Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1565071272635154433

Here's what is wild about the NASA purchase of commercial crew seats. For development and operations of crew, NASA is going to pay Boeing a total of approximately $5.1 billion for six crew flights; and it is going to pay SpaceX a total of $4.9 billion for 14 flights.

[yg1968]

Is this the correct thread?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-awards-spacex-more-crew-flights-to-space-station

NASA has awarded five additional missions to Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California, for crew transportation services to the International Space Station as part of the agency’s Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract. The CCtCap modification brings the total missions for SpaceX to 14 and allows NASA to maintain an uninterrupted U.S. capability for human access to the space station until 2030, with two unique commercial crew industry partners.

This is a firm fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract modification for the Crew-10, Crew-11, Crew-12, Crew-13, and Crew-14 flights. The value of this modification for all five missions and related mission services is $1,436,438,446. The amount includes ground, launch, in-orbit, and return and recovery operations, cargo transportation for each mission, and a lifeboat capability while docked to the International Space Station. The period of performance runs through 2030 and brings the total CCtCap contract value with SpaceX to $4,927,306,350.

The award follows the agency issuing a notice of intent in June 2022 to purchase the additional missions. The current sole source modification does not preclude NASA from seeking future contract modifications for additional transportation services, as needed.

$287,287,689 per flight, or $71,821,922 per seat

Price per seat went from $55M to $64M to $72M. That's probably to account for inflation.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Price per seat went from $55M to $64M to $72M. That's probably to account for inflation.

From 2014 to 2022, $55M inflates to $68.83M, so inflation doesn't quite cover all the cost increases.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

The last Soyuz seat cost NASA $90.25M in 1990.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-signs-deal-for-additional-soyuz-seat/

[jpo234]

Price per seat went from $55M to $64M to $72M. That's probably to account for inflation.

From 2014 to 2022, $55M inflates to $68.83M, so inflation doesn't quite cover all the cost increases.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

The last Soyuz seat cost NASA $90.25M in 1990.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-signs-deal-for-additional-soyuz-seat/

But the contract is until 2030, or 8 years from now. Assuming an annual inflation of 2% between now and 2030 a seat in 2030 would cost (1.02^8) * $68.83M = $80.64M. $72M seems very reasonable.

[Robotbeat]

Price per seat went from $55M to $64M to $72M. That's probably to account for inflation.

From 2014 to 2022, $55M inflates to $68.83M, so inflation doesn't quite cover all the cost increases.

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

The last Soyuz seat cost NASA $90.25M in 1990.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-signs-deal-for-additional-soyuz-seat/

But the contract is until 2030, or 8 years from now. Assuming an annual inflation of 2% between now and 2030 a seat in 2030 would cost (1.02^8) * $68.83M = $80.64M. $72M seems very reasonable.

Also, inflation has been elevated recently, so accounting for relatively higher inflation makes sense (I think the average implied inflation rate for the next 5-10 years is about 2.5-3.5%). Also, SpaceX will be reducing F9 flightrate as Starship spools up, so it starts being a niche launch thing.

Also, SpaceX’s capability is now highly proven, so the risk to NASA is lower than previous times.

[DanClemmensen]

Is this the correct thread?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-awards-spacex-more-crew-flights-to-space-station

NASA has awarded five additional missions to Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California, for crew transportation services to the International Space Station as part of the agency’s Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract. The CCtCap modification brings the total missions for SpaceX to 14 and allows NASA to maintain an uninterrupted U.S. capability for human access to the space station until 2030, with two unique commercial crew industry partners.

This is a firm fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract modification for the Crew-10, Crew-11, Crew-12, Crew-13, and Crew-14 flights. The value of this modification for all five missions and related mission services is $1,436,438,446. The amount includes ground, launch, in-orbit, and return and recovery operations, cargo transportation for each mission, and a lifeboat capability while docked to the International Space Station. The period of performance runs through 2030 and brings the total CCtCap contract value with SpaceX to $4,927,306,350.

The award follows the agency issuing a notice of intent in June 2022 to purchase the additional missions. The current sole source modification does not preclude NASA from seeking future contract modifications for additional transportation services, as needed.

$287,287,689 per flight, or $71,821,922 per seat

I finally started thinking about this. I have two questions:

Is this a sole-source award? If so, how was it justified? Was it publicly justified somewhere? if not, did we see any announcement of a competitive bid? did Boeing decline to bid? The prior award to SpaceX was a sole-source extension justified by the lack of an alternative, since Starliner was not operational.

This award gives NASA 20 total CCP flights starting in 2020, six from Boeing and fourteen from SpaceX, and states that it runs through 2030. But that's enough flights for two flights per year until the end of the program, with no additional flights awarded to Boeing.  If so and if NASA alternates Starliner and Crew Dragon, Boeing's flights end in 2028, and the 2029 and 2030 flights are all Crew Dragon. Did Boeing decline to bid for any flights past the six?

[SoftwareDude]

Is this the correct thread?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-awards-spacex-more-crew-flights-to-space-station

NASA has awarded five additional missions to Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California, for crew transportation services to the International Space Station as part of the agency’s Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract. The CCtCap modification brings the total missions for SpaceX to 14 and allows NASA to maintain an uninterrupted U.S. capability for human access to the space station until 2030, with two unique commercial crew industry partners.

This is a firm fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract modification for the Crew-10, Crew-11, Crew-12, Crew-13, and Crew-14 flights. The value of this modification for all five missions and related mission services is $1,436,438,446. The amount includes ground, launch, in-orbit, and return and recovery operations, cargo transportation for each mission, and a lifeboat capability while docked to the International Space Station. The period of performance runs through 2030 and brings the total CCtCap contract value with SpaceX to $4,927,306,350.

The award follows the agency issuing a notice of intent in June 2022 to purchase the additional missions. The current sole source modification does not preclude NASA from seeking future contract modifications for additional transportation services, as needed.

$287,287,689 per flight, or $71,821,922 per seat

I finally started thinking about this. I have two questions:

Is this a sole-source award? If so, how was it justified? Was it publicly justified somewhere? if not, did we see any announcement of a competitive bid? did Boeing decline to bid? The prior award to SpaceX was a sole-source extension justified by the lack of an alternative, since Starliner was not operational.

This award gives NASA 20 total CCP flights starting in 2020, six from Boeing and fourteen from SpaceX, and states that it runs through 2030. But that's enough flights for two flights per year until the end of the program, with no additional flights awarded to Boeing.  If so and if NASA alternates Starliner and Crew Dragon, Boeing's flights end in 2028, and the 2029 and 2030 flights are all Crew Dragon. Did Boeing decline to bid for any flights past the six?

I think it indicates how little we know about what is happening. Boeing is on the doorstep of a crewed flight; victory at last! Just as NASA tells us that is happening, it hands Boeing defeat without comment. We are left to guess what happened.
NASA said that there was progress on Boeing's transparency. Maybe there is more going on with Starliner than we know. There was debris in thrusters. I don't know what that means but it happened after all the mitigation over moisture getting into the system. Or maybe there is something else we don't know.
Perhaps there is a hint in the spacesuit. Why are there two spacesuits, one for CFT and another for the rest of the missions? How is CFT relevant if the spacesuit isn't tested? If I didn't know better, it almost seems like whoops Boeing made it to crewed-flight with no spacesuit, so they will pay some specialty guy to make two custom suits while Boeing gets their spacesuit act together for the NASA missions.
Another possibility is that Boeing has no business plan for Commercial Crewed Space.  Commercial space does not mean just building a spaceship, it means trying to make money taking people into space. Boeing has no firm plan for that, and one wonders if Starliner is commercially viable.
Another possibility is NASA is a little tweaked that Boeing completed OFT-2 and had yet to hire the staff for flight operations.
Commercial Crew means commercial, a business plan to fly customers into space. Maybe NASA realized at some point that Boeing is not in the commercial business of flying people into space; just the government business; a commercial business has a commercial business plan. Are there marketing and sales staff for bringing in customers? SpaceX set up sales associates and commercial companies that buy seats on Dragon and Starship.  Has Boeing done that? No, not much of a commercial business, is it?

[woods170]

Is this the correct thread?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-awards-spacex-more-crew-flights-to-space-station

NASA has awarded five additional missions to Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California, for crew transportation services to the International Space Station as part of the agency’s Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract. The CCtCap modification brings the total missions for SpaceX to 14 and allows NASA to maintain an uninterrupted U.S. capability for human access to the space station until 2030, with two unique commercial crew industry partners.

This is a firm fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract modification for the Crew-10, Crew-11, Crew-12, Crew-13, and Crew-14 flights. The value of this modification for all five missions and related mission services is $1,436,438,446. The amount includes ground, launch, in-orbit, and return and recovery operations, cargo transportation for each mission, and a lifeboat capability while docked to the International Space Station. The period of performance runs through 2030 and brings the total CCtCap contract value with SpaceX to $4,927,306,350.

The award follows the agency issuing a notice of intent in June 2022 to purchase the additional missions. The current sole source modification does not preclude NASA from seeking future contract modifications for additional transportation services, as needed.

$287,287,689 per flight, or $71,821,922 per seat

I finally started thinking about this. I have two questions:

Is this a sole-source award? If so, how was it justified? Was it publicly justified somewhere? if not, did we see any announcement of a competitive bid? did Boeing decline to bid? The prior award to SpaceX was a sole-source extension justified by the lack of an alternative, since Starliner was not operational.

NASA sole sourced CRS-10 thru CRS-14 to SpaceX for the exact same reasons why they sole-sourced CRS-7 thru CRS-9 to SpaceX. Starliner is still not operational (has not completed CFT). Also in play is the fact that Starliner has no launch vehicle available after its sixth awarded PCM, because Boeing has so far made no effort to line up an alternative launcher for Starliner.

[AnalogMan]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-awards-spacex-more-crew-flights-to-space-station

NASA has awarded five additional missions to Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California, for crew transportation services to the International Space Station as part of the agency’s Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract. The CCtCap modification brings the total missions for SpaceX to 14 and allows NASA to maintain an uninterrupted U.S. capability for human access to the space station until 2030, with two unique commercial crew industry partners.

[snipped]

$287,287,689 per flight, or $71,821,922 per seat

I finally started thinking about this. I have two questions:

Is this a sole-source award? If so, how was it justified? Was it publicly justified somewhere? if not, did we see any announcement of a competitive bid? did Boeing decline to bid? The prior award to SpaceX was a sole-source extension justified by the lack of an alternative, since Starliner was not operational.
[...]

NASA posted a rationale for sole-sourcing additional crew missions from SpaceX

Notice of intent (NOI) to Issue a Sole Source Modification - NASA Commercial crew Space Transportation Services
Notice ID: NOI-KSC-CCP-2022-001
Published Date: June 1, 2022
https://sam.gov/opp/62c5cba7a90947a391388ad990a3ac91/view

Subsequent announcement of award:
Modification to SpaceX Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contract
Contract Award Date: August 31, 2022
https://sam.gov/opp/d3f34edac1a54614a0e8c9fcf931015e/view

[SoftwareDude]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-awards-spacex-more-crew-flights-to-space-station

NASA has awarded five additional missions to Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California, for crew transportation services to the International Space Station as part of the agency’s Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract. The CCtCap modification brings the total missions for SpaceX to 14 and allows NASA to maintain an uninterrupted U.S. capability for human access to the space station until 2030, with two unique commercial crew industry partners.

[snipped]

$287,287,689 per flight, or $71,821,922 per seat

I finally started thinking about this. I have two questions:

Is this a sole-source award? If so, how was it justified? Was it publicly justified somewhere? if not, did we see any announcement of a competitive bid? did Boeing decline to bid? The prior award to SpaceX was a sole-source extension justified by the lack of an alternative, since Starliner was not operational.
[...]

NASA posted a rationale for sole-sourcing additional crew missions from SpaceX

Notice of intent (NOI) to Issue a Sole Source Modification - NASA Commercial crew Space Transportation Services
Notice ID: NOI-KSC-CCP-2022-001
Published Date: June 1, 2022
https://sam.gov/opp/62c5cba7a90947a391388ad990a3ac91/view

Subsequent announcement of award:
Modification to SpaceX Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contract
Contract Award Date: August 31, 2022
https://sam.gov/opp/d3f34edac1a54614a0e8c9fcf931015e/view

Thanks for posting this. It is interesting, but the minimum they have to say to make the award.

[DanClemmensen]

I finally started thinking about this. I have two questions:

Is this a sole-source award? If so, how was it justified? Was it publicly justified somewhere? if not, did we see any announcement of a competitive bid? did Boeing decline to bid? The prior award to SpaceX was a sole-source extension justified by the lack of an alternative, since Starliner was not operational.
[...]

NASA posted a rationale for sole-sourcing additional crew missions from SpaceX

Notice of intent (NOI) to Issue a Sole Source Modification - NASA Commercial crew Space Transportation Services
Notice ID: NOI-KSC-CCP-2022-001
Published Date: June 1, 2022
https://sam.gov/opp/62c5cba7a90947a391388ad990a3ac91/view

Subsequent announcement of award:
Modification to SpaceX Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contract
Contract Award Date: August 31, 2022
https://sam.gov/opp/d3f34edac1a54614a0e8c9fcf931015e/view

OK, but these additional flights will not be needed until about H2 2025 even if Starliner never files. So why have we not heard a single peep out of Boeing urging NASA to defer this decision? It is tempting to think that Boeing has decided to terminate Starliner after Starliner-6.

If that occurs, Starliner will have flown 6 of a total of 20 flights, or 30%, while Crew Dragon will have flown 14, or 70%, while NASA pays Boeing more in total than it pays SpaceX. Further, unless NASA stretches out the Boeing schedule, they will not have redundant suppliers for the last two years of the ISS program.

[SoftwareDude]

I finally started thinking about this. I have two questions:

Is this a sole-source award? If so, how was it justified? Was it publicly justified somewhere? if not, did we see any announcement of a competitive bid? did Boeing decline to bid? The prior award to SpaceX was a sole-source extension justified by the lack of an alternative, since Starliner was not operational.
[...]

NASA posted a rationale for sole-sourcing additional crew missions from SpaceX

Notice of intent (NOI) to Issue a Sole Source Modification - NASA Commercial crew Space Transportation Services
Notice ID: NOI-KSC-CCP-2022-001
Published Date: June 1, 2022
https://sam.gov/opp/62c5cba7a90947a391388ad990a3ac91/view

Subsequent announcement of award:
Modification to SpaceX Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contract
Contract Award Date: August 31, 2022
https://sam.gov/opp/d3f34edac1a54614a0e8c9fcf931015e/view

OK, but these additional flights will not be needed until about H2 2025 even if Starliner never files. So why have we not heard a single peep out of Boeing urging NASA to defer this decision? It is tempting to think that Boeing has decided to terminate Starliner after Starliner-6.

If that occurs, Starliner will have flown 6 of a total of 20 flights, or 30%, while Crew Dragon will have flown 14, or 70%, while NASA pays Boeing more in total than it pays SpaceX. Further, unless NASA stretches out the Boeing schedule, they will not have redundant suppliers for the last two years of the ISS program.

It could be NASA is doing Boeing a favor. NASA excludes Boeing from bidding. Boeing can now declare an "unexpected loss of income" and write it off, then defer it toward future profits. Much more valuable to Boeing than the flights.
Here's a modest idea: Boeing should cancel Starliner and buy cheaper seats from SpaceX for the six flights it has on its books and bank the difference; guaranteed profit which more than offset by the written-off unexpected loss of income. Free money! Win-win for Boeing and SpaceX, the government not so much.

[DanClemmensen]

I finally started thinking about this. I have two questions:

Is this a sole-source award? If so, how was it justified? Was it publicly justified somewhere? if not, did we see any announcement of a competitive bid? did Boeing decline to bid? The prior award to SpaceX was a sole-source extension justified by the lack of an alternative, since Starliner was not operational.
[...]

NASA posted a rationale for sole-sourcing additional crew missions from SpaceX

Notice of intent (NOI) to Issue a Sole Source Modification - NASA Commercial crew Space Transportation Services
Notice ID: NOI-KSC-CCP-2022-001
Published Date: June 1, 2022
https://sam.gov/opp/62c5cba7a90947a391388ad990a3ac91/view

Subsequent announcement of award:
Modification to SpaceX Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contract
Contract Award Date: August 31, 2022
https://sam.gov/opp/d3f34edac1a54614a0e8c9fcf931015e/view

OK, but these additional flights will not be needed until about H2 2025 even if Starliner never files. So why have we not heard a single peep out of Boeing urging NASA to defer this decision? It is tempting to think that Boeing has decided to terminate Starliner after Starliner-6.

If that occurs, Starliner will have flown 6 of a total of 20 flights, or 30%, while Crew Dragon will have flown 14, or 70%, while NASA pays Boeing more in total than it pays SpaceX. Further, unless NASA stretches out the Boeing schedule, they will not have redundant suppliers for the last two years of the ISS program.

It could be NASA is doing Boeing a favor. NASA excludes Boeing from bidding. Boeing can now declare an "unexpected loss of income" and write it off, then defer it toward future profits. Much more valuable to Boeing than the flights.
Here's a modest idea: Boeing should cancel Starliner and buy cheaper seats from SpaceX for the six flights it has on its books and bank the difference; guaranteed profit which more than offset by the written-off unexpected loss of income. Free money! Win-win for Boeing and SpaceX, the government not so much.

Boeing is contracted to provide 6 Starliner flights to NASA at a fixed price. NASA has stated for more than ten years that they want redundancy. NASA is unlikely to allow Boeing to walk away from this contract, especially after Boeing essentially forced NASA to add $284 million to  the contract and guarantee 6 flights instead of two in 2018 to keep them in the program. You reap what you sow.

We do not know what went on behind the scenes, so we do not know that Boeing was "excluded from bidding". NASA may have awarded the sole-source contract to SpaceX only after discussing the situation with Boeing. If Boeing informally indicated no interest, then a NASA sole-source to SpaceX was administratively simpler and less costly than a formal bidding process.

I do not understand why SpaceX accepted this award at this price. Crew Dragon and possibly Cargo Dragon are likely to be the last Falcon flights and will require SpaceX to keep the entire Falcon and Dragon infrastructure in place until the end of 2030.

[SoftwareDude]

I finally started thinking about this. I have two questions:

Is this a sole-source award? If so, how was it justified? Was it publicly justified somewhere? if not, did we see any announcement of a competitive bid? did Boeing decline to bid? The prior award to SpaceX was a sole-source extension justified by the lack of an alternative, since Starliner was not operational.
[...]

NASA posted a rationale for sole-sourcing additional crew missions from SpaceX

Notice of intent (NOI) to Issue a Sole Source Modification - NASA Commercial crew Space Transportation Services
Notice ID: NOI-KSC-CCP-2022-001
Published Date: June 1, 2022
https://sam.gov/opp/62c5cba7a90947a391388ad990a3ac91/view

Subsequent announcement of award:
Modification to SpaceX Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contract
Contract Award Date: August 31, 2022
https://sam.gov/opp/d3f34edac1a54614a0e8c9fcf931015e/view

OK, but these additional flights will not be needed until about H2 2025 even if Starliner never files. So why have we not heard a single peep out of Boeing urging NASA to defer this decision? It is tempting to think that Boeing has decided to terminate Starliner after Starliner-6.

If that occurs, Starliner will have flown 6 of a total of 20 flights, or 30%, while Crew Dragon will have flown 14, or 70%, while NASA pays Boeing more in total than it pays SpaceX. Further, unless NASA stretches out the Boeing schedule, they will not have redundant suppliers for the last two years of the ISS program.

It could be NASA is doing Boeing a favor. NASA excludes Boeing from bidding. Boeing can now declare an "unexpected loss of income" and write it off, then defer it toward future profits. Much more valuable to Boeing than the flights.
Here's a modest idea: Boeing should cancel Starliner and buy cheaper seats from SpaceX for the six flights it has on its books and bank the difference; guaranteed profit which more than offset by the written-off unexpected loss of income. Free money! Win-win for Boeing and SpaceX, the government not so much.

Boeing is contracted to provide 6 Starliner flights to NASA at a fixed price. NASA has stated for more than ten years that they want redundancy. NASA is unlikely to allow Boeing to walk away from this contract, especially after Boeing essentially forced NASA to add $284 million to  the contract and guarantee 6 flights instead of two in 2018 to keep them in the program. You reap what you sow.

We do not know what went on behind the scenes, so we do not know that Boeing was "excluded from bidding". NASA may have awarded the sole-source contract to SpaceX only after discussing the situation with Boeing. If Boeing informally indicated no interest, then a NASA sole-source to SpaceX was administratively simpler and less costly than a formal bidding process.

I do not understand why SpaceX accepted this award at this price. Crew Dragon and possibly Cargo Dragon are likely to be the last Falcon flights and will require SpaceX to keep the entire Falcon and Dragon infrastructure in place until the end of 2030.

The second part, the modest proposal, is facetious sarcasm, but I am serious about the first part. The additional flights Boeing is missing out on are more valuable not to have because Boeing can declare those as unexpected losses of income on their taxes. It's part of why corporations pay little or no taxes.

[Jim]

I finally started thinking about this. I have two questions:

Is this a sole-source award? If so, how was it justified? Was it publicly justified somewhere? if not, did we see any announcement of a competitive bid? did Boeing decline to bid? The prior award to SpaceX was a sole-source extension justified by the lack of an alternative, since Starliner was not operational.
[...]

NASA posted a rationale for sole-sourcing additional crew missions from SpaceX

Notice of intent (NOI) to Issue a Sole Source Modification - NASA Commercial crew Space Transportation Services
Notice ID: NOI-KSC-CCP-2022-001
Published Date: June 1, 2022
https://sam.gov/opp/62c5cba7a90947a391388ad990a3ac91/view

Subsequent announcement of award:
Modification to SpaceX Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contract
Contract Award Date: August 31, 2022
https://sam.gov/opp/d3f34edac1a54614a0e8c9fcf931015e/view

OK, but these additional flights will not be needed until about H2 2025 even if Starliner never files. So why have we not heard a single peep out of Boeing urging NASA to defer this decision? It is tempting to think that Boeing has decided to terminate Starliner after Starliner-6.

If that occurs, Starliner will have flown 6 of a total of 20 flights, or 30%, while Crew Dragon will have flown 14, or 70%, while NASA pays Boeing more in total than it pays SpaceX. Further, unless NASA stretches out the Boeing schedule, they will not have redundant suppliers for the last two years of the ISS program.

It could be NASA is doing Boeing a favor. NASA excludes Boeing from bidding. Boeing can now declare an "unexpected loss of income" and write it off, then defer it toward future profits. Much more valuable to Boeing than the flights.
Here's a modest idea: Boeing should cancel Starliner and buy cheaper seats from SpaceX for the six flights it has on its books and bank the difference; guaranteed profit which more than offset by the written-off unexpected loss of income. Free money! Win-win for Boeing and SpaceX, the government not so much.

Boeing is contracted to provide 6 Starliner flights to NASA at a fixed price. NASA has stated for more than ten years that they want redundancy. NASA is unlikely to allow Boeing to walk away from this contract, especially after Boeing essentially forced NASA to add $284 million to  the contract and guarantee 6 flights instead of two in 2018 to keep them in the program. You reap what you sow.

We do not know what went on behind the scenes, so we do not know that Boeing was "excluded from bidding". NASA may have awarded the sole-source contract to SpaceX only after discussing the situation with Boeing. If Boeing informally indicated no interest, then a NASA sole-source to SpaceX was administratively simpler and less costly than a formal bidding process.

I do not understand why SpaceX accepted this award at this price. Crew Dragon and possibly Cargo Dragon are likely to be the last Falcon flights and will require SpaceX to keep the entire Falcon and Dragon infrastructure in place until the end of 2030.

The second part, the modest proposal, is facetious sarcasm, but I am serious about the first part. The additional flights Boeing is missing out on are more valuable not to have because Boeing can declare those as unexpected losses of income on their taxes. It's part of why corporations pay little or no taxes.

Not true at all.
NASA did not exclude Boeing.  NASA went to SpaceX because Boeing was unable to perform and it was justified.  Boeing can’t claim anything for that if it did not protest.

[Jim]

I do not understand why SpaceX accepted this award at this price. Crew Dragon and possibly Cargo Dragon are likely to be the last Falcon flights and will require SpaceX to keep the entire Falcon and Dragon infrastructure in place until the end of 2030.

Because it is an IDIQ contract and NET prices/terms were already negotiated in the basic contract.  That is the same way NLS and CRS contracts work.

[SoftwareDude]

I finally started thinking about this. I have two questions:

Is this a sole-source award? If so, how was it justified? Was it publicly justified somewhere? if not, did we see any announcement of a competitive bid? did Boeing decline to bid? The prior award to SpaceX was a sole-source extension justified by the lack of an alternative, since Starliner was not operational.
[...]

NASA posted a rationale for sole-sourcing additional crew missions from SpaceX

Notice of intent (NOI) to Issue a Sole Source Modification - NASA Commercial crew Space Transportation Services
Notice ID: NOI-KSC-CCP-2022-001
Published Date: June 1, 2022
https://sam.gov/opp/62c5cba7a90947a391388ad990a3ac91/view

Subsequent announcement of award:
Modification to SpaceX Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contract
Contract Award Date: August 31, 2022
https://sam.gov/opp/d3f34edac1a54614a0e8c9fcf931015e/view

OK, but these additional flights will not be needed until about H2 2025 even if Starliner never files. So why have we not heard a single peep out of Boeing urging NASA to defer this decision? It is tempting to think that Boeing has decided to terminate Starliner after Starliner-6.

If that occurs, Starliner will have flown 6 of a total of 20 flights, or 30%, while Crew Dragon will have flown 14, or 70%, while NASA pays Boeing more in total than it pays SpaceX. Further, unless NASA stretches out the Boeing schedule, they will not have redundant suppliers for the last two years of the ISS program.

It could be NASA is doing Boeing a favor. NASA excludes Boeing from bidding. Boeing can now declare an "unexpected loss of income" and write it off, then defer it toward future profits. Much more valuable to Boeing than the flights.
Here's a modest idea: Boeing should cancel Starliner and buy cheaper seats from SpaceX for the six flights it has on its books and bank the difference; guaranteed profit which more than offset by the written-off unexpected loss of income. Free money! Win-win for Boeing and SpaceX, the government not so much.

Boeing is contracted to provide 6 Starliner flights to NASA at a fixed price. NASA has stated for more than ten years that they want redundancy. NASA is unlikely to allow Boeing to walk away from this contract, especially after Boeing essentially forced NASA to add $284 million to  the contract and guarantee 6 flights instead of two in 2018 to keep them in the program. You reap what you sow.

We do not know what went on behind the scenes, so we do not know that Boeing was "excluded from bidding". NASA may have awarded the sole-source contract to SpaceX only after discussing the situation with Boeing. If Boeing informally indicated no interest, then a NASA sole-source to SpaceX was administratively simpler and less costly than a formal bidding process.

I do not understand why SpaceX accepted this award at this price. Crew Dragon and possibly Cargo Dragon are likely to be the last Falcon flights and will require SpaceX to keep the entire Falcon and Dragon infrastructure in place until the end of 2030.

The second part, the modest proposal, is facetious sarcasm, but I am serious about the first part. The additional flights Boeing is missing out on are more valuable not to have because Boeing can declare those as unexpected losses of income on their taxes. It's part of why corporations pay little or no taxes.

Not true at all.
NASA did not exclude Boeing.  NASA went to SpaceX because Boeing was unable to perform.  Boeing can’t claim anything for that.

NASA declared it a sole source contract. I think that gives Boeing the legal right to declare an "unexpected loss of income." Maybe someone knows more about that than I do. There's the curious addendum about other sources sending emails to NASA if they want to propose their own technology, making me think that NASA is being very explicit about the sole source.

[SoftwareDude]

I do not understand why SpaceX accepted this award at this price. Crew Dragon and possibly Cargo Dragon are likely to be the last Falcon flights and will require SpaceX to keep the entire Falcon and Dragon infrastructure in place until the end of 2030.

Because it is an IDIQ contract and NET prices/terms were already negotiated in the basic contract.  That is the same way NLS and CRS contracts work.

Yes! Thank you for reminding me. IDIQ contracts are a prerequisite to declaring unexpected losses of income.

[Jim]

No, it is not a sole source contract.   NASA is using an existing contract.  just not asking for bids becuase Boeing can’t comply  and just eliminating a few steps in the process.  Because Boeing has not expended any effort for these missions, it has no losses.

[Jim]

I do not understand why SpaceX accepted this award at this price. Crew Dragon and possibly Cargo Dragon are likely to be the last Falcon flights and will require SpaceX to keep the entire Falcon and Dragon infrastructure in place until the end of 2030.

Because it is an IDIQ contract and NET prices/terms were already negotiated in the basic contract.  That is the same way NLS and CRS contracts work.

Yes! Thank you for reminding me. IDIQ contracts are a prerequisite to declaring unexpected losses of income.

Wrong.   Boeing has already earned the minimum for this contract.  It has no claim to earn more.