Is This NASA Document Saving or Killing Manned Private Spaceflight?

For the past few years, NASA has been funding private space companies in the hope that they can build spacecraft that will carry astronauts to orbit. This is a historic change: Until now, every NASA craft has been designed and wholly owned by the agency. Now, industry would build and operate rockets and spacecraft, and it would do it more quickly, cheaply, and flexibly than the government could, opening a new era of spaceflight.

But not so fast.

This month, NASA released the first draft of the document that describes how it plans to ensure the privately built spacecraft they will use will be safe. The document will define America?s future in space, because it sets the rules private companies will have to follow, though few seem to have read it. But we read through the dense language of the contract, called the Commercial Crew Integrated Design Contract (CCIDC), and found that it sets terms that keep NASA very much in control of the design and timeline of the next astronaut-carrying spacecraft and launch vehicles.

Space companies are quietly pushing back against parts of the contract. Officials complain that the terms leave open questions over who has final say over the engineering. There are new government review boards that can reject hardware designs. Some insiders complain that this intensive NASA control is tantamount to the FAA certifying the design of airplanes, not just certifying their airworthiness. And the contract stipulates that companies would have to make room for NASA employees in their own offices, who would keep tabs on the companies? projects.

"The devil?s in the details of what level NASA wants control," says one Boeing official.

Yet, the contract proposed by NASA is a new approach for the agency, and it does streamline paperwork requirements and ensure that private companies can keep their intellectual property. So for NASA, the CCIDC is cutting edge and innovative. "We are enabling and allowing for contractor-owned and operated systems. That?s a big difference," says Phil McAlister, NASA?s director of commercial spaceflight. "We want these systems to be available to all range of public and private users. So we?re really hoping that this will spur the development of a new industry for the United States." (For a detailed explanation of NASA?s contract, and their approach to private space, read our full exclusive Q&A with McAlister.)

So will the new contract secure America?s future in space, with nimble companies leading the way into space? Or result in another business-as-usual government program, with typical delays and cost overruns? Industry responses to the plan are due by the end of October, but the negotiations have already begun. Here?s a glimpse of what government and industry players are debating behind closed doors.

From Carrying Cargo to Carrying People

Rewind the tape to 2005, when NASA funded Orbital Flight Sciences and Space Exploration Corp. (SpaceX) to develop their own space launch systems. NASA?s initial goal in funding private space was not to deliver cargo to the International Space Station, but simply to foster technology. "The cargo program was more of a backup option," McAlister says. "This was not funding a mission, but to stimulate industry. And at the end, if we could deliver cargo to the station, that would be great. And by the time we were halfway through, things were looking good."

Except for the final approach to the space station, NASA was willing to give private space plenty of room to operate the way they wanted to. "We didn?t need a lot of insight into its specific technical aspects," McAlister says. "If the mission fails we just lose some water, we lose some food, we lose some clothes, not a big deal. So we?re willing to accept a higher level of risk for the cargo systems."

Things still look good for the cargo program?SpaceX has already flown its Dragon capsule in orbit and returned it to Earth. It?s on track to berth with ISS in December or January. Orbital is not far behind, with a launch expected within five months. (SpaceX plans to deliver people to space, but Orbital does not.) But it?s clear from the new contract that NASA doesn?t intend to manage the crew-carrying vessels the same way it managed cargo-carrying ones. Like a baseball player going into the majors, the rules and expectations have changed for private space companies now that they have a big-league mission. Flying astronauts is different than flying water, food, and clothes.

SpaceX declined to comment about the contract, preferring to wait until company owner Elon Musk testifies on the topic before Congress later this month. However, company officials have signaled that they?d prefer a continuation of the more hands-off approach NASA used during the effort to bring cargo to the International Space Station. " It?s a delicate balance," Garrett Reisman, the former NASA astronaut who heads the human spaceflight effort for SpaceX, said this month during a panel at Popular Mechanics? 2011 Breakthrough Awards. "NASA provides a strong function in the expertise, and in verifying and certifying that what we?re doing the right [things] to be safe. After that it?s up to us to implement... If you alter that balance, it won?t be successful. As long as we keep doing the partnership that we?ve done with cargo, and carry that forward [to carrying crew], we see working with NASA forever."

NASA is not going to its old paradigm, which McAlister described as: "We own the design, we make the decisions about the design choices, whether you?re going to use a seven amp fuse or a four amp fuse, we make all those decisions and we sign off on all of those." But the lassiez-faire days of the cargo program appear to be gone.

"There would just be too much risk that, at the end, they wouldn?t really be able to meet our human rating requirements and we?d have to do an expensive, time-consuming redesign," McAlister says. "Since the crew are going to be on these systems, we want to be?we need to be?much more substantially involved in the development of those systems, understanding the capability, understanding whether they meet the safety requirements or not."

That?s where the recently released CCIDC comes in, and where the small and large companies alike are getting a wake up call in the way NASA wants to run the manned spaceflight show.

The Insight/Oversight Model

One way NASA plans to be so substantially involved is called the insight/oversight clause. In it, NASA creates a board that seems to control the approval of contractor hardware. "Approval of their system, in terms of meeting our requirements, will be done by a board, headed by a NASA Commercial Crew Program Manager and co-chaired by someone from industry," says McAlister.

This final say over the design does not sit well with Boeing. "They?ve got these NASA co-chaired design reviews. We?re don?t have a real issue with that as long as we with know what that means," says Keith Reiley, Boeing?s Commercial Crew Development Program Manager. "From our standpoint, we?d like to be ?in charge? of the design, and NASA?s function is to determine if that design meets their requirements. You can have two different types of seats, for example, both of which meet the requirements. For us to proceed in a cost-effective way we think we need control over that choice." Yes, NASA is paying for the job, Reiley says, but there are other opportunities for the agency to prove the final product works as intended. "They are certifying that we have a safe vehicle at the end, so one way or the other we have to show them how we meet their human rating requirements."

Other companies are also confused by how much say NASA will have in the design. "It?s not really clear," says Mark Sirangelo, executive chairman of Sierra Nevada Space Systems, which is building a space plane called Dream Chaser under a NASA contract. "Is it intrusive? Perhaps. But I view it as a positive. This program has become a much more needed, mainstream program... It?s unrealistic to expect NASA to certify an airframe to fly without direct involvement."

NASA knows this setup could lead to disagreements?such as if a contractor thinks it has fulfilled a safety requirement, but NASA says it needs more testing. McAlister says NASA is minimizing the risk that these fights will cause flight delays by front-loading hot spots for disagreement into the first phase of the contract. (NASA expects to award the first phase of the contract, the Integrated Design Phase, which is worth a total of $1.61 billion, to at least two companies. A second phase, Development Test Evaluation and Certification, will follow.)

"During the early phase there might be a little bit more uncertainty about the requirements and whether they?ve met them, but we?ll have two years to work through that process," McAlister says. "When we really lock them down, we?ll be in the (second) DTEC phase. That?s a couple of years from now and both us and the contractor will have a much better understanding of the requirements, whether or not they have met them, and what kinds of tests and analysis they?re going to have to do. And that?s our way to mitigate future contract changes."

Still, if NASA orders further testing, then somebody has to pay for it. NASA officials have a fund so they can issue so-called "task orders" for "special studies, tests and analyses" that the private space company would then be required to perform. McAlister says the impact of the task orders should be minimal. "It?s a relatively small amount of money, only $20 million. So it?s really just to do...small things like that, to help us and the contractor understand whether or not a requirement has actually been met or not."

To Boeing?s Reiley, that?s crucial. These NASA contracts are fixed-price contracts, in which a company gets a set fee, and as costs rise, the profit margin shrinks. (The alternative, a cost-plus agreement, pays for all expenses and provides additional funds to guarantee a profit.) Having NASA kick in some funding is "a way to avoid those foodfights, when they can say, ?Hey guys, we?re not going to argue about it. We?ll pay you extra to go do it,?" Reilly says. "One thing we have to do be careful we don?t get stuck in a trap where we are doing extra work because an engineer asked us to. In cost-plus you could do that and it wouldn?t be that bad of a thing. In fixed price, it could be disastrous."

CCIDC makes plain that NASA runs the show, when it comes to the test schedule: "In the event of a conflict between the requirement of the task order and the contractor?s approved plan, the task order shall prevail." That means the government is able to intervene and order tests that can delay the program. "It could impact the schedule," Reiley says. "But that?s not unusual in a fixed-price contract when the customer changes what they want."

Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/is-this-nasa-document-saving-or-killing-manned-private-spaceflight-6518496?src=rss

dancing with the stars elimination nexus prime nexus prime new iphone new iphone tmobile iphone van jones