Author Topic: What if CCDev is zeroed out?  (Read 30756 times)

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #60 on: 04/05/2012 06:06 pm »
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?
« Last Edit: 04/05/2012 06:12 pm by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #61 on: 04/05/2012 06:52 pm »
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?
Well, one obvious one is the need for test flights. They're significantly expensive. All the ISS visiting vehicle requirements are expensive to verify and test with multiple redundancy layers.

The free market isn't free. It still costs money to have test flights and meet requirements. "Oh, it's the free market, so I'll always be able to slam my fists on the table and demand they meet more requirements for half the funding and demand they explain why the schedule is slipping while I take forever to approve only half the funding the schedule is based on" seems to be the default approach for some in Congress.
« Last Edit: 04/05/2012 06:53 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #62 on: 04/05/2012 06:59 pm »
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?

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/
« Last Edit: 04/05/2012 07:02 pm by yg1968 »

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #63 on: 04/05/2012 08:56 pm »
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?

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/
Yes, I forgot about that. Most excellent. Well, I'd love to see an audit done of the cost implications of specific requirements that could and should be dropped.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #64 on: 04/06/2012 01:13 pm »
This is just one of those times where NASA is trying to do too much concurrently.

I don't support them doing it this way.

It leads to cancellations and funding food fights.

JWST shouldn't be a priority, Hubble feels like yesterday to me and the astronomers should be fairly happy.

Orion/SLS shouldn't be a priority. As much as I love the exploration plans personally it shouldn't be on the top of the to do list.

Right at this moment NASA needs to make the best of their $100billion space station that has been in planning/construction for the best part of 30 years and is now finally operational.

If NASA will not fund commercial crew what they should be doing is quite simple.

Developing a spacecraft that doesn't need a Saturn V or a Shuttle stack to get astronauts into orbit.

They had one once upon a time.

1975.  8)


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #65 on: 04/06/2012 05:00 pm »
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 CRS flights = $133M per flight less the price of a 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.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2012 05:13 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #66 on: 04/06/2012 05:04 pm »
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.
A long-term contract of several flights (with a similar payload) would probably allow Boeing to negotiate a better deal than $187 million. I actually think that's too high.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline MP99

Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #67 on: 04/06/2012 05:22 pm »
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.

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.

Don't forget that SpaceX's CRS contract is $1.6b / 12 = $133m per flight.

If they were negotiating that contract today it may be higher, but it does include an F9, and a Dragon with some basic Human Rating (enough for crew to enter it while berthed to ISS).

Crewed Dragon will obviously be more expensive, and possibly a lot more expensive. Perhaps a $180m premium ($313m - $133m) would cover it.

If amortising $1b of development costs over eight flights (assumption was down-select to a single supplier, two flights per year for four years), that would add $125m per flight (without accounting for interest).

Say $460m per flight, or $115m per seat if expanding the US crew complement to four. But Congress hasn't had to fund the development process.

cheers, Martin

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #68 on: 04/06/2012 05:30 pm »
Why does everyone keep assuming commercial crew will only be used for 4 years? That's a remarkably unrealistic assumption.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline MP99

Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #69 on: 04/06/2012 05:33 pm »
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.

Agreed (I said above that Congress has divided loyalties), but the discussion above has a certain interest all of it's own.


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.

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

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #70 on: 04/06/2012 05:35 pm »
Even retaining three would be a good idea. That's kind of the plan either way, isn't it?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline MP99

Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #71 on: 04/06/2012 05:39 pm »
Why 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.

Law currently only says extension to 2020.

cheers, Martin

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #72 on: 04/06/2012 05:41 pm »
Why 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.
...
Nope, they make investment decisions based on whatever they think is most likely and make a risk/benefit decision. Smart companies make investment decisions based on educated risks. No one investing in HSF is so risk-averse to assume that NASA would buy services for four flights per provider and then NEVER want commercial crew services again.

No one really believed ISS would be splashed in 2015 (though it was necessary for Constellation's budget to even come close to working), and likewise basically no one believes ISS will be splashed in 2020. Why would you judge commercial crew on the basis that ISS will be splashed in 2020, when essentially no one else thinks it would be?
« Last Edit: 04/06/2012 05:53 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline OpsAnalyst

Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #73 on: 04/06/2012 06:42 pm »
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.

Agreed (I said above that Congress has divided loyalties), but the discussion above has a certain interest all of it's own.


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.

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

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?

WRT technical development - yes. Even under reduced funding.  That's an engineering statement, not a programmatic or business one.

WRT the politics X funding interaction, which is what I think you're really poking on - as both I and 51D Mascot noted elsewhere, there are unspent funds that were appropriated for FY 2012 that can roll into FY2013.  Adding those to the funding specified in the Authorization Act, you get about $900M available funds for 2013.  So the question is whether those funds are sufficient for 4...and the answer boils down to desired rate of development (which is asymptotic eventually, no matter how much money you throw at it). One point on which there is political consensus is that the country needs ISS transport sooner rather than later, which may tilt the argument to downselect sooner, depending on the shape of the aforementioned curve and where each company is on it - which is not always as straightforward as it seems from the outside.

On the other hand, if the US hammers out an agreement with the IPs to go to 2028 - and BTW it's in discussion but that's about all at the moment - then the "all that money for 3-4 years?!" political argument goes away and NASA might be willing to shell out a couple of more years of $$ to Roscosmos in a trade to slow development in order to keep all four players in the game...and Congress might have other things on its mind.  You pay either way - and the longer development takes, the more you pay - but it's all in the programmatic and political trade space.

Another factor that could play in there would be planning for disposition of the ISS.  Depending upon what is done with the vehicle and/or its components, there is room for 'reconfiguration' and 'reuse' and questions about transport back and forth - but again, that's all in the trade space.

There are potential "supplements" to funding - not just corporate funding ("skin in the game") but investment...for example if the SpaceX IPO happens then SpaceX could conceivably walk away from gov't funding - Ditto Bezos, who might just as soon play on his own.  The downside is that doing so leaves more money on the table for competitors. Have no insight into Blue Origin's thoughts on the matter but SpaceX would make that decision in light of business strategy.  It's in their best interest to be "first to market" as long as possible, assuming that is indeed how it turns out.  Leaving money around to speed development among competitors appears counterproductive.

I'm guessing (and it is purely a guess) we're going to end up with a compromise amount going to CC - maybe $600M? - which will get it to $1B available in 2013.  That might be enough to keep all 4 in the game - but there are a couple of wildcards; one is Congressional consensus about 2 vs. 4 and I haven't checked lately on how that's forming up...the second is "estimated probability of sequestration"...if Congress believes that our collective butts are going to be in a sling come January they may reason that 4 aren't going to make it anyway...in other words it hastens and gives more force to the "fiscally constrained" argument to downselect sooner.

I have to say, though, that I'm doubtful sequestration will happen unless we get a whole slew of Tea Partiers in, and the momentum for that "movement" seems to have abated a bit in the midst of the Republican Presidential campaign debacle.  I think it's more likely that 'sequestration avoidance maneuvers' will be on full display beginning immediately after the election - with the DoD leading the charge from the agency side.

All that is my over-long way of saying "I can't tell yet how I think this is going to go."

;) 
« Last Edit: 04/06/2012 06:51 pm by OpsAnalyst »

Offline OpsAnalyst

Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #74 on: 04/06/2012 06:44 pm »
Quote from: OpsAnalyst

All that is my over-long way of saying "I can't tell yet how I think this is going to go."
;) 


Heavens, I do go on.  Chris if this is OT, just whack it.  Thanks.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2012 06:45 pm by OpsAnalyst »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #75 on: 04/06/2012 06:51 pm »
Even 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.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2012 06:58 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #76 on: 04/06/2012 07:18 pm »
Even 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 test flights) 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.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2012 07:33 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #77 on: 04/06/2012 07:30 pm »
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?
[...]

Since the CCiCap base period straddles 3 fiscal years, you could also use funds from FY2014 to pay for it if necessary (CCiCap should end in April of 2014). Although, it's likely that most of the FY 2014 funding is meant for the CCiCap optional milestones period (or its FAR equivalent).

Also, you say that some commercial crew FY2012 funds have not be allocated and you are right since about 75% of the funding for commercial crew for FY 2012 is reserved for CCiCap according to Brent Jett and Ed Mango. My understanding is that once the CCiCap awards are granted, all of that money will be considered to have been allocated in FY 2012. SAAs are different from FAR contracts in the sense that the money does not have to be paid to the commercial providers in FY 2012. It will only be paid once the milestones are met. But for budget purposes, it's as if it had spent in FY 2012.

For the optional milestones CCiCap period which would start in April 2014, NASA anticipates to fund each provider $500M per year. This suggests that a down selection is anticipated in 2014. But since the CCiCap period includes an unmanned test flight, it's possible that one of the losers of the down selection process could still compete for commercial cargo in the next CRS round.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2012 08:03 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #78 on: 04/06/2012 07:36 pm »
Even 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.

They have never said that outright. There are some indications that this could be the case because they keep saying that they want "multiples" participants. Some of their charts show 3 boxes which also implies that there would be 3 participants but this more a guess than anything else because they have been purposely been vague on this issue.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2012 07:59 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0