“First you say NASA needs the service then in the next breath you claim it is something NASA may or may not want.”

NASA wants the service, but whose to say they would choose SpaceX after SpaceX has invested so much time and money in advance of a contract? After years of work, SpaceX (or OSC) could see the contract awarded to others if they used the “build it first, then we’ll decide” method.

This is not a hard business concept to understand. It would be like saying to a bunch of building contractors “build a building that is 100% unique to my needs with your own funds, and then we’ll decide if we want to buy it”. Building on risk works OK in a commodity market like housing or business space, but when there is only one customer, and they have say over whether it meets their needs AFTER IT’S COMPLETED, then no one but the most deep pocketed would risk their business on that.

Heck, Boeing won’t even risk their business on the CST-100 without NASA funding, and you think there would have been lots of companies lining up to build a cargo delivery system for the ISS without a guarantee of usage? Try selling that to the board.

The COTS program is doing two things – It’s transferring knowledge and it’s making sure that risk is mitigated.

Sure there are published standards for interfaces and approaches, but what we’re talking about here is a transfer of responsibility from a government agency to a private entity, which is new for ISS operations.

Is the COTS approach being cautious? Sure. But the ISS is a huge investment, and it survives via a tenuous support system. If something goes wrong, the likely course of action is to abandon it, and hope that it survives on it’s own long enough to return and fix it, or worst case, dump it in a controlled fashion.

“Yet if memory serves, you have repeatedly and passionately argued that cost-plus is anathema and fixed-price is the only way to go.”

Better get that memory checked.

I’ve worked in cost-plus environments, and fixed-price too, so I’m quite familiar with the good and bad of both.

What I have advocated for is those things that lower the cost to access space. The best way to do that is to introduce competition, and the best environment for competition is when there are standards that can be depended upon.

Cost-plus does have it’s uses, but here we are in the 6th decade of space flight, and we still have people arguing about keeping human spaceflight a government monopoly. That perpetuates non-standard activities, which is ripe for cost-plus type work. It’s a vicious cycle.

And let’s be quite honest here. If you’ve worked in the business, then you know the power of contractors to create the need for change orders, and to do what’s necessary to be the only company that can perform the required work for your customer. Nothing is better for the bottom line than being the sole source for something.

So what we need to break this cycle is standards and open competition, which will reduce the need for custom work that require cost-plus contracts. This won’t happen overnight, especially if the established players do not see a revenue upside to the change.

Stick that in your memory.

O thank you for enlightening me with your great wisdom. I guess my 20+ years of working in aerospace with both NASA and DoD customers to establish and execute new advanced programs is all for naught.

“But the ISS is not a well defined destination, and NASA has specific requirements that a delivery service must comply with before they will allow them to dock with the ISS.”

ISS is an extremely welled defined destination. All docking interfaces are detailed in excruciating detail with well defined interfaces, approach corridor requirements, abort scenario requirements, etc. etc. Being able to design a flight system to meet these requirements is not difficult, expensive yes, difficult no. NASA has plowed this ground extensively. There are also other docking locations with different requirements that are equally well defined. Russia, the EU, and Japan have all demonstrated the ability to successfully dock with the ISS.

“COTS-like situations are not unusual in the business world, as many businesses have proprietary systems or equipment that outside contractors need to work on. In those cases, the company has to pay extra for the unique service they want done, and this is what NASA is doing.”

Private businesses do not pay outside companies to develop specific or unique services and then pay them a second time to perform that service. That is what NASA is doing between COTS and CRS. In private industry, if new capabilities are required to meet a desired service, the cost and risk to perform that is borne by the potential subcontractor based on an assessment of whether future business needs justify that upfront expenditure. The prime in this case is buying the service, not the hardware which is retained by the subcontractor for future applications. If the prime funds the development of that new hardware, they own it unless the explicitly transfer ownership rights or use it as a means of negotiating reduced service costs for future needs. My original point stands, SpaceX and Orbital are effectively nothing more than NASA contractors. That they bring some level of matching funds is no different than a Boeing, NG, or LM.

“The COTS program is all about validating that the two contractors will be able to meet NASA-specific requirements.”

Wrong again. COTS is contracting with/subsidizing both organizations with funding and technical support to enable them to develop the basic technical capability to perform cargo delivery services. COTS is not solely performing a V&V function.

“You have it backwards. NASA needs someone to perform the service – SpaceX doesn’t need the risk, so they are not going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create something that NASA may or may not want.”

Which is it? First you say NASA needs the service then in the next breath you claim it is something NASA may or may not want. Make up your mind and argue that position. I can’t respond to such a schizophrenic mindset. I can say however that the second part of your statement is the very reason that firm-fixed price contracts associated with development of new and/or unique capabilities rarely work out and is why typical contractors won’t touch them. NASA is too unreliable as a customer for companies to take a risk on and thus they will only perform the work under cost-plus contracts (or bid a fixed price knowing that a Class I change is inevitable and they can recoup any potential shortcomings at that point). Yet if memory serves, you have repeatedly and passionately argued that cost-plus is anathema and fixed-price is the only way to go. So which position are you taking this week?

“Plus you dont really know that ATK doesnt have customers waiting to use their rocket. ”

If they did, it’s such a public relations booster that they would be blasting the news out to every media outlet. You don’t keep something like that a secret.

Besides, the Liberty rocket is being proposed to NASA – they want NASA money to build it. If they really believed in the economics of the Liberty launcher, they would do what SpaceX did and fund substantially internally.

“A lot of people here still think Orion will never fly…”

It won’t, because it died with Constellation.

What Congress has directed NASA to build instead is the MPCV, utilizing assets from Orion. However no one really knows what the MPCV will do, or what it’s size and weight will be, so it’s a little premature to assume that it will fit on any launcher.

“…well if no one else delivers a craft capable of deep space exploration”

Capsules as small as Orion and MPCV are not designed for deep space exploration, only short-term trips like to the Moon. For any long endurance missions, the MPCV will only be used as a lifeboat, not as the primary living quarters. This is because the ISS has shown us that astronauts lose muscle mass quickly in zero-G without exercise, and there is no room (or privacy) to exercise in a capsule.

As far as endurance in space as a lifeboat, Orion was planned to be capable of staying in space for up to 210 days (not occupied) whereas the Dragon capsule has an endurance of two years, and CST-100 210 days (same as Orion). No one knows what the final specs are for the MPCV, so there is no comparison that can be made.

“ If Dragon can accomplish deep space for less, great lets go”

I appreciate that you are enthusiastic about BEO missions, but Congress has not funded any, and is not likely to in the next few years. NASA’s budget is not going to grow, and I think the SLS schedule is going to be slipped out, if not cancelled completely, so grandiose missions will have to wait.

And once we are ready to go BEO again, there will be new technologies and new vehicles that will eclipse the “Apollo on steroids” design of the Orion and MPCV. Capsules will be relegated to LEO travel or lifeboat status on real spaceships. Which if you think about it would be great, since that means we’ve transitioned to real spaceships, instead of dinky capsules…

“Orion WAS DESIGNED FOR LUNAR DISTANCE REENTRIES.”

Orion is not designed to anything you say. You should learn a little about the different blocks/stages. Start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft) Also the “distance” only is part of the design requirements. Stop making statement as if you knew what you are talking about. Major Tom, even though incorrect, is only talking about the TPS which is another part of the requirements for Moon missions.

“The ablative coating on its outer skin was fully intended to match or exceed that of the old Apollo spacecraft, [whose last Lunar flight took place next to forty years ago].”

As is PICA used by SpaceX. Again learn more about these things I posted a link above. It’s not “easy” but it’s not that complicated either, to understand I mean.

“The space entrepreneurs don’t even have to bother with all that: their “mission” rests soley on reaching an ISS, in mere LEO.”

Another ignorant comment.

“Without an ISS, commercial space hasn’t got a mission!”

Another ignorant comment.

“Funny how the same people who say “So what!” ;about the Chinese possibly reaching the Moon with taikonauts, are the very same people who are lauding & praising & harping in jubilation about the recent launch & landing of an unmanned commercial space craft. I forget the name of the private corporation which did this ‘feat’; but I’ll tell you all that these baby steps are a LONG, long way off from getting U.S. spacemen into the picture!”

Yet another ignorant comment.

“For Barack Obama to gamble America’s space future on the vision of rocket hobbyists making good,….well, that has to just about be the Mount Rushmore of all farces!”

I am sure you’ll go tell Boeing, ULA, ATK, and all the CCDev entrants they are hobbyists, right?

You know you would be better served if you actually tried to understand what is happening rather than howling to the Moon. It makes you look like a wolf.. err fool.

“Well guys, go over to Spacetoday, and there is an article, that Liberty can lift ANY capsule, which of course includes Orion.”

Maybe, but why would anyone use it?

Dennis, you have to quit drinking the advertising koolaid and ask critical questions about what anybody says, commercial, contractor and government.

For instance:

WHY would NASA spend $3B+ to create Liberty when they have a more capable lifter already flying (Delta IV Heavy)?

WHY would Boeing launch their CST-100 on Liberty, when Atlas V is far less expensive (and they get profit back from ULA)?

WHY would SpaceX use Liberty instead of their own launcher (Falcon 9), which is also 1/3 the supposed per/launch cost of Liberty? And if SpaceX wants to launch MPCV, then they can do it using their $95M/flight Falcon 9 Heavy, which can lift 25,000 lb MORE than Liberty.

Perhaps most important, if MPCV can fly on Liberty, is Liberty going to be used for anything else? Delta IV Heavy is already used for the DoD/NRO payloads, and the Liberty SRM shakes so much that sensitive payloads may have to be redesigned. So if it’s only used for MPCV, it’s not going to launch very often, because MPCV doesn’t have a mission.

And what you’re not hearing from ATK is that their $180M/flight is based on a certain number of flights per year, which if it’s more than twice, then they are using the most optimistic cost estimates, not the likely ones.

So drink water, not koolaid, and ask yourself some basic questions before you get too excited.

“I would advocate that NASA procure services only, with payment upon delivery of those services.”

OK, which is what the commercial folks (including SpaceX) have been advocating…

“Development of the hardware necessary to perform those services should be financed with private funds.”

OK, here is where you don’t understand how things work.

If NASA needed a box moved from KSC to MSC, then yes, you could use that method, since the requirements for operating and transporting goods are well defined.

But the ISS is not a well defined destination, and NASA has specific requirements that a delivery service must comply with before they will allow them to dock with the ISS, much less carry valuable cargo. Because of this, no company in their right mind would spend their own money to create such a service, because NASA has final say over whether they are doing it right. No one would take on that much risk.

COTS-like situations are not unusual in the business world, as many businesses have proprietary systems or equipment that outside contractors need to work on. In those cases, the company has to pay extra for the unique service they want done, and this is what NASA is doing.

The COTS program is all about validating that the two contractors will be able to meet NASA-specific requirements. If SpaceX or Orbital were just being paid to deliver cargo to the ISS any way they want, then that would be different, but that’s not what NASA wants, so that’s what the COTS program is for, and that is why NASA has to pay companies to meet it’s unique and specific requirements.

“If they can then sell that capability to NASA…”

You have it backwards. NASA needs someone to perform the service – SpaceX doesn’t need the risk, so they are not going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create something that NASA may or may not want. No one would, not even large companies like Boeing or LM.

And regarding all your contracting advice, IMHO you’re kind of hit and miss regarding what you’re talking about – the acronyms are fine, but your conclusions that are off.

“The fact that NASA doesn’t perform this function well (by not providing clear, stable requirements or clear stable funding) is not the fault of the Contractor.”

I don’t remember any one pointing the finger to the cost-plus contractor in that particular regard.