There has been much discussion about the cost of NASA’s commercial crew program: the disparity between the Boeing and SpaceX awards, how it compares to Soyuz seats, etc. If I may be so bold, for my first post I’d like to start a new thread for cost analyses of this important program.To start, why is there such a large disparity between the Boeing and SpaceX CCtCap awards?
The key to understand the dollar disparity is noting two things: 1) The Boeing CST-100 will launch on an Atlas V while the SpaceX Dragon will launch on a Falcon 9, and 2) SpaceX began Dragon development under the COTS program while Boeing did not.
Boeing has always been launch-vehicle agnostic for its CST-100 vehicle. Company executives have stated this several times. They would be happy to fly on the Atlas V, the Delta IV, or the Falcon 9. They even mentioned flying on the proposed Liberty launch vehicle should it ever become available.
According to a post-award article in the Wall Street Journal, however, NASA wanted two different (American) launch vehicles for the contract. With Dragon going up on the Falcon 9, CST-100 would have to go up on the Atlas V.
Eight flights (two test plus six operational) at an extra $125 million each yield an extra $1.0 billion, over half the disparity. That brings the capsule and development-cost disparity from $1.6 billion down to $600 million.
Boeing did not receive a COTS award. The work SpaceX did under COTS will have to be done by Boeing under CCtCap.
I hope I have added something valuable to the discussion.
1. If you take the complete contract value of all of ULA's backlog missions and the total block buy inclusive of the capability contracts (which many on this forum like to call a subsidy---incorrectly) and divide by the total number of missions you get an average mission price of $225M. This includes all missions, DOD, NASA commercial, Atlas V 401 thru Delta IV heavy.2. Within the current block buy, the total price of an Atlas V 401 (comparable to a Falcon 9 1.1) is $164M. This number is arrived at by taking the incremental price as spelled out in the contract and adding an allocation of the capability cost. The allocation was on a simple per mission basis.3. The incremental price of an Atlas V 401 is less than $100M. This is the cost to the USG to increase the block buy from 26 missions to 27. We are not giving the specific number at this time.
There has been much discussion about the cost of NASA’s commercial crew program: the disparity between the Boeing and SpaceX awards, how it compares to Soyuz seats, etc. If I may be so bold, for my first post I’d like to start a new thread for cost analyses of this important program.To start, why is there such a large disparity between the Boeing and SpaceX CCtCap awards?It was announced on Tuesday that Boeing received a CCtCap award of $4.2 billion and SpaceX received an award of $2.6 billion, a difference of $1.6 billion. Each award included finishing the development of their respective vehicles, up to $150 million in special studies, an unmanned test flight, a manned test flight, and 2-6 operational flights. The advertised award amounts were contract maximums and assumed all of the special studies and operational flights would be awarded.The key to understand the dollar disparity is noting two things: 1) The Boeing CST-100 will launch on an Atlas V while the SpaceX Dragon will launch on a Falcon 9, and 2) SpaceX began Dragon development under the COTS program while Boeing did not.Boeing has always been launch-vehicle agnostic for its CST-100 vehicle. Company executives have stated this several times. They would be happy to fly on the Atlas V, the Delta IV, or the Falcon 9. They even mentioned flying on the proposed Liberty launch vehicle should it ever become available.According to a post-award article in the Wall Street Journal, however, NASA wanted two different (American) launch vehicles for the contract. With Dragon going up on the Falcon 9, CST-100 would have to go up on the Atlas V.The list price of a Falcon 9 is $61.2 million. According to ULA Vice President George Sowers, the cost of an Atlas V 401 is $164 million. The CST-100, however, requires an Atlas V 422. That configuration has an extra RL-10 upper-stage engine and two solid rocket boosters that the 401 doesn’t have. With RL-10s said to cost between $10-20 million each, an Atlas V 422 would cost $174-$184 million plus the cost of the two solids. It is probably conservative to say that the Atlas V 422 costs $125 million more than the Falcon 9.Eight flights (two test plus six operational) at an extra $125 million each yield an extra $1.0 billion, over half the disparity. That brings the capsule and development-cost disparity from $1.6 billion down to $600 million.In addition, SpaceX received nearly $400 million in COTS funding from NASA to develop its cargo Dragon vehicle. It is essentially an unmanned prototype of its crew Dragon, though some systems differ. Boeing did not receive a COTS award. The work SpaceX did under COTS will have to be done by Boeing under CCtCap.Thus the true disparity between the two contractors is about $200 million – a difference, but not a large one.Note also that SpaceX received a $1.6 billion CRS contract from NASA as well. While most of that is going to build and launch the Falcons and Dragons required under that contract, a portion of that was likely used to build up the Dragon assembly line. Boeing will be performing that work under the CCtCap contract. However it is impossible for anyone outside of SpaceX to know how much that was, so for this analysis it is ignored.Any comments?I hope I have added something valuable to the discussion.
The total number of flights is 6, performed by some combination of Boeing and SpaceX. If both are certified then they are guaranteed at least 2ea of the flights, with 2ea flights left to be assigned.
up to 6 flights. (2 test and 4 for real flights)
Quote from: HIP2BSQRE on 09/20/2014 08:36 amup to 6 flights. (2 test and 4 for real flights)Eight. 2 + 6.Cheers, Martin
FWIW, the test flight may not fly with a full complement of four; also: SpaceX's award includes an additional F9 launch, the in-flight abort test.
About the cost of CCtCap compared to Soyuz seats ...Elon Musk has stated the crew Dragon operational cost will be $140 million / flight, but that was before CCtCap and based on four crew flights per year. Considering the SpaceX CCtCap award was for significantly more than what Mr. Musk has said development of crew Dragon would be, it is likely NASA's requirements for CCtCap have invalidated the $140 million figure.
CCtCap is designed in a way that obfuscates the underlying marginal cost of the services rendered. Development and "certification" costs are mixed in, and it orders an uncertain number of flights ranging from a extremely low flight rate to a very low flight rate. The first issue prevents outsiders from understanding the costs, while the second issue prevents Boeing and SpaceX from accurately predicting their costs.
Recognizing it is hypothetical, but assuming for the moment both providers conduct successful certification flights, are two flights from each then purchased at a pre-negotiated price, and only at that point are additional flights purchasable at potentially lower price points?
The latter is not a CCtCap-specific contract design or artifact. It is a standard FAR IDIQ (Federal Acquisition Regulation, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity) contract artifact, and is arguably the only rational framing for the CCtCap post-certification missions. It is intended to allow the government to predict costs; it does not prevent suppliers from predicting their costs, although it makes it more difficult as the prices under such contracts are generally NTE (not to exceed), which as a rule means everyone bids based on worst case (highest expected cost given lowest award quantity). Which does not mean that will be the price the government will pay, as a number of the post-certification missions may be competitively bid between SpaceX and Boeing and, all other things equal, the lowest bid for a given mission will win the award.
Got it, so the government uses this idiotic IDIQ so they can accurately predict how much they will pay by agreeing to overpay for services they subsequently deem unnecessary. Like buying an excessively large data plan for your cell phone so that you never have to worry about overage fees. You just pay a predictably excessive price every month. Makes sense.
The not-to-exceed (NTE) [prices] are pre-negotiated depending on year of order and quantity ordered in that year.
When it comes time for an award, NASA asks those CCtCap awardees to bid for the mission. CCtCap awardees are required to bid, and while their price may not be higher than the previously contracted NTE, it may be lower.
And to be clear, Boeing and SpaceX have different contracts and different NTE price schedules. And since they would be providing the same service those awards would have to go to the vendor whose bid price is lowest. So either Boeing would bid less than its NTE price, or the award(s) would go to SpaceX?
H.8 POST CERTIFICATION MISSION TASK ORDERING PROCEDURES (APPLICABLE TO CLIN 002)(a) Requirements for Competition.In the event that two (2) or more commercial crew transportation contracts are awarded, a fair opportunity to be considered for task orders issued under this contract based upon the specific task order requirements will be provided, unless the Contracting Officer determines that one of the following apply:(1) The Agency need is of such urgency that competing the requirements among Contractors would result in unacceptable delays;(2) Only one Contractor is capable of providing the service at the level of quality required because the service ordered is unique or highly specialized;(3) The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order issued under the contract, provided that all Contractors were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order; or(4) It is necessary to place an order to satisfy the minimum guarantee per clause B.4, Post Certification Missions (IDIQ) (CLIN 002).