Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[freddo411]

The previous cost of about $55 million per seat was for the first six flights in the first contract.     This contract extension has a new price per seat.    No reason for them to match.

Note that on an inflation adjusted basis, 75 million (2022) may be cheaper than $55 million (2014 or whatever year that was)

CCTcap was indeed awarded in 2014, and inflation adjusted at an increased of 18.8% that works out to $63.5M in today's dollars.

Thanks for doing the math on that.

For a point of reference, NASA paid about $90 million per seat for that last soyuz flight.

IMHO, buying from an non-dictatorship is worth the price, even if that price were more costly (it isn't).  Buying domestically, is a no brainer, and also worth a premium (it's actually less).

A huge thank you to Elon for making this possible.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1498822700986478596

https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1498824706761408515

[su27k]

$55M in 2014 is $66M today after inflation adjustment, so SpaceX basically kept the price the same, only adjusted for inflation, that's pretty generous, given the situation.

[Zed_Noir]

$55M in 2014 is $66M today after inflation adjustment, so SpaceX basically kept the price the same, only adjusted for inflation, that's pretty generous, given the situation.

One should be magnanimous after vanquishing a clearly lesser opponent. 

edit: typo, thanks @comga

[AnalogMan]

Today NASA posted the Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC) for the additional Post Certification Missions (PCMs 7-9) to SpaceX.

JOFOC date: December 21, 2021
Contract award date: February 28, 2022

Here is a relevant section (my bolding):

NASA KSC awarded two PCMs (PCMs 1 and 2) to both Boeing and SpaceX in 2015, which satisfied the minimum guarantee under the CCtCap contracts. Subsequently, NASA KSC awarded four additional PCMs (PCMs 3-6) to Boeing and SpaceX in December 2016, which fulfilled the maximum number of PCMs under each of the CCtCap contracts.

Authority to Proceed (ATP) for all six PCMs has been granted to SpaceX, while ATP for PCMs 1-3 has been granted to Boeing pending Certification by the Agency.

SpaceX achieved Certification in September 2020 and began PCM rotation missions every six months starting in November 2020. SpaceX is scheduled to launch their last PCM in March 2023. However, Boeing has experienced technical challenges resulting in certification being delayed. According to current development schedules, it is possible that Boeing could achieve certification under CLIN 001 in 2023. However, due to unresolved technical issues it is uncertain when Boeing will achieve certification and begin PCMs to the ISS.

As a result of the above and other rationale described in section 5, in order to meet its crew rotation needs and obligations to international partners, NASA has determined a need to acquire up to three additional PCMs from SpaceX to assure uninterrupted crew access to the International Space Station. The FFP PCM prices were competitively defined in the contract during the CCtCap acquisition. The total estimated value of this action to award three additional PCMs to SpaceX is approximately $760M. The estimated period of performance is through the end of April 2025.

https://sam.gov/opp/832163cb6ee54659b8609ba22dbb7cc7/view

(copy of JOFOC attached)

[woods170]

Today NASA posted the Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC) for the additional Post Certification Missions (PCMs 7-9) to SpaceX.

JOFOC date: December 21, 2021
Contract award date: February 28, 2022

Here is a relevant section (my bolding):

NASA KSC awarded two PCMs (PCMs 1 and 2) to both Boeing and SpaceX in 2015, which satisfied the minimum guarantee under the CCtCap contracts. Subsequently, NASA KSC awarded four additional PCMs (PCMs 3-6) to Boeing and SpaceX in December 2016, which fulfilled the maximum number of PCMs under each of the CCtCap contracts.

Authority to Proceed (ATP) for all six PCMs has been granted to SpaceX, while ATP for PCMs 1-3 has been granted to Boeing pending Certification by the Agency.

SpaceX achieved Certification in September 2020 and began PCM rotation missions every six months starting in November 2020. SpaceX is scheduled to launch their last PCM in March 2023. However, Boeing has experienced technical challenges resulting in certification being delayed. According to current development schedules, it is possible that Boeing could achieve certification under CLIN 001 in 2023. However, due to unresolved technical issues it is uncertain when Boeing will achieve certification and begin PCMs to the ISS.

As a result of the above and other rationale described in section 5, in order to meet its crew rotation needs and obligations to international partners, NASA has determined a need to acquire up to three additional PCMs from SpaceX to assure uninterrupted crew access to the International Space Station. The FFP PCM prices were competitively defined in the contract during the CCtCap acquisition. The total estimated value of this action to award three additional PCMs to SpaceX is approximately $760M. The estimated period of performance is through the end of April 2025.

https://sam.gov/opp/832163cb6ee54659b8609ba22dbb7cc7/view

(copy of JOFOC attached)

Some quick calculations:

- $760M for 3 missions = $253.3M per mission.

- $253.3M per mission = $63.3M per seat (at an average of 4 seats per mission)

- 1 dollar from 2014 (start of CCtCAP contract) is 1.19 dollar today in 2022 (per: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2014?amount=1)

- $63.3M per seat in 2022 dollars = $53.2M per seat in 2014 dollars.

Which is almost exactly the same seat price from the original 2014 CCtCAP contract for SpaceX ($54M per seat in 2014 dollars)

Meaning: for the additional 3 CCtCAP PCMs SpaceX charged the same seat price as the original six PCMs, only corrected for 8 years of inflation. That's d*mn decent of them. They are not taking advantage of Boeing's misfortune.

[Redclaws]

$55M in 2014 is $66M today after inflation adjustment, so SpaceX basically kept the price the same, only adjusted for inflation, that's pretty generous, given the situation.

One should be magnanimous after vanishing a clearly lesser opponent. 

And one should show restraint when pricing for one’s largest customer and long term partner…

[king1999]

Some quick calculations:

- $760M for 3 missions = $253.3M per mission.

- $253.3M per mission = $63.3M per seat (at an average of 4 seats per mission)

- 1 dollar from 2014 (start of CCtCAP contract) is 1.19 dollar today in 2022 (per: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2014?amount=1)

- $63.3M per seat in 2022 dollars = $53.2M per seat in 2014 dollars.

Which is almost exactly the same seat price from the original 2014 CCtCAP contract for SpaceX ($54M per seat in 2014 dollars)

Meaning: for the additional 3 CCtCAP PCMs SpaceX charged the same seat price as the original six PCMs, only corrected for 8 years of inflation. That's d*mn decent of them. They are not taking advantage of Boeing's misfortune.

SpaceX's 2014 pricing may not have taken reuses into consideration. Now they can reuse both boosters and capsules multiple times, their profit margin is much bigger even if they keep the same pricing after inflation.

[SpeakertoAnimals]

Some quick calculations:

- $760M for 3 missions = $253.3M per mission.

- $253.3M per mission = $63.3M per seat (at an average of 4 seats per mission)

- 1 dollar from 2014 (start of CCtCAP contract) is 1.19 dollar today in 2022 (per: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2014?amount=1)

- $63.3M per seat in 2022 dollars = $53.2M per seat in 2014 dollars.

Which is almost exactly the same seat price from the original 2014 CCtCAP contract for SpaceX ($54M per seat in 2014 dollars)

Meaning: for the additional 3 CCtCAP PCMs SpaceX charged the same seat price as the original six PCMs, only corrected for 8 years of inflation. That's d*mn decent of them. They are not taking advantage of Boeing's misfortune.

SpaceX's 2014 pricing may not have taken reuses into consideration. Now they can reuse both boosters and capsules multiple times, their profit margin is much bigger even if they keep the same pricing after inflation.

Yep, and those selfish barstiges will take those ill-gotten gains and plow it back into their new, improved bigger vehicle.

[baldusi]

[...]

Some quick calculations:

- $760M for 3 missions = $253.3M per mission.

- $253.3M per mission = $63.3M per seat (at an average of 4 seats per mission)

- 1 dollar from 2014 (start of CCtCAP contract) is 1.19 dollar today in 2022 (per: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2014?amount=1)

- $63.3M per seat in 2022 dollars = $53.2M per seat in 2014 dollars.

Which is almost exactly the same seat price from the original 2014 CCtCAP contract for SpaceX ($54M per seat in 2014 dollars)

Meaning: for the additional 3 CCtCAP PCMs SpaceX charged the same seat price as the original six PCMs, only corrected for 8 years of inflation. That's d*mn decent of them. They are not taking advantage of Boeing's misfortune.

Are you sure they could have increased the price above inflation? AIUI, their contract was firm price even for additional missions. I would have had a serious talk with my lawyer if he didn't draft the RFP that way.

[Comga]

[...]

Some quick calculations:

- $760M for 3 missions = $253.3M per mission.

- $253.3M per mission = $63.3M per seat (at an average of 4 seats per mission)

- 1 dollar from 2014 (start of CCtCAP contract) is 1.19 dollar today in 2022 (per: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2014?amount=1)

- $63.3M per seat in 2022 dollars = $53.2M per seat in 2014 dollars.

Which is almost exactly the same seat price from the original 2014 CCtCAP contract for SpaceX ($54M per seat in 2014 dollars)

Meaning: for the additional 3 CCtCAP PCMs SpaceX charged the same seat price as the original six PCMs, only corrected for 8 years of inflation. That's d*mn decent of them. They are not taking advantage of Boeing's misfortune.

Are you sure they could have increased the price above inflation? AIUI, their contract was firm price even for additional missions. I would have had a serious talk with my lawyer if he didn't draft the RFP that way.

The JOFOC posted just above says:

….NASA has determined a need to acquire up to three additional PCMs from SpaceX to assure uninterrupted crew access to the International Space Station.  The FFP PCM prices were competitively defined in the contract during the CCtCap acquisition.

Does that answer your question?

My opinion is that it’s still win-win for NASA and SpaceX.

[Redclaws]

[...]

Some quick calculations:

- $760M for 3 missions = $253.3M per mission.

- $253.3M per mission = $63.3M per seat (at an average of 4 seats per mission)

- 1 dollar from 2014 (start of CCtCAP contract) is 1.19 dollar today in 2022 (per: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2014?amount=1)

- $63.3M per seat in 2022 dollars = $53.2M per seat in 2014 dollars.

Which is almost exactly the same seat price from the original 2014 CCtCAP contract for SpaceX ($54M per seat in 2014 dollars)

Meaning: for the additional 3 CCtCAP PCMs SpaceX charged the same seat price as the original six PCMs, only corrected for 8 years of inflation. That's d*mn decent of them. They are not taking advantage of Boeing's misfortune.

Are you sure they could have increased the price above inflation? AIUI, their contract was firm price even for additional missions. I would have had a serious talk with my lawyer if he didn't draft the RFP that way.

The JOFOC posted just above says:

….NASA has determined a need to acquire up to three additional PCMs from SpaceX to assure uninterrupted crew access to the International Space Station.  The FFP PCM prices were competitively defined in the contract during the CCtCap acquisition.

Does that answer your question?

Comga,

As a third party, it doesn’t answer it for me because I’m not sure how to read that.  It sounds like it means prices were fixed from the beginning but maybe I misunderstand which stage CCtCap refers to.

(I’m not saying it’s not an answer, but I am saying “please help, I don’t understand it” 😂)

[abaddon]

Are you sure they could have increased the price above inflation? AIUI, their contract was firm price even for additional missions. I would have had a serious talk with my lawyer if he didn't draft the RFP that way.

...which didn't stop Boeing from going to NASA and demanding additional money, now did it?

[woods170]

Are you sure they could have increased the price above inflation? AIUI, their contract was firm price even for additional missions. I would have had a serious talk with my lawyer if he didn't draft the RFP that way.

...which didn't stop Boeing from going to NASA and demanding additional money, now did it?

Yes. And they got it too. All $287M of it.

[Nomadd]

Are you sure they could have increased the price above inflation? AIUI, their contract was firm price even for additional missions. I would have had a serious talk with my lawyer if he didn't draft the RFP that way.

...which didn't stop Boeing from going to NASA and demanding additional money, now did it?

Yes. And they got it too. All $287M of it.

 Yes, but look at all NASA got in return for that extra money.

[Coastal Ron]

Are you sure they could have increased the price above inflation? AIUI, their contract was firm price even for additional missions. I would have had a serious talk with my lawyer if he didn't draft the RFP that way.

...which didn't stop Boeing from going to NASA and demanding additional money, now did it?

Yes. And they got it too. All $287M of it.

 Yes, but look at all NASA got in return for that extra money.

My brain only holds so much information, so I have forgotten what this money was for. Could your provide a short description?

[cohberg]

Are you sure they could have increased the price above inflation? AIUI, their contract was firm price even for additional missions. I would have had a serious talk with my lawyer if he didn't draft the RFP that way.

...which didn't stop Boeing from going to NASA and demanding additional money, now did it?

Yes. And they got it too. All $287M of it.

 Yes, but look at all NASA got in return for that extra money.

My brain only holds so much information, so I have forgotten what this money was for. Could your provide a short description?

For Boeing’s third through sixth crewed missions, we found that NASA agreed to pay an additional $287.2 million above Boeing’s fixed prices to mitigate a perceived 18-month gap in ISS flights anticipated in 2019 and to ensure the contractor continued as a second commercial crew provider, without offering similar opportunities to SpaceX.

[woods170]

Are you sure they could have increased the price above inflation? AIUI, their contract was firm price even for additional missions. I would have had a serious talk with my lawyer if he didn't draft the RFP that way.

...which didn't stop Boeing from going to NASA and demanding additional money, now did it?

Yes. And they got it too. All $287M of it.

 Yes, but look at all NASA got in return for that extra money.

[sarcasm]
Agreed. All 30 months of additional delays. Well worth the money
[/sarcasm]

[woods170]

Yes. And they got it too. All $287M of it.

Yes, but look at all NASA got in return for that extra money.

My brain only holds so much information, so I have forgotten what this money was for. Could your provide a short description?

For Boeing’s third through sixth crewed missions, we found that NASA agreed to pay an additional $287.2 million above Boeing’s fixed prices to mitigate a perceived 18-month gap in ISS flights anticipated in 2019 and to ensure the contractor continued as a second commercial crew provider, without offering similar opportunities to SpaceX.

Emphasis mine.

The bolded part is much telling.

Basically: Boeing threatened to step out of CCP if they didn't get additional money on top of the agreed-upon $4.2B FFP. NASA failed to call their bluff, caved in and gave Boeing the additional money.

Boeing tried this route again after OFT-1. They again threatened to step out of CCP if NASA didn't bear the cost for OFT-2. This second time however NASA DID call Boeing's bluff.
NASA reminded Boeing of the fact that stepping out of CCP, at this stage of the game, would result in Boeing NOT getting the payments for the OFT, CFT and 6 PCM milestones.
NASA also told Boeing that stepping out of CCP would result in certain fines. One of them being that Boeing would have to return the additional $287M they got paid. Stepping out of CCP after the failed OFT-1 mission would have resulted in Boeing having to pay nearly $800M in total fines to NASA.

So, continueing with CCP and eating the additional costs for OFT-2 (~$550M so far) is actually less expensive for Boeing. It also provides for milestone payments coming their way once they successfully complete OFT-2 and CFT.

And now you also understand why Boeing didn't bother to seriously bid on HLS. The HLS milestones-based Firm Fixed Price principle has become rather unpalatable for a company that is fully entrenched in Cost-Plus. It also explains why they had their paid representatives in US Congress (for example rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson) push for HLS becoming a NASA-owned vehicle. That way it would have morphed to become SLS-like, with contractors building what NASA had designed. And by NO coincidence whatsoever the Boeing design for HLS was a near exact copy of NASA's HLS "reference design". And oh ah, it would have been launched on SLS as well.

Boeing made another mistake when they tried to change the details of their initial HLS submission when it became clear that their design wouldn't make the cut. That's how Loverro left the field. It also focused the attention of NASA's IG on Boeing. That forced Boeing off the stage entirely.
Good riddance IMO.

[DanClemmensen]

NASA also told Boeing that stepping out of CCP would result in certain fines. One of them being that Boeing would have to return the additional $287M they got paid. Stepping out of CCP after the failed OFT-1 mission would have resulted in Boeing having to pay nearly $800M in total fines to NASA.

So, continueing with CCP and eating the additional costs for OFT-2 (~$550M so far) is actually less expensive for Boeing. It also provides for milestone payments coming their way once they successfully complete OFT-2 and CFT.

It's a shame that the $800M in potential fines exists. Otherwise, Boeing might just walk away and put Starliner out of  its misery. The profit margin on the remaining progress payments is probably near or below zero by now due to inflation and overruns.

Yes, we would all be happier to have a second CCP system. But today we don't. I am not competent to do the analysis, but would crewed Dream chaser have any chance of flying next year if it were funded today?