Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Key Paradigm Changes

1. Commercial Crew Program (CCP)Key Paradigm Changes Presenter Title Date of Presentation Philip McAlister Director, Commercial Spaceflight Development NASA HQ October 14, 2011

2. Commercial Crew Program (CCP) • The objective of the CCP is to facilitate the development of a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability with the goal of achieving safe, reliable, and cost effective access to and from low-Earth Orbit and the International Space Station (ISS).  • The 2010 NASA Authorization Act established commercial crew as the primary means for ISS crew transportation. • Together with the capabilities to explore deep space provided by the Space Launch System and the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, NASA has a robust, complementary U.S. human space flight program. Fiscal Year Demo/Test Flights Design/Development/Certification Missions

3. A Day In The Life…

4. Can NASA Develop a “Commercial” Capability? • The key to developing a commercial capability will be the cost effectivenessof the resultant crew transportation system. • NASA expects to achieve cost effectiveness through the adoption of several key paradigm changes during the system design and development. • Competition via multiple industry partners • Non-traditional contracting approach which enables contractor owned and operated designs • Efficient and effective government insight/oversight • Mature and stable requirements, managed at a higher level • Smart application of standards • Lean and agile program management

5. Acquisition Roadmap

6. Non-Traditional Contracting Approach • The Integrated Design Contract includes several key features which will support cost effectiveness and commercial application: • Contractor-owned and operated systems • Performance milestone payments • Flexibility for the contractor to propose the specific design and development activities to meet NASA’s objectives • Flexibility for the contractor to define their own pace of performance to meet NASA’s objectives • No requirement for certified cost and pricing • Data rights aligned with commercial practices to maximize contractor retention of Intellectual Property rights • Balance of contract clauses, compliance documents, and deliverables to protect both industry and government investments

7. Level of Requirements • CCP requirements will be controlled by NASA at a higher level than traditional programs • Lower level requirements controlled by the commercial partner, with NASA having insight • Allows the commercial partner to accelerate decision-making and control costs Level 1 - Agency requirements (provide transportation for ISS) Level 2 - Program requirements (integrated system performance requirements and interfaces) Level 3 - Element level requirements (spacecraft, launch vehicle, ground systems, etc.) Levels 4, 5, 6, etc. - Requirements for subsystems, components, suppliers, etc. Commercial Crew Program Traditional Programs

8. Number of Requirements • CCP has significantly reduced NASA-controlled requirements needing full verification • CCP has approximately 5% of the number of Shuttle requirements • Commercial Crew requirements deal with safety of all mission phases, whereas Commercial Cargo (COTS) deals only with ISS interfaces • By controlling fewer, higher level requirements, the contractor is enabled to determine how best to meet NASA’s requirements. Number of NASA Controlled and Verifiable Requirements 10,000 – 12,000 ~650 ~250 Shuttle Commercial Cargo Commercial Crew

9. Maturity of Program Requirements • Prior to initiating the acquisition of integrated design contract(s), all CCP Level 1 and 2 requirements will be defined. • CCP will have zero missing or incomplete requirements, i.e., no “TBDs” • Immature and/or undefined requirements have been a source of significant cost growth on previous government programs. • Undefined requirements introduce uncertainty into the design process and slows decision-making and progress • Designers are forced to make assumptions • Finalizing open requirements after contract award often results in expensive design changes and protracted contract negotiations

10. Standards • Compliance with a large volume of unique NASA standards has been a source of increased costs and inefficiency. • CCP addressed this by adopting a 3-tier approach to levying standards: • Type 1: Standards which must be fully met and verified (21) • Type 2: Standards which allow a partner to “meet the intent”, such as using their own standards as alternative (46) • Type 3: Reference standards, which do not require strict adherence or verification (45) • By comparison, the Constellation Program had dozens of program requirements documents which levied hundreds of NASA standards, containing many thousands of verifiable “shall” statements. Orion alone had 75 must-meet NASA standards levied on its prime contractor.

11. Streamlined Program Decision-Making • CCP will maintain only two formal boards, which will be the full extent of the activity the Commercial Partners will be expected to support. • Traditional large programs have had a complex hierarchy of boards and panels structured by level and discipline • Typically, a decision package must flow through these forums, in parallel and series, which limits speed and efficiency • Agency institutional processes and technical authority processes (the appeals process) further complicate and slow the decision process CCP Program Control Board CCP Technical Review Board Illustration of the Constellation Program board and panel structure

12. Lean Commercial Crew Program Office • The Commercial Crew Program Office is deliberately lean, never planning to exceed 250 NASA civil servants with the majority of those dedicated to the Partner Teams • This is significantly smaller than other program offices for large, complex endeavors such as Shuttle operations and Constellation Program development Commercial Crew Program Office Technical Authority Systems Engineering & Requirements Systems Launch Vehicle Spacecraft Launch & Recovery Systems Mission Planning & Integration Partner Integration Program Control & Integration Partner Team (Boeing) Partner Team (Sierra Nevada) Partner Team (Blue Origin) Partner Team (Space X) Partner Team (ATK) Partner Team (ULA)

13. Unique Approach to a Unique Situation • Over the years, NASA has used a variety of a different approaches to overseeing and understanding the development of spacecraft. Each approach was tailored to meet the specific needs of the program. • Within the context of CCP, the following key ingredients are present which enable the adoption of these key paradigm changes: • No technology breakthroughs were required – we are not pushing the technological state of the art by flying people to and from low Earth orbit • Very real prospect of other customers beyond NASA – spaceflight participants and sovereign clients are existing markets with substantial growth potential • Government foundational customer base – the International Space Station represents a long term, repeatable market • Strong industrial base – many U.S. companies have the capability to develop safe and reliable crew transportation systems.

14. Summary • The purpose of contrasting NASA’s traditional and non-traditional approaches does not mean one is better than the other. • Each approach is appropriate for the type of program required. • For technically-ambitious, one-of-a-kind programs where NASA is the only customer and production is limited to only one (or a few) of the systems, then a traditional approach is more appropriate. • For more commercial-like programs that feature the key ingredients mentioned previously, the approach being followed by the CCP is more appropriate. • The combination of a unique contracting mechanism and an innovative technical approach should enable the development of a safe, reliable, and cost effective crew transportation system for use by a wide range of public and private users.