Accelerating Tomorrow’s Commercial Space Marketplace Commercial Crew Transportation System Michael Lopez-Alegria Commercial Spaceflight Federation 12 February 2013

“Commercial” at NASA 3

What is “Commercial” Efficient and flexible contracting vehicles – Firm, fixed-price – Milestone based Reduced day-to-day role of government Competition

Commercial Crew and Cargo “To facilitate U.S. private industry demonstration of cargo and crew space transportation capabilities with the goal of achieving safe, reliable, cost effective access to low-Earth orbit; and create a market environment in which commercial space transportation services are available to Government and private sector customers.”

Development vs. Service COTS – Space Act Agreement – full development (including certification) CRS – FAR CCP – SAA for development – FAR for certification – Assume FAR for crew services

COTS First awards in 2006 – Belief that a free market could develop and operate a LEO cargo system more efficiently and affordably – Emergence of a “Strong, identifiable market for ‘routine’ transportation services to and from LEO.” (NASA Administrator Dr. Mike Griffin, 2005) Space Act Agreements – Fixed-priced; milestone-based – Not binding contracts – Commercial partners have skin in the game – Government has insight but not oversight

COTS (cont.) SpaceX – Dragon capsule withFalcon 9 launch vehicle – Demo 1: 12/2010 – Demo 2+: 05/2011 – Complete Orbital Sciences Corporation – Cygnus spacecraft with Antares launch vehicle – 7K hot fire (tomorrow) – A-ONE test flight ~ 6 weeks

Commercial Crew Program CCDev1 – Award 02/2010 – 5 companies; $50M – All milestones complete CCDev2 – Award 04/2011 – 4 companies; $270M – 3 unfunded awards – All but one milestone complete

CCP - CCiCap Award 08/2012 – Base period ends 05/2014 – Boeing - $460M to CDR – Sierra Nevada Corporation - $212.5M to < CDR – SpaceX - $440M to CDR Optional milestones – Milestones and schedule for optimum funding profile to crewed orbital flight demonstration – Milestones and schedule for $400M/yr

CCP - Certification Products Contract Phase 1: Technical Interchange – Requirements – CCT 1100 series; SSP – Four deliverables: Alternate Standards Hazard Reports Verification and Validation Plan Certification Plan Phase 2: Certification – NASA has “no intention” of exercising optional milestones – ASAP recommends cost-plus in the name of safety

CCP - Funding Realities FY2011 – NASA request $500M; appropriation $270M FY2012 – NASA request $850M; appropriation $406M – CCDev3 -> CCiCap; IOC -> 2017 FY2013 – NASA request $830M; no appropriation – House $500M; Senate $525M – CR continues $406M/year

Crossroads Current approach (?) – >1 contractor in cost-plus FAR-based CPC2 is likely unaffordable – Loss of competition means loss of control – Cost and schedule will blow up; increasing risk to program Hybrid approach – Retain 2+ industry partners – Preserves separation of capability and certification

Hybrid Approach Resolve CPC1 issues ASAP – Government/industry agreement on V&V and certification plans Partners adjust optional milestones to reflect NASA exercises optional milestones in SAA CPC2 is an extension of CPC1 – Deliverables = data – Data compared to requirements; NASA closes verifications and dispositions compliance issues

Hybrid Approach Funding for all but data flows through SAA – Fixed-price: best return per taxpayer dollar – Milestone-based: incentivizes schedule efficiency Preserves competition (the real key to safety) – NASA dispositions compliance issues and can still ask for changes/additions; desire for service contract drives good-faith negotiation – Reduces program risk with dissimilar redundancy

Schedule Considerations NASA/partners must move fast to disposition CPC1 issues Optional milestones will require long-lead items; partners are “running for the cliff” Award services contract pending satisfactory completion of optional milestones – Certainty of at least some future business will reduce risk to industry and increase cost-sharing – Incentivize these contracts to reward performance

Regulation Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act – Informed Consent regime Extended to 10/2015 For CCP, NASA S&MA authority/FAA 3 rd party – 3 rd party liability cost sharing Damages provider MPL government (if it wants to) Damages > ~$2.7B -> provider

Technical Standards AIAA, ANSI, ASME, ISO, SAE... CSF? Not law, but still respected Commercial spaceflight – Get a head start on FAA regulation – Shows the industry is serious about safety – CSF Committee By-laws Low-hanging fruit Start general; move toward specific