Full Text of the NASA/Bigelow Space Act Agreement
Text of the NASA/Bigelow Space Act Agreement
“The purpose of this Agreement is to facilitate and explore, in a manner that meets both national and commercial goals and objectives, joint public/private arrangements that would continue to build the ability for humans to live and work in space through the expansion of exploration capabilities beyond low Earth orbit. By conducting this joint effort, the Parties build on their experience and their mutual recognition of the value of a human presence and exploration development in low Earth orbit, ranging outward from Bigelow Aerospace’s existing contract with NASA to conduct a technology demonstration of expandable structures on the International Space Station (“ISS”) to significant private sector involvement and operations in beyond low Earth orbit including cislunar space and beyond.”
Mr. Bigelow commented in his interview that the aim was to identify tech and missions which the private sector could do for less than one-tenth the projected NASA cost.
I suspect there are many such missions, and hope that this is the start of a trend.
cuibono:
“…many such missions…”? Like, all of them! 🙂
tinker
jt – lol, and very true. I was trying to be polite, having been flamed on – er – another space blog for being ever so slightly critical of NASA’s cost record.
cuibono:
This isn’t just another space blog. If folks are critical of NASA on this site, it’s because we want the best for them! We want NASA to work, to be a world leader in space exploration. We want NASA to work because it is a federal institution representing all Americans. I can guess that’s why Keith started the site in the first place.
To ‘make NASA your space agency’ it’s necessary, nay, critical to call them to task when ‘other things’ get in the way of what they should be doing: sending probes to the Solar System, crewed exploration missions, encouraging technical advancement and innovation.
So, feel free to sound off, but do it with data, insight and (most of all) respect for other opinions. We don’t ‘flame’ here (well, not all that much, anyway).
Cheers:
tinker
tinker – +1. I have nothing against NASA. It was my institutional hero in my youth. I was complaining about SLS, Orion, etc, and saying NASA could do better without cost-plus contracts, “the usual suspect” contractors, and so on. I was denounced as some sort of ‘NewSpace’ conspirator, whatever that is.
Anyway, enough said. We all want a strong space program. I guess folks have different views on getting there.
Hmmm… When I listened to the radio interview from the previous thread on this topic, Bob Bigelow made it sound like Bigelow and NASA had agreed to construct certain significant items, such as a lunar base, and execute a number of new programs, as well as having Bigelow Aerospace act as the general contractor for all of these activities.
However, the text of the SAA seems to be saying that Bigelow will be identifying and detailing possible activities, missions and/or items, and identifying the private contractors suitable to implementing each program. The SAA text does not indicate that either Bigelow or NASA, or any other contractor, will in fact create anything other than documents.
That’s a big difference. There may have been specific programs discussed by Bigelow and NASA, and there may be a gentlemen’s agreement-type understanding between them that certain programs are to be done, but the SAA text doesn’t actually commit anybody to any programs or hardware at all — just another study.
This is a big let-down, and I think some major clarification is in order.
Steve:
It seemed pretty clear from the beginning that this was simply a fact finding exercise to apply ‘new space’ acquisition concepts to old ideas to see if these methods are ‘scalable’. I think Bigelow wants to try to take the ‘SpaceX experience’ to the next level.
Instead of lawmakers deciding what mission they want, NASA can give them a mission as a fait accompli, with a consortium of companies already lined up.
Governments have rules that prevent them from single sourcing contracts, general contractors don’t. If Bigelow’s deal is the only one on the table, bottom line for the fixed contract laid out, it becomes a ‘take it or leave it’ deal. If that bottom line was compelling, the chosen goal might garner a lot of public support. The lawmakers might balk but the public appeal to a program like this could make their lives very uncomfortable.
Even if old space got off their sorry butts and created a second competing deal, we’d still win if the government chooses the lowest bidder (like they should).
tinker
Early days. Let’s see what Bigelow delivers in 100 days.
Since Mr. Bigelow knew about this in advance I hope he’s already got phase 1 essentially finished and waiting to be turned in. I hope he’s well into phase 2 by now.
Charlie Bolden claimed we wouldn’t return to the Moon in our lifetime but this materializes with a claim of cooperation from NASA. This is hypocrisy at best, on NASA’s part. Why doesn’t he just come out and say that we’ll return to the Moon via privatization without government intervention?
Bob,
To be fair, Bolden said NASA would not lead a return to the Moon, but would support and cooperate in any effort by others to do so. Since this SAA would enable Bigelow, with their selected subcontractors and without NASA, to execute the lunar programs, Bolden is true to his word. NASA would supply expertise as required, no doubt, and money as part of the Bigelow SAA, to satisfy the “support” aspect, but it wouldn’t be a NASA program. This is much closer to the original NACA, then NASA, concept of facilitating industry efforts and progress. There’s no hypocrisy in this at all. For once it looks like we’ll be getting the best of both worlds (private and government). This is good.
Steve
🙂
Thanks for posting this, KC.
If I understand correctly, this is a non-reimbursable SAA – no money transferred between parties – serving as a seven-month brainstorming session on how best to involve NASA in Bigelow’s plans. Both NASA and Bigelow have something to gain here; NASA gets to potentially go back to the Moon and Bigelow gets to share in the spotlight with the commercial crew and cargo partners. If NASA provides SLS as the launch vehicle for Begelow’s beyond LEO plans, I am inclined to believe that the subsequent SAAs will remain non-reimbursable.
What is the likelihood that SpaceX or Orbital might want to get involved in launching BEAM?
The whole point of this SAA — as Bigelow described it in the radio interview — was to enable programs to be designed using the most effective and cost effective participants, on a program by program basis, and doing it outside of NASA and government management. One of the criteria for those companies that want to be involved in these programs is an agreement to charge reasonable prices at margins below what they normally do (instead of maximizing their profits), and if they don’t bid accordingly, Bigelow is free, as general contractor, to exclude any company from any program.
I’m confident that Bigelow can come up with enough sensible program plans to keep all of the aerospace and related contractors busy for years. And I also think that all of the aerospace and related companies (and I mean all) will be lining up to get involved within a short period of time, once Bigelow shows them that this is for real.
Unless Congress somehow manages to disallow execution of the Bigelow SAA, I think this is the very best thing that could have happened to all aspects US space development. It opens the door to more programs and progress for less money, in less time, and should prove to be be much, much less hampered by federal politics. Anyone who cares about the future should be fully in favor of this.
SpaceX already have a 2015 Falcon 9 launch for Bigelow on their manifest http://www.spacex.com/launc… . Not sure if the page is up to date, but it seems a reasonable conclusion.
Bigelow Aerospace will identify which companies can make contributions, what those contributions will be, when such contributions can be made, and what conditions will be necessary to generate these private sector contributions.
What will be the cost to NASA for these contributions? Free is about all they can afford.
S13,
That opens up a question that I hadn’t thought of before reading your comment — Does the Bigelow SAA apply only to new programs, or can existing NASA programs (started and/or pending) be “transferred” to Bigelow if significant cost and/or schedule savings can be illustrated? I realize doing this might cost some jobs, but money is very much the controlling factor these days.
Maybe NASA could “lend” key people for the duration, or something similar. Or it might be a way to get rid of people better let go and blame it on sequestration.
Looked at another way, every dollar saved by doing a program as well or better for less money helps to retain jobs by keeping more money in the NASA kitty.
It looks like this SAA just basically gives Mr. Bigelow the right to “advise” NASA and maybe drop the agency’s name when approaching potential particiapants. I hope he can make something out of it. He is pretty smart and not known for being a slacker.
But, at the end of the day, congress would still have to be convinced to come up with the money even if NASA and Bigelow work up something that space cadets everywhere agree is the “deal of the century”. I wish them luck.
As the general contractor, the term which both Bigelow and Bolden used, Bigelow would have full control over and responsibility for a program, except for specifically contracted items of oversight and regulatory compliance. That’s the function of a general contractor. If you hired a GC to build you a house to specifications that you or your architect supplied, you don’t pick up a hammer and get involved; you get progress reports and notification of any issues or delays.
What I had in mind with my comment above about transferring programs was getting a program funded by Congress at a level required by a FAR contact and then executing the program through a SAA, which should save significant money, which the general contractor could then “give back” to the government at program completion. That would make a mighty compelling argument for further SAAs which, again, anybody should be able to understand and decide in favor if within a minute’s explanation. It could well force the hand of Congress to truly act on behalf of the people, instead of themselves. Consider also that having the public in the know will quite possibly reduce the amount of BS and subtle mud slinging that goes on in the (Sub)Committee meetings, where Congress seems to be holding all the cards.