Author Topic: NASA Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services: RFI for Round 2  (Read 50363 times)

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2433
  • Liked: 890
  • Likes Given: 31
I would consider betting money that Starliner-6 wonít fly until 2029.

Candidate for the NSF beer bet tracker?

Offline david1971

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 15805
...which doesn't mean Starliner won't get another mission ever. There's Orbital Reef, plus Gateway/Artemis, if NASA wants to retire Orion and go with commercial providers for later missions.

If Starliner doesn't get additional flights, then most likely by the time Starliner flies its first crew Dragon 2 will have already flown more people to orbit than Starliner will over the course of its lifetime.  :(

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
  • Liked: 2720
  • Likes Given: 457
With reduced flights, what does Starlinerís overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragonís already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3742
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2991
  • Likes Given: 1084
With reduced flights, what does Starlinerís overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragonís already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.
But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
  • Liked: 2720
  • Likes Given: 457
With reduced flights, what does Starlinerís overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragonís already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.
But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

Iím not talking about it from Boeingís perspective. Iím talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayerís perspective, when all is said and done.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16421
  • Liked: 6486
  • Likes Given: 2817
With reduced flights, what does Starlinerís overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragonís already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.
But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

Iím not talking about it from Boeingís perspective. Iím talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayerís perspective, when all is said and done.

Boeing charges NASA approximately $90M per seat for Starliner. NASA is strongly encouraging Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers to use two different commercial crew transportation systems. The CLD and Commercial Crew Programs are working on models for certifying new crew transportation systems. I would expect Boeing and the new LV to be certified as part of the CLD Program. Blue has already said that they will be using the Starliner (and crewed Dream Chaser) for their Orbital Reef station.
« Last Edit: 06/03/2022 01:16 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37923
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 23311
  • Likes Given: 11593
Thatís a pretty high price. Maybe there is a market for Dream chaser .
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: 16421
  • Liked: 6486
  • Likes Given: 2817
Thatís a pretty high price. Maybe there is a market for Dream chaser.

Orbital Reef will also use crewed Dream Chaser.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1551
  • USA
  • Liked: 1335
  • Likes Given: 2097
Thatís a pretty high price. Maybe there is a market for Dream chaser.

Orbital Reef will also use crewed Dream Chaser.
Who's gonna pay for crew dream chaser? NASA won't.

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 274
  • Likes Given: 728
Thatís a pretty high price. Maybe there is a market for Dream chaser.

Orbital Reef will also use crewed Dream Chaser.
Who's gonna pay for crew dream chaser? NASA won't.

Nasa wouldn't pay for development but that can do barter no cost certifying and paying for seats.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37923
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 23311
  • Likes Given: 11593
Thatís a pretty high price. Maybe there is a market for Dream chaser.

Orbital Reef will also use crewed Dream Chaser.
Who's gonna pay for crew dream chaser? NASA won't.

Nasa wouldn't pay for development but that can do barter no cost certifying and paying for seats.
Yup, and NASA *is* paying for cargo Dream Chaser.
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 DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3742
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2991
  • Likes Given: 1084
With reduced flights, what does Starlinerís overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragonís already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.
But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

Iím not talking about it from Boeingís perspective. Iím talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayerís perspective, when all is said and done.
That's nice, but sunk costs are still sunk. We as taxpayers have already paid or agreed to pay for the development milestones: that money is gone forever and cancelling Starliner now would not recover that money. I think taxpayers should focus on money yet to be spent, not money already spent. In theory we should also try to learn from the past and use when creating new programs, but that will not affect the operating cost of the Starliner. NASA already agreed on the fixed price per mission, so Boeing's operating cost does not affect the amount of taxpayer money being paid per mission, either.

One lesson NASA might learn: don't let a contractor hustle you into committing to pay for six operational missions when you initially agreed to commit to two missions plus four optional missions. NASA agreed to this (and provided an additional $287 million) in 2019 when Boeing threatened to pull out of the program. Without this change, NASA would have been free to use the cheaper Crew Dragon for these missions. At the time of this hustle, NASA (and everybody) thought of Starliner as the real spacecraft and Crew Dragon as a long shot, so NASA thought they had no choice.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37923
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 23311
  • Likes Given: 11593
With reduced flights, what does Starlinerís overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragonís already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.
But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

Iím not talking about it from Boeingís perspective. Iím talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayerís perspective, when all is said and done.
That's nice, but sunk costs are still sunk. We as taxpayers have already paid or agreed to pay for the development milestones: that money is gone forever and cancelling Starliner now would not recover that money. I think taxpayers should focus on money yet to be spent, not money already spent. In theory we should also try to learn from the past and use when creating new programs, but that will not affect the operating cost of the Starliner. NASA already agreed on the fixed price per mission, so Boeing's operating cost does not affect the amount of taxpayer money being paid per mission, either.

One lesson NASA might learn: don't let a contractor hustle you into committing to pay for six operational missions when you initially agreed to commit to two missions plus four optional missions. NASA agreed to this (and provided an additional $287 million) in 2019 when Boeing threatened to pull out of the program. Without this change, NASA would have been free to use the cheaper Crew Dragon for these missions. At the time of this hustle, NASA (and everybody) thought of Starliner as the real spacecraft and Crew Dragon as a long shot, so NASA thought they had no choice.
NASA wouldnít have gotten backup capability then. Relations with Russia havenít exactly improved, so this isnít nothing.
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 DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3742
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 2991
  • Likes Given: 1084
NASA wouldnít have gotten backup capability then. Relations with Russia havenít exactly improved, so this isnít nothing.
NASA still does not have backup capability, but your point is valid. NASA had no capability at all from 2011 until 2020. In 2018 when the hustle occurred, Starliner was seen as the main line and Crew Dragon was the backup capability at the project level. Fortunately, the backup worked. I'm just resentful that Boeing hustled NASA instead of designing a more cost-effective system.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
  • Liked: 2720
  • Likes Given: 457
With reduced flights, what does Starlinerís overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragonís already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.
But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

Iím not talking about it from Boeingís perspective. Iím talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayerís perspective, when all is said and done.
That's nice, but sunk costs are still sunk. We as taxpayers have already paid or agreed to pay for the development milestones: that money is gone forever and cancelling Starliner now would not recover that money. I think taxpayers should focus on money yet to be spent, not money already spent. In theory we should also try to learn from the past and use when creating new programs, but that will not affect the operating cost of the Starliner. NASA already agreed on the fixed price per mission, so Boeing's operating cost does not affect the amount of taxpayer money being paid per mission, either.

One lesson NASA might learn: don't let a contractor hustle you into committing to pay for six operational missions when you initially agreed to commit to two missions plus four optional missions. NASA agreed to this (and provided an additional $287 million) in 2019 when Boeing threatened to pull out of the program. Without this change, NASA would have been free to use the cheaper Crew Dragon for these missions. At the time of this hustle, NASA (and everybody) thought of Starliner as the real spacecraft and Crew Dragon as a long shot, so NASA thought they had no choice.

Total program cost is a lesson to be learned - donít use that contractor again for future projects when there are more efficient competitors available. Track record is important.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2167
  • Liked: 2720
  • Likes Given: 457
With reduced flights, what does Starlinerís overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragonís already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.
But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

Iím not talking about it from Boeingís perspective. Iím talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayerís perspective, when all is said and done.

Boeing charges NASA approximately $90M per seat for Starliner. NASA is strongly encouraging Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers to use two different commercial crew transportation systems. The CLD and Commercial Crew Programs are working on models for certifying new crew transportation systems. I would expect Boeing and the new LV to be certified as part of the CLD Program. Blue has already said that they will be using the Starliner (and crewed Dream Chaser) for their Orbital Reef station.

How wil that work in practice? Orbital Reef will rely on paying tourists, right? Why would a tourist pay $90M for a seat on Starliner if they can pay $60M for the same trip on Crew Dragon?

Thatís a recipe to go out of business before you even get started.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16421
  • Liked: 6486
  • Likes Given: 2817
With reduced flights, what does Starlinerís overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragonís already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.
But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

Iím not talking about it from Boeingís perspective. Iím talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayerís perspective, when all is said and done.

Boeing charges NASA approximately $90M per seat for Starliner. NASA is strongly encouraging Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers to use two different commercial crew transportation systems. The CLD and Commercial Crew Programs are working on models for certifying new crew transportation systems. I would expect Boeing and the new LV to be certified as part of the CLD Program. Blue has already said that they will be using the Starliner (and crewed Dream Chaser) for their Orbital Reef station.

How wil that work in practice? Orbital Reef will rely on paying tourists, right? Why would a tourist pay $90M for a seat on Starliner if they can pay $60M for the same trip on Crew Dragon?

Thatís a recipe to go out of business before you even get started.

Orbital Reef has two options: crewed Dream Chaser or Starliner. Crewed Dragon isn't an option. I expect the cost of Starliner to go down, especially if the cost of the LV goes down.

It's possible that Axiom will use crewed Dragon and another provider but they have yet to confirm that. I am not sure about NG and Nanoracks (the other CLD providers).

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16421
  • Liked: 6486
  • Likes Given: 2817
Thatís a pretty high price. Maybe there is a market for Dream chaser.

Orbital Reef will also use crewed Dream Chaser.
Who's gonna pay for crew dream chaser? NASA won't.

NASA would pay for a number of 6-month missions to the Orbital Reef station (transportation included). Blue would then pay SNC for crewed Dream Chaser services. Presumably certification of crewed Dream Chaser would occur after the first crewed mission to the Orbital Reef station. Having said that, this assumes that NASA selects Orbital Reef in the services phase of CLD (my guess is that NASA will select two CLD providers in the services phase).
« Last Edit: 06/03/2022 06:36 pm by yg1968 »

Offline TrevorMonty

With reduced flights, what does Starliner’s overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragon’s already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.
But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

I’m not talking about it from Boeing’s perspective. I’m talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayer’s perspective, when all is said and done.

Boeing charges NASA approximately $90M per seat for Starliner. NASA is strongly encouraging Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers to use two different commercial crew transportation systems. The CLD and Commercial Crew Programs are working on models for certifying new crew transportation systems. I would expect Boeing and the new LV to be certified as part of the CLD Program. Blue has already said that they will be using the Starliner (and crewed Dream Chaser) for their Orbital Reef station.

How wil that work in practice? Orbital Reef will rely on paying tourists, right? Why would a tourist pay $90M for a seat on Starliner if they can pay $60M for the same trip on Crew Dragon?

That’s a recipe to go out of business before you even get started.
That $90m is NASA price for 4 seats. Commercial prices is likely to be lot lower , plus there is 5th seat on Starliner. I've seen layouts for 9, which could seat price to $40m or less.

Sent from my SM-T733 using Tapatalk


Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1551
  • USA
  • Liked: 1335
  • Likes Given: 2097
Thatís a pretty high price. Maybe there is a market for Dream chaser.

Orbital Reef will also use crewed Dream Chaser.
Who's gonna pay for crew dream chaser? NASA won't.

Nasa wouldn't pay for development but that can do barter no cost certifying and paying for seats.
Yup, and NASA *is* paying for cargo Dream Chaser.
Which is a different vehicle. A crewed dream chaser doesn't just have a few decals and some chairs in it. It'll need to be quite different to be crew rated.

Thatís a pretty high price. Maybe there is a market for Dream chaser.

Orbital Reef will also use crewed Dream Chaser.
Who's gonna pay for crew dream chaser? NASA won't.

Nasa wouldn't pay for development but that can do barter no cost certifying and paying for seats.
Still is the problem that its 10s if not hundreds of millions of dollars that Sierra Space needs to come up with.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1