suing NASA over this? How does Boeing manage to extract cost+ money out of a fixed price contract? How is this even moral or even legal?

You didn't read the report. The commercial crew program freaked out when CRS-7 happened which lead them to evaluate the contingency that only Boeing would be transporting crews to the space station in the near term (Amos 6 a year later didn't help much). This train of thought lead them to the possibility that a 18 month gap would exist under the current contract if Boeing was the only provider. NASA chose to renegotiate the contract terms, reducing contracted lead times and allowing NASA unlimited flexibility for when ordered flights occurred and zero penalties for NASA delays. This effectively allowed them to order CST-100 flights in bulk way ahead of time and Boeing would store and maintain them for flight in a 5+ year time frame up to 2024. The cost of Boeing providing a backup ability for the other provider was a couple hundred million dollars or ~.2% of the cost of the asset they were insuring which NASA considered reasonable under the circumstances of the time.

[mlindner]

This makes me physically sick to my stomach. Is there anything SpaceX could get out of suing NASA over this? How does Boeing manage to extract cost+ money out of a fixed price contract? How is this even moral or even legal?

You didn't read the report. The commercial crew program freaked out when CRS-7 happened which lead them to evaluate the contingency that only Boeing would be transporting crews to the space station in the near term (Amos 6 a year later didn't help much). This train of thought lead them to the possibility that a 18 month gap would exist under the current contract if Boeing was the only provider. NASA chose to renegotiate the contract terms, reducing contracted lead times and allowing NASA unlimited flexibility for when ordered flights occurred and zero penalties for NASA delays. This effectively allowed them to order CST-100 flights in bulk way ahead of time and Boeing would store and maintain them for flight in a 5+ year time frame up to 2024. The cost of Boeing providing a backup ability for the other provider was a couple hundred million dollars or ~.1% cost of the cost asset they were insuring which NASA considered reasonable under the circumstances of the time.

That train of thought was fundamentally faulty though. CRS-7 could have happened no matter the provider. Boeing is no more immune to failures than any other group of human beings. If they are going to pay Boeing to insure against SpaceX's failure then they should have equally paid SpaceX to insure against Boeing's failure.

Further the document gives out strong evidence that Boeing effectively threatened to drop the entire contract if they weren't effectively bribed by NASA to continue.

According to several NASA officials, a significant consideration for paying Boeing such a premium was to
ensure the contractor continued as a second crew transportation provider. CCP officials cited NASA’s
guidance to maintain two U.S. commercial crew providers to ensure redundancy in crew transportation
as part of the rationale for approving the purchase of all four missions at higher prices. Additionally,
senior CCP officials believed that due to financial considerations, Boeing could not continue as a
commercial crew provider unless the contractor received the higher prices.

This is where SpaceX would have some leverage for a lawsuit, if they decide to take it.

Edit: Some rewordings.

[ncb1397]

That train of thought was fundamentally faulty though. CRS-7 could have happened no matter the provider. Boeing is no more immune to failures than any other group of human beings. If they are going to pay Boeing to insure against SpaceX's failure then they should have equally paid SpaceX to insure against Boeing's failure.

That would be the highest cost option. But life isn't fair like that. Guess how much CCtCap money Sierra Nevada got? 0. Why? Reasons. Some are debatable like the fact, in William Gersteinmaier's estimation, a space plane would be more difficult to produce and be more likely to be delayed. On the other hands, in reality, parachutes have had their own issues that for all we know are just as troublesome.

Anyways, CCP was right to be more concerned with SpaceX's reliability than Boeing's. Boeing had a partially damaged service module while SpaceX has had triple parachute failures, destroyed capsules and 2 launch failures. If SpaceX wants to be treated the same, they have to be the same.

[TripleSeven]

This makes me physically sick to my stomach. Is there anything SpaceX could get out of suing NASA over this? How does Boeing manage to extract cost+ money out of a fixed price contract? How is this even moral or even legal?

Boeing has better lawyers or more experienced ones

we have a small company that is a federal contractor (flight training) and its all fixed price...but somewhere in the contract is an escalation clause where "for the needs of the government" schedules change and the government can, at its own discretion escalate contractual performance, but they have to pay for it

this is, its looks to me exactly what happened here.  NASA saw a problem, went to Boeing to solve it and Boeing had a solution which was more money. the problem went away but well the escalation had already happened.

the government is under no obligation to go to all the contractors and ask for a solution to their "problems" in our companies case flight training.  it all depends on who you have the relationship with

when it happens it can be fairly lucrative...because even if the escalation happens (ie they send more crews then the contract specified) you have plenty of time to get ready for it...of course if they dont.  well you keep the money

I am not a lawyer but I doubt there is a law suit here

[TripleSeven]

This makes me physically sick to my stomach. Is there anything SpaceX could get out of suing NASA over this? How does Boeing manage to extract cost+ money out of a fixed price contract? How is this even moral or even legal?

You didn't read the report. The commercial crew program freaked out when CRS-7 happened which lead them to evaluate the contingency that only Boeing would be transporting crews to the space station in the near term (Amos 6 a year later didn't help much). This train of thought lead them to the possibility that a 18 month gap would exist under the current contract if Boeing was the only provider. NASA chose to renegotiate the contract terms, reducing contracted lead times and allowing NASA unlimited flexibility for when ordered flights occurred and zero penalties for NASA delays. This effectively allowed them to order CST-100 flights in bulk way ahead of time and Boeing would store and maintain them for flight in a 5+ year time frame up to 2024. The cost of Boeing providing a backup ability for the other provider was a couple hundred million dollars or ~.2% cost of the cost asset they were insuring which NASA considered reasonable under the circumstances of the time.

exactly.  the old escalator clause...well summarized

[woods170]

That train of thought was fundamentally faulty though. CRS-7 could have happened no matter the provider. Boeing is no more immune to failures than any other group of human beings. If they are going to pay Boeing to insure against SpaceX's failure then they should have equally paid SpaceX to insure against Boeing's failure.

That would be the highest cost option. But life isn't fair like that. Guess how much CCtCap money Sierra Nevada got? 0. Why? Reasons. Some are debatable like the fact, in William Gersteinmaier's estimation, a space plane would be more difficult to produce and be more likely to be delayed. On the other hands, in reality, parachutes have had their own issues that for all we know are just as troublesome.

Anyways, CCP was right to be more concerned with SpaceX's reliability than Boeing's. Boeing had a partially damaged service module while SpaceX has had triple parachute failures, destroyed capsules and 2 launch failures. If SpaceX wants to be treated the same, they have to be the same.

Multiple errors in your last paragraph:

- Destroyed capsule (singular), not capsules (plural).
- One launch failure (CRS-7), not two (AMOS-6 was not a launch failure because it was destroyed well before launch. CRS-1 was not a launch failure but an engine anomaly).
- Boeing's Starliner hotfire test service module was damaged to the extent that it was written-off. In other words: it was destroyed.
- Oh and uh you forgot to mention that Boeing suffered partial parachute failures as well (as noted in the OIG report). Most recently one during their pad abort test.

CCP supposedly having more confidence in Boeing's reliability than SpaceX's reliability has turned out to be ill-founded given that both contractors have suffered a good number of incidents, as pointed out in reports from OIG, NAC-HEOc and ASAP.

[woods170]

This makes me physically sick to my stomach. Is there anything SpaceX could get out of suing NASA over this? How does Boeing manage to extract cost+ money out of a fixed price contract? How is this even moral or even legal?

Boeing has better lawyers or more experienced ones

we have a small company that is a federal contractor (flight training) and its all fixed price...but somewhere in the contract is an escalation clause where "for the needs of the government" schedules change and the government can, at its own discretion escalate contractual performance, but they have to pay for it

this is, its looks to me exactly what happened here.  NASA saw a problem, went to Boeing to solve it and Boeing had a solution which was more money. the problem went away but well the escalation had already happened.

the government is under no obligation to go to all the contractors and ask for a solution to their "problems" in our companies case flight training.  it all depends on who you have the relationship with

when it happens it can be fairly lucrative...because even if the escalation happens (ie they send more crews then the contract specified) you have plenty of time to get ready for it...of course if they dont.  well you keep the money

I am not a lawyer but I doubt there is a law suit here

I agree. There very likely will not be a lawsuit. But IMO there will a formal complaint about NASA displaying a serious case of ill judgement.

[TripleSeven]

I agree. There very likely will not be a lawsuit. But IMO there will a formal complaint about NASA displaying a serious case of ill judgement.

this is the start of the blame game...

I guess two things do not surprise me ...

first is that boeing is the favorite child (as we call it).  I come from the federal government (ie career military) and when we started our flight training business...(after I retired) it took me a little bit to learn lessons I guess I should have learned while "in the mother ship".  when contracts are bid, you bid more or less what they want, you get to know the people who are managing the contract, the customer is always right etc.  and until I learned those things.. well we didnt get much federal business.  Boeing works hard at those things...they formulate relationships, etc etc

second...that NASA internal people saw a problem and moved aggressively to fix it.  ISS is the premier national space effort and crewing it is important and crewing it with Americans from American soil is vital. 

at least number 2 stem of course from the root cause which is underperformance of both contractors (and some failure on NASA's part) to get these vehicles flying in a timely manner.

in all respects this has been surprising to me...and displays to me at least a bit of overconfidence, incompentence, and sloth on both parties. 

I dont think either of them until recently have put their A teams on a very important project .  I am a well known critic of NASA...having said that I think it bears little or no blame for this situation other then it did not engage both contractors sooner.  Being a Boeing alumni I am pretty well aghast until recently at the companies performance

having said that...this story is much ado about zero.  SpaceX should be smarter

[SWGlassPit]

- Boeing's Starliner hotfire test service module was damaged to the extent that it was written-off. In other words: it was destroyed.

I don't know why this one keeps getting repeated.  It does not match with firsthand accounts I've been given.

[edzieba]

Anyways, CCP was right to be more concerned with SpaceX's reliability than Boeing's. Boeing had a partially damaged service module while SpaceX has had triple parachute failures, destroyed capsules and 2 launch failures. If SpaceX wants to be treated the same, they have to be the same.

Had an abort system plumbing issue take out a capsule: SpaceX & Boeing
Had multiple issues with parachute failures: SpaceX & Boeing
Had to 'lose' a capsule & service module from flow due to damage and step later ones up: SpaceX & Boeing


The technical issues both have faced have been remarkably similar, as both have similar architectures and undergone testing regimes: both are using liquid-fuelled pusher abort motors rather than tractor solids. Both have performed far more extensive modelling and simulation of parachute dynamics as well as extensively instrumented parachute testing, which have uncovered and quantified failure modes that were previously unknown.

[gongora]

Obviously the Commercial Crew program is more expensive than just buying Soyuz seats when you include the development costs, but getting seat prices lower really wasn't the main reason for doing the program.  (If you just include the CCtCap development costs, SpaceX actually isn't that much higher per seat than what Russia is charging the US now for Soyuz seats.)

[ugordan]

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1195083288752402432

NASA letter in response to the latest OIG Commercial Crew report:

"NASA strongly disagrees with the OIG's characterization that NASA 'overpaid'" when granting Boeing $287.2 million in additional awards.

Naturally NASA disagrees with the OIG. If they would admit that OIG might have a point NASA would be shooting itself in the foot.

"... and also represents the value to NASA and the nation of having two independent U.S. human space transportation systems supporting ISS operations"

Am I reading too much into this statement, or is it actually NASA lowkey admitting that Boeing was about to pull out of comm. crew otherwise?

[Stan-1967]

Anyways, CCP was right to be more concerned with SpaceX's reliability than Boeing's. Boeing had a partially damaged service module while SpaceX has had triple parachute failures, destroyed capsules and 2 launch failures. If SpaceX wants to be treated the same, they have to be the same.

While we're clutching pearls on development failures, let's include the Atlas V failure on Cygnus OA-6.  If that would have happened with a 13000kg CTS-100 vs. a 7500kg Cygnus, it would have been LOM & possibly LOC.

[TripleSeven]

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1195083288752402432

NASA letter in response to the latest OIG Commercial Crew report:

"NASA strongly disagrees with the OIG's characterization that NASA 'overpaid'" when granting Boeing $287.2 million in additional awards.

Naturally NASA disagrees with the OIG. If they would admit that OIG might have a point NASA would be shooting itself in the foot.

"... and also represents the value to NASA and the nation of having two independent U.S. human space transportation systems supporting ISS operations"

Am I reading too much into this statement, or is it actually NASA lowkey admitting that Boeing was about to pull out of comm. crew otherwise?

Boeing denies this and there is no solid evidence for it

[abaddon]

While we're clutching pearls on development failures, let's include the Atlas V failure on Cygnus OA-6.  If that would have happened with a 13000kg CTS-100 vs. a 7500kg Cygnus, it would have been LOM & possibly LOC.

LOM, very likely, although it seems plausible the CST SM could make up the shortfall.  LOC?  Seems very unlikely.  The CST-100+SM should be quite capable of a once-around orbit and immediate deorbit.  What would make LOC more likely than a normal deorbit, specifically?