How are current Ares / Orion contracts handled under DIRECT 2.0?

[Andrew]

Ross:

One question that has been in the back of my mind over the last few months as it relates to your proposal:

There are already a whole lot of Ares and Orion contracts which have been signed and put to bed. Let's assume that for whatever reason, the breaks are put on the current Vision for Space Exploration and then the decision is made to switch to DIRECT 2.0.

Wouldn't a last minute switch serve to create a tremendously litigious atmosphere due to NASA backing out of enforceable contracts, even though new contracts would be signed with these same aerospace corporations?

-Andrew

[kraisee]

Great question Andrew,

Canceling any of the current contracts wouldn't be our preference for how to proceed.

I realize that *we* won't have any say in how NASA actually handles this if/when they switch to DIRECT, but here is an outline of what we would suggest...


Lockheed-Martin currently has the contract for building the Orion. This contract would continue remaining largely unchanged. With the extra performance of Jupiter though, the Orion development team can put back the absent hardware 'in the parking lot' - Land Landing, MMOD protection, dual-fault tollerant systems etc.



Boeing has the contract for the Ares-I Instrumentation Unit (IU) valued at $800m. Well, Jupiter-120 needs an IU too. So just re-write the specifications of the existing contract. The specifications are actually a bit of a "moving target" right now on Ares-I anyway so that's not very difficult at this point of the development process. Boeing would simply continue building a new IU for NASA's next launcher - just a slightly different one - call it "Ares-I revision b" if you like


Boeing also won the $1.12bn contract to build the Upper Stage for the Ares-I. This is a cryogenic LOX/LH2 upper stage designed to be used in conjunction with the J-2X engine (see below) which will be air-started and to perform the last half of a launch to orbit. The Jupiter-232 requires a slightly wider diameter Upper Stage, also to be powered by J-2X engines. It's a bit bigger and will have quite a bit more propellant onboard, but cryogenic stages are all of the same breed. The Jupiter Upper Stage shares enough in common with the Ares-I Upper Stage that this contract would also not be difficult to re-work for Jupiter. This contract would again continue, but be tweaked to suit the evolving situation.


The J-2X Upper Stage engine contract was awarded to Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne. Valued at $1.2bn the engine is a modern evolution of the venerable J-2 used on the Apollo/Saturn missions to the moon, but will have about 40% more performance than that 1960's engine had. DIRECT also needs this same engine for its Jupiter-232 Lunar rocket. The only difference is that we don't need it for the first Orion flights we need it a little later, so PWR would have a little extra time (about a year more) to develop it for us. Other than that, the existing contract can remain as it is.

PWR would get a brand-new contract to human-rate the existing RS-68 main engine for Jupiter-120 too. This would need to be negotiated.


Alliant Techsystems (ATK) are the makers of the existing Shuttle 4-segment Reusable Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) and have been awarded a $1.8bn contract to develop the 25% stretched 5-segment SRB for Ares-I and Ares-V. This is the one piece of new Ares hardware which DIRECT just doesn't require. But there is an interesting 'alternative' which we can provide to ATK instead to sweeten a deal over canceling or re-negotiating this contract...

From 2011 (after Shuttle) thru 2020 Ares is currently only planning to fly 60 SRB segments on a very limited number of Ares-I and Ares-V flights. But this is ATK's staple income source outside of development money like this contract.

But under the DIRECT plan, we are planning an awful lot more flights during that same period of time - because we get operational years sooner and our costs are lower so we can afford to fly more often. DIRECT plans to need 416 SRB segments in that same period of time (there are more than 60 needed in some individual years under DIRECT). The contract for that many SRB segments will make the $1.8bn development contract look rather small in comparison. So we're hoping that ATK will not exactly be against the idea of not making quite so much profit now in the short term, but getting a lot more stable long-term business in return a few years from now.

It's certainly in the ATK shareholder's best interests to allow NASA to renegotiate the current "development" contract into a more valuable "production" contract. Whether ATK's management will play ball or not is to be seen though. They have fought against DIRECT in the past, but we have our fingers crossed that the economics will appeal to them still. But their reaction is something we just can't predict.

The other significant contract which has already been issued too is a contract for $264m to Hensel Phelps for the building of the new Mobile Launcher and Launcher/Umbilical Tower needed for the Ares-I. The Jupiter launcher are going to require the three Shuttle Mobile Launcher Platforms to be re-worked and also will require a new work platform inside the two High Bays of the VAB currently used to assemble Shuttle missions. The existing contract for the Ares-I ML could be re-negotiated into a contract to do that work instead - in fact there's a bit more work to do ultimately, so that contract would actually grow in value under DIRECT - something I'm sure Hensel Phelps won't mind too much about


That's most of it. There are a few smaller contracts which have also been issued too which I won't mention here (this reply is getting rather long again!), but most of those are just as common to Jupiter as these major contracts are. They may need re-working or re-negotiating here and there, most will need some changes to the current specifications, but that's not a problem because most of the work being done right now is all still subject to change for Ares anyway. So there are no major headaches.

The biggest question-mark is over ATK's reaction to modifying their contract. Because it ultimately leads them to a greater profit long-term I think they can be persuaded. Most especially if Ares collapses under its own weight as I'm convinced it will within the next 12 years - at that point ATK would be looking at no profits at all unless they turn towards something like DIRECT. Faced with that option, it really shouldn't be a hard sell to get them on-board.

I hope that helps show what we suggest regarding using all of the existing contracts and not canceling any of them.

Ross.

[Rick]

Great question Andrew,



Boeing has the contract for the Ares-I Instrumentation Unit (IU) valued at $800m. Well, Jupiter-120 needs an IU too. So just re-write the specifications of the existing contract. The specifications are actually a bit of a "moving target" right now on Ares-I anyway so that's not very difficult at this point of the development process. Boeing would simply continue building a new IU for NASA's next launcher - just a slightly different one - call it "Ares-I revision b" if you like


Boeing also won the $1.12bn contract to build the Upper Stage for the Ares-I. This is a cryogenic LOX/LH2 upper stage designed to be used in conjunction with the J-2X engine (see below) which will be air-started and to perform the last half of a launch to orbit. The Jupiter-232 requires a slightly wider diameter Upper Stage, also to be powered by J-2X engines. It's a bit bigger and will have quite a bit more propellant onboard, but cryogenic stages are all of the same breed. The Jupiter Upper Stage shares enough in common with the Ares-I Upper Stage that this contract would also not be difficult to re-work for Jupiter. This contract would again continue, but be tweaked to suit the evolving situation.


Ross.

Hi Ross, as a totally objective position. (I'm trying really hard ) Boeing folks who have transistioned to Ares, or part of Ares have had their origanizational structure changed to accomodate and support the current program. Not an alternative, of any kind actually.

Depending on how a NASA contract was written, would determine if a contract mod (not at all simple) or a whole contract re-write (very complex) would have to occur.

There are no guarantees that when working contracts with NASA, the model for changing contracts with NASA will occur seamlessly.

One thing I do want to add here. I admire Ross's vigor and hard work that he has done on this project. My goal, along with thousands of others is to keep flying in space, hopefully beyond low earth orbit.

For that reason alone, I commend him.

-Rick

[kraisee]

Agreed Rick. Without doubt, nothing in this business is ever simple - especially not changing legal contracts. But it's much simpler to change a contract when the products being purchased are extremely similar in nature, which we're lucky enough to have as the case for the IU, Upper Stage, J-2X and Orion contracts. The essential core of all those contracts remains largely the same for either vehicle. Organizational upheavals aren't necessary, nor are facility changes. The teams in place right now are ideally suited to handle the relatively minor changes in product specification, even without severe delays being incurred.

The 5-seg contract is the only one which really stands out as a major re-write. That will require careful negotiation on both NASA and ATK's part, but it is in ATK's interest to work with NASA - most especially if Ares has already passed beyond the veil and there are no other options available to support their business. Faced with nothing on the one hand or a very prosperous business opportunity on the other, most companies will come willingly to the negotiating table. Once everyone is willing to work together on a change in direction, the specific details become a lot easier.

Another sweetener for ATK is that the option remains at a point in the future to continue with 5-segment SRB development as a future upgrade *as well*. The Jupiter's don't need the extra performance to get the program off the ground, but it's an obvious upgrade path if we ever find we do need more performance for any reason in years to come. Shuttle and Apollo before it have shown us that performance upgrades are often sought-after even once the initial system has become fully-operational. With DIRECT ATK may ultimately get the best of both worlds - increased core business producing SRB segments for flight *and* a nice plump development project as well.

Ross.

[JimMcDade]

These contracts can't just be "continued". They would have to be canceled and NASA will have to re-start the entire Project Constellation process. Altering the work described in the existing government contracts is not so simple. I have managed a competitive bid project or two and I will tell you that something as simple as adding a door to a project that has already gone through the RFP-bid-award process can be a time-consuming nightmare.

There are major legal issues that must be recognized. The practice of "job switching" with contract work just does not play. Even if you claim that a change in contracted work is, "minor" - in your professional opinion- any change to a contract specified job is a very quick way to delay or even destroy an entire project.

The federal competitive bid process will require NASA to open up the Jupiter-120 job to any company who might be capable of building a rocket. In addition, the companies who lost out during the original bid process will naturally take NASA to court instantly if there is an attempt to pull a major change such as this.

Talk about delays. Can you imagine how long this proposal could be tied up in court of NASA tried to make this switch without reopening the competitive bid process? Lawyers will have a field day in court if NASA attempted to roll existing contracts into the Jupiter-120 program.

Those contracts began their evolution from the original Project Constellation RFP specifications. Legally, you can't just change those specs without going through a long, tedious process that would likely result in the cancellations of all existing contracts and the issuance of an all new RFP. This would be like going back to 2004 and starting over.

The human spaceflight program could be shut down for a decade or more while lawyers and judges weigh in on the legality of rolling over existing contracts that contain describe the ARES specs.

In conclusion, this effort to minimize the post-Shuttle human spaceflight gap would prove to be be self-defeating.

[kraisee]

Jim, *everything* is still at the DAC-2/pre-PDR level still. Changing designs is part of the routine day-to-day activities at this point of the development program.

There are diameter changes and flight profile changes still to come in the Ares design process so changing the specifications now is a vastly different proposition to changing it a year from now. Now it is quite an acceptable thing to do because everything is still quite 'fluid' today. A year or two from now it will be much more solid. But we aren't there yet - not by a long way.

At the end of the day, all the major players have their cut - as long as they retain that cut they'll be happy. And no company is going to risk the wrath of deliberately holding up the US Human Space Flight Program - their stockmarket price would collapse if they did - and they won't ever risk that. Recall how North American could have fought NASA coming down on them like a ton of bricks after the Apollo 1 fire - but decided not to fight because it was actually in their greater interest to continue with the program. It's essentially the same thing today.

Ross.

[Andrew]

Jim, *everything* is still at the DAC-2/pre-PDR level still. Changing designs is part of the routine day-to-day activities at this point of the development program.

But, Ross, what you are suggesting isn't a minor design change; it's a wholesale revision of the basic tenants of Project Constellation. Yours is a rather oversimplification of what is necessary which, in our litigious society, isn't going to be as simple as you envision.

And no company is going to risk the wrath of deliberately holding up the US Human Space Flight Program - their stockmarket price would collapse if they did - and they won't ever risk that.

This is a good example of what I'm having trouble with and reference above: oversimplification of important issues.

How will the stock price collapse, again? If Boeing decides they are getting screwed and put up a fuss because it is in the interest of the shareholders...then these same shareholders are going to rise up and ignore their own financial stakes and dump their holdings into the open market where no one will want to purchase the shares until they blindly go down the DIRECT route? Then, as the stock price falls and becomes of interest as a value stock for some investors...NO ONE is going to snap it up? That flies in the face of the basic principles of economics.

Companies are responsible to their shareholders; not the idealistic views of outsiders. Have you asked Boeing, Lockheed, etc., how eager they are to have DIRECT shoved down their throats?

In terms of $$ I can't really discuss the details on a public forum, other than to say it'll sure be a *lot* less costly than building a second $15bn Ares launch vehicle half a decade after Ares-I.

This last bit is something you posted in another area here. I'm still wondering...what "top secret" information do you know and don't you think that is a problem? Also, if you can't "discuss" the costs, how can you be credible when you say that Ares launches are going to be 1.2 billion dollars a pop and that Ares is "unsustainable"?

-Andrew

[Rick]

And then there's this. A link from another thread here:


NASA unveils redesign of moon rocket

[Andrew]

Rick:

Expect to be told you are wrong and don't understand.

-Andrew

[Rick]

Well, unfortunately, Ross is the only representative that is promoting DIRECT, so the brunt of crtiicism heads his way. I think it would help if others who follow that movement could voice their opinions too. Having said that, I know this new version of the site hasn't officially launched yet, so maybe that will change when it is. Hopefully sooner than later.

In regard to your statement, and reading posts on other forums, I will agree with you in the respect that there is no other way except DIRECT to achieve success. This has been a thorn in my side for some time now, as smart people that know what they are talking about are generally dismissed by the DIRECT following. That concerns me, alot. Not only because DIRECT is not the end all, but I'm afraid the damage that could be done to NASA, via criticism, could have an ill effect by the American tax payers and their willingness to give NASA a fair shake when the winds finally die down from this unfortunate dead end.

I mean no disrespect to anyone that is pushing DIRECT, I just wish they were more openminded towards others that know more than they do.

[Spacenut]

I wish Mr. Tierney would show up and respond to these messages. I do not get it really. Is he not the mod for here???

[Rick]

He's been a bit busy lately Spacenut. I'm sure he'll be here sooner than later.