Their is a catch-22 with some of this. Private interests (ie. SpaceX) depend in part on CCDev funding. NASA being the one supplying the funds has increased influence over the requirements of what is fielded. I would be very curious if there was a way to extract the cost implications of that influence. (if any)So in essence I am asking if anyone knows definitively a few examples of some NASA requirements placed upon SpaceX or others, that inflate the dev costs, requiring current and/ or future requested funding levels? (Not saying there is or isn't, just wondering)The obvious implications being, that instead of searching for more money, perhaps it becomes more about how to engineer more cost effective solutions...After all, isn't that what playing in the free market is supposed to be about?
Quote from: rcoppola on 04/05/2012 06:06 pmTheir is a catch-22 with some of this. Private interests (ie. SpaceX) depend in part on CCDev funding. NASA being the one supplying the funds has increased influence over the requirements of what is fielded. I would be very curious if there was a way to extract the cost implications of that influence. (if any)So in essence I am asking if anyone knows definitively a few examples of some NASA requirements placed upon SpaceX or others, that inflate the dev costs, requiring current and/ or future requested funding levels? (Not saying there is or isn't, just wondering)The obvious implications being, that instead of searching for more money, perhaps it becomes more about how to engineer more cost effective solutions...After all, isn't that what playing in the free market is supposed to be about? Wayne Hale adressed some of these issues more than a year ago in the following blog posts:http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/trying-to-clean-up-a-mess/http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/the-coming-train-wreck-for-commercial-human-spaceflight/
The price of the Atlas V 401 is $187M according to this article:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1010/21maven/The price of a cargo Dragon is about $80 million ($1.6B for 12 flights = 133M less price of Falcon 9 of about $50M). Maybe SpaceX will be below $250M and Boeing will be above it but it should still average out to about $250M.
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/05/2012 05:07 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 04/05/2012 03:26 pmYou are suggesting that the spacecraft, launch vehicle, launch services, astronaut training, all of it, will only cost $250 million per flight, excepting development costs? That would be terrific if true, but I'm having trouble seeing it, based on costs of unmanned satellites, etc. An Atlas 5 itself is going to chew up well more than half of that number. Even unmanned satellite payloads typically cost more than the launch vehicle. Crewed spacecraft cost even more. Boeing isn't going to build a CST-100 for only $50-75 million.HEFT had estimated that each commercial crew flights would cost about $313 million per flight. So $250M is in the right ball park. Gerst at one of the House hearings said that NASA expects to pay the same price for commercial crew operations as for Soyuz. So he said about $480M (4 x 60) per year. I am rounding it to $500M per year for 2 commercial crew flights. Such a low cost would be terrific if attained, but I'm skeptical. Consider yesterday's GOES-R contract announcement: $7.7 billion to build and fly just two generic weather satellites - and no crew on board! The launch contract was $223 million per Atlas 5 (541 model), which gives some idea of an Atlas 411 cost.Falcon 9 *should* cost less than Atlas 411, because it is a less-capable rocket. But SpaceX does offer one cost-cutting possibility that Russia has leveraged for decades. It would use essentially the same spacecraft and the same rocket to perform both the crew and the cargo missions. Boeing and others may be planning the same, but none of this actually saves money unless a down-select to a single provider is made.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/05/2012 03:26 pmYou are suggesting that the spacecraft, launch vehicle, launch services, astronaut training, all of it, will only cost $250 million per flight, excepting development costs? That would be terrific if true, but I'm having trouble seeing it, based on costs of unmanned satellites, etc. An Atlas 5 itself is going to chew up well more than half of that number. Even unmanned satellite payloads typically cost more than the launch vehicle. Crewed spacecraft cost even more. Boeing isn't going to build a CST-100 for only $50-75 million.HEFT had estimated that each commercial crew flights would cost about $313 million per flight. So $250M is in the right ball park. Gerst at one of the House hearings said that NASA expects to pay the same price for commercial crew operations as for Soyuz. So he said about $480M (4 x 60) per year. I am rounding it to $500M per year for 2 commercial crew flights.
You are suggesting that the spacecraft, launch vehicle, launch services, astronaut training, all of it, will only cost $250 million per flight, excepting development costs? That would be terrific if true, but I'm having trouble seeing it, based on costs of unmanned satellites, etc. An Atlas 5 itself is going to chew up well more than half of that number. Even unmanned satellite payloads typically cost more than the launch vehicle. Crewed spacecraft cost even more. Boeing isn't going to build a CST-100 for only $50-75 million.
I don't see any indication that Congress desires to 'zero-out' Commercial Crew, BTW. The debates aren't about whether it should exist at this point. They are about funding mechanisms, likelihood of success for multiple players given sole anchor tenant (which I prefer to "market"), overall cost given the number of players, legal impossibility of enforcing requirements up to the point that the FAR is invoked, questions about oversight/insight, etc.
And the _real_ debate is about whether we are collectively funding a new procurement mechanism for transportation to LEO while also maybe jump-starting an industry, or whether we are starting an industry that will also solve the LEO/ISS transportation issue. Congress has shown willingness to fund (at least in part) the former, but is highly skeptical of the latter. Rather than the issue of government vs. private investment (which is also pertinent), the "definition of commercial" is really about that distinction, which is not at all trivial.
Why does everyone keep assuming commercial crew will only be used for 4 years? That's a remarkably unrealistic assumption.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/06/2012 05:30 pmWhy does everyone keep assuming commercial crew will only be used for 4 years? That's a remarkably unrealistic assumption.I'm not, but companies making investment decisions must base them on what they know....
Quote from: OpsAnalyst on 04/04/2012 01:02 pmI don't see any indication that Congress desires to 'zero-out' Commercial Crew, BTW. The debates aren't about whether it should exist at this point. They are about funding mechanisms, likelihood of success for multiple players given sole anchor tenant (which I prefer to "market"), overall cost given the number of players, legal impossibility of enforcing requirements up to the point that the FAR is invoked, questions about oversight/insight, etc.Agreed (I said above that Congress has divided loyalties), but the discussion above has a certain interest all of it's own.Quote from: OpsAnalyst on 04/04/2012 01:02 pmAnd the _real_ debate is about whether we are collectively funding a new procurement mechanism for transportation to LEO while also maybe jump-starting an industry, or whether we are starting an industry that will also solve the LEO/ISS transportation issue. Congress has shown willingness to fund (at least in part) the former, but is highly skeptical of the latter. Rather than the issue of government vs. private investment (which is also pertinent), the "definition of commercial" is really about that distinction, which is not at all trivial.Agreed. I find myself wondering whether NASA really can retain all four players through the next development round.Would be fascinated if you have any thoughts on that subject.cheers, Martin
All that is my over-long way of saying "I can't tell yet how I think this is going to go."
Even retaining three would be a good idea. That's kind of the plan either way, isn't it?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/06/2012 05:35 pmEven retaining three would be a good idea. That's kind of the plan either way, isn't it?Ed Mango and Phil McAllister have said that they wanted to keep competition as long as possible. But there is pressure from some in Congress to down select. I hope that the Commercial Crew Office sticks with their original plan to keep competition going as long as possible but we won't know for sure until August.
Thoughts? I have plenty of thoughts. Very few conclusions, though. I'm mostly in a "track happenings and update the likely strategies" mode. But since you asked...speaking for no one but me, and assuming you're talking about CCiCap?[...]
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/06/2012 06:51 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 04/06/2012 05:35 pmEven retaining three would be a good idea. That's kind of the plan either way, isn't it?Ed Mango and Phil McAllister have said that they wanted to keep competition as long as possible. But there is pressure from some in Congress to down select. I hope that the Commercial Crew Office sticks with their original plan to keep competition going as long as possible but we won't know for sure until August. Down-selecting to at least three for the next stage (which includes optional milestones that include manned test flights, right?) seems perfectly reasonable, and I thought that was the plan. Down-select to at least two actual ISS crew service providers (with three probably with the capability, but only two selected) would be the step after that. I think that was what NASA has been communicating for a while, now.