Quote from: Jim on 09/05/2022 09:37 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 09:11 pmI 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.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 09:11 pmI 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.
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.
Quote from: SoftwareDude on 09/05/2022 09:20 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 09:11 pmQuote from: SoftwareDude on 09/05/2022 08:47 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 07:28 pmQuote from: AnalogMan on 09/05/2022 11:13 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 01:54 amI 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 SpaceXNotice of intent (NOI) to Issue a Sole Source Modification - NASA Commercial crew Space Transportation ServicesNotice ID: NOI-KSC-CCP-2022-001Published Date: June 1, 2022https://sam.gov/opp/62c5cba7a90947a391388ad990a3ac91/viewSubsequent announcement of award:Modification to SpaceX Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contractContract Award Date: August 31, 2022https://sam.gov/opp/d3f34edac1a54614a0e8c9fcf931015e/viewOK, 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.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 09:11 pmQuote from: SoftwareDude on 09/05/2022 08:47 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 07:28 pmQuote from: AnalogMan on 09/05/2022 11:13 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 01:54 amI 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 SpaceXNotice of intent (NOI) to Issue a Sole Source Modification - NASA Commercial crew Space Transportation ServicesNotice ID: NOI-KSC-CCP-2022-001Published Date: June 1, 2022https://sam.gov/opp/62c5cba7a90947a391388ad990a3ac91/viewSubsequent announcement of award:Modification to SpaceX Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contractContract Award Date: August 31, 2022https://sam.gov/opp/d3f34edac1a54614a0e8c9fcf931015e/viewOK, 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.
Quote from: SoftwareDude on 09/05/2022 08:47 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 07:28 pmQuote from: AnalogMan on 09/05/2022 11:13 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 01:54 amI 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 SpaceXNotice of intent (NOI) to Issue a Sole Source Modification - NASA Commercial crew Space Transportation ServicesNotice ID: NOI-KSC-CCP-2022-001Published Date: June 1, 2022https://sam.gov/opp/62c5cba7a90947a391388ad990a3ac91/viewSubsequent announcement of award:Modification to SpaceX Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contractContract Award Date: August 31, 2022https://sam.gov/opp/d3f34edac1a54614a0e8c9fcf931015e/viewOK, 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.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 07:28 pmQuote from: AnalogMan on 09/05/2022 11:13 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 01:54 amI 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 SpaceXNotice of intent (NOI) to Issue a Sole Source Modification - NASA Commercial crew Space Transportation ServicesNotice ID: NOI-KSC-CCP-2022-001Published Date: June 1, 2022https://sam.gov/opp/62c5cba7a90947a391388ad990a3ac91/viewSubsequent announcement of award:Modification to SpaceX Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contractContract Award Date: August 31, 2022https://sam.gov/opp/d3f34edac1a54614a0e8c9fcf931015e/viewOK, 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.
Quote from: AnalogMan on 09/05/2022 11:13 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 01:54 amI 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 SpaceXNotice of intent (NOI) to Issue a Sole Source Modification - NASA Commercial crew Space Transportation ServicesNotice ID: NOI-KSC-CCP-2022-001Published Date: June 1, 2022https://sam.gov/opp/62c5cba7a90947a391388ad990a3ac91/viewSubsequent announcement of award:Modification to SpaceX Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contractContract Award Date: August 31, 2022https://sam.gov/opp/d3f34edac1a54614a0e8c9fcf931015e/viewOK, 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.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 01:54 amI 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 SpaceXNotice of intent (NOI) to Issue a Sole Source Modification - NASA Commercial crew Space Transportation ServicesNotice ID: NOI-KSC-CCP-2022-001Published Date: June 1, 2022https://sam.gov/opp/62c5cba7a90947a391388ad990a3ac91/viewSubsequent announcement of award:Modification to SpaceX Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities (CCtCap) contractContract Award Date: August 31, 2022https://sam.gov/opp/d3f34edac1a54614a0e8c9fcf931015e/view
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.[...]
"Unexpected Loss is a formal Risk Measure that was introduced as part of the Basel II regulatory reforms. It is used primarily in the context of estimating Risk Capital using internal models and it aims to explicitly separate the related Expected Loss concept, (the idea being that expected losses are provisioned for and unexpected losses must be explicitly insured against with other forms of capital).Unexpected losses correspond to the unpredictable/unforeseeable losses that have a lower probability of occurrence but may nevertheless occur. Statistically, for a given confidence interval of the Loss Distribution Function, unexpected losses (UL) correspond to the difference between the maximum loss incurred and expected losses (EL)"
Quote from: SoftwareDude on 09/05/2022 09:43 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/05/2022 09:37 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 09:11 pmI 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.Again, this is another case where you go on your anti Boeing rant
Quote from: Jim on 09/05/2022 09:54 pmQuote from: SoftwareDude on 09/05/2022 09:43 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/05/2022 09:37 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 09:11 pmI 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.Again, this is another case where you go on your anti Boeing rantAre you Boeing or something? Do you want to tell me what is unfair about it?
You are wrong. Boeing isn’t guaranteed anything beyond the basic contract.
Quote from: Jim on 09/05/2022 10:10 pmYou are wrong. Boeing isn’t guaranteed anything beyond the basic contract. You are right NASA is under no obligation beyond the basic contract, but NASA does not make the tax laws. Do you work for Boeing? Are there people who post here that work for Boeing that you know of?
Quote from: SoftwareDude on 09/05/2022 10:31 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/05/2022 10:10 pmYou are wrong. Boeing isn’t guaranteed anything beyond the basic contract. You are right NASA is under no obligation beyond the basic contract, but NASA does not make the tax laws. Do you work for Boeing? Are there people who post here that work for Boeing that you know of?And Boeing can only write off what it is contracted for. Not unguaranteed future work. It hasn’t risked anything on it or spent money towards it.
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.
Quote from: Jim on 09/05/2022 10:36 pmQuote from: SoftwareDude on 09/05/2022 10:31 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/05/2022 10:10 pmYou are wrong. Boeing isn’t guaranteed anything beyond the basic contract. You are right NASA is under no obligation beyond the basic contract, but NASA does not make the tax laws. Do you work for Boeing? Are there people who post here that work for Boeing that you know of?And Boeing can only write off what it is contracted for. Not unguaranteed future work. It hasn’t risked anything on it or spent money towards it.I agree to disagree with you about the tax law until proven otherwise.
Quote from: Jim on 09/05/2022 09:37 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 09:11 pmI 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.I know this is the second sole-source extension to the original IDIQ contract. The original fixed-price contract was for development (with milestone payments) plus two guaranteed operational missions at a fixed per-misson price, plus up to four additional missions at that same per-mission price. The first sole-source extension was for up to three additional missions at a different per-mission price. SpaceX agreed to this extension: NASA did not have the legal power to require SpaceX to fly these missions. Later, NASA awarded SpaceX this new second IDIQ extension for up to 5 more flights at even a higher price per mission, and SpaceX agreed to accept this award. My question was: why did SpaceX choose to incur this additional obligation? SpaceX could have declined, I thought. Are you saying that the original 2014 contract obligated SpaceX to continue flying Crew Dragon for as long as NASA wants to keep buying the service? How did the 2014 contract determine the prices for the missions after the original six?
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 11:04 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/05/2022 09:37 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 09/05/2022 09:11 pmI 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.I know this is the second sole-source extension to the original IDIQ contract. The original fixed-price contract was for development (with milestone payments) plus two guaranteed operational missions at a fixed per-misson price, plus up to four additional missions at that same per-mission price. The first sole-source extension was for up to three additional missions at a different per-mission price. SpaceX agreed to this extension: NASA did not have the legal power to require SpaceX to fly these missions. Later, NASA awarded SpaceX this new second IDIQ extension for up to 5 more flights at even a higher price per mission, and SpaceX agreed to accept this award. My question was: why did SpaceX choose to incur this additional obligation? SpaceX could have declined, I thought. Are you saying that the original 2014 contract obligated SpaceX to continue flying Crew Dragon for as long as NASA wants to keep buying the service? How did the 2014 contract determine the prices for the missions after the original six? It is just ordering more services under the same contract via amid. Just easier. Starship is far from being a replacement
It was easy to do and keeping Dragon and Falcon going is because Starship is not a viable replacement .Why would they decline?
Obviously starship is not going to be replacing either since they are going to be flying crew, cargo and satellites then.
Price per seat went from $55M to $64M to $72M. That's probably to account for inflation.
Quote from: Jim on 09/06/2022 12:16 amIt was easy to do and keeping Dragon and Falcon going is because Starship is not a viable replacement .Why would they decline?We are talking about missions after 2028, here. By that time, there is a real possibility that CRS and CCP are the only remaining customers for Dragon and for F9. Under these circumstances, SpaceX would need to keep the entire Dragon and F9 infrastructures functioning to support a total of about four flights per year, which means those four flights must pay the entire operational costs of that infrastructure. I don't see how the mission price in the ammendment can support that infrastructure at four flights per year.SpaceX may or may not agree with you about Starship as a viable replacement: I don't know. I am not knowledgeable enough to assess it, but SpaceX claims that they will have crewed Starship and Cargo Starship functioning by then, and I'm fairly sure their engineers can come up with something that uses them in conjunction with a "taxi" if Starship cannot dock with ISS and other stations.
