There is one unmanned and one manned (NASA and contractor crewed) certification flight and then there are two post certification flights guarantied.
That would put the cost of completing the DreamChaser at $872.9 million less than the crew Dragon. My question is: Is this credible?
The GAO press release for the Sierra Nevada protest provided some interesting numbers on the Commercial Crew contract that, with the proper interpretation, will tell us a great deal about how much the commercial crew vehicles will cost.From the original NASA announcement we learned that the total contract award for the two winners was $4.2 billion for Boeing and $2.6 billion for SpaceX. Sierra Nevada later announced that their bid for the contract was $3.3 billion. These bids included development of their respective crew systems, two test flights, six operational flights, and up to $150 million in special studies.The GAO release contains different numbers. It stated that the Boeing bid was $3.01 billion, the SpaceX bid $1.75 billion, and the Sierra Nevada bid was $2.55 billion.If we assume that these numbers are for the development phase of the program and also that the development phase includes the manned and unmanned test flights, then we have enough information to determine the per-flight cost of each system to NASA.Using these numbers and the equation (development cost) + (special studies) + 6 x (operational cost) = total bid, we get...Boeing: $3.01 billion + $150 million + 6X = $4.2 billionSpaceX: $1.75 billion + $150 million + 6X = $2.6 billionSierra: $2.55 billion + $150 million + 6X = $3.3 billionSolving for X in each case, we get a per-mission operational cost for each system. Also included is the per-astronaut (divided by four) and the per-seat (divided by seven) cost.Per Mission Per Astro Per Seat Contractor$173 million $43 million $25 million Boeing$117 million $29 million $17 million SpaceX$100 million $25 million $14 million Sierra NevadaSome conclusions:1) Comparing the development cost of any (or all) of these vehicles to the $17.5 billion development cost of Orion tells me that Commercial Crew is a bargain.2) Comparing the per-seat* (or even the per-astronaut) cost of any of these vehicles to the $70 million per-seat cost of Soyuz tells me that Commercial Crew is a bargain.3) The Sierra Nevada figure seems to me to be awfully low. DreamChaser would have launched on an Atlas V 422. ULA VP George Sower stated that the average Atlas V 401 cost is $164 million. The 422 should be higher. If this figure is accurate then even the Boeing figure seems too low. I cannot explain this discrepancy.Note also for comparison the government cost of an unmanned Falcon 9 is $90 million once all of the extras are included.All of this, of course, is dependent on the assumptions stated above. So the question is, Is this the proper interpretation of the figures?*Since the Soyuz carries only three astronauts and no cargo, the proper figure of merit IMHO is the per-seat figure. NASA can choose whether to fill a "seat" with crew or cargo according to whichever they find more valuable on any given flight.
The following is purely speculation on my part...It seems that the the NASA numbers are the potential highest cost if all options are exercised. I'm wondering if the GAO numbers are the minimum required (remaining development as well as two flights). To further the speculation and get into some fuzzy math the optional 4 flights would seem to make up the vast bulk of the options, by cost. So by taking the two numbers (Original - New) and then dividing by 4 you get roughly the per flight cost for each proposal.(alphabetically):BoeingNASA number: 4.2 Billion, GAO number: 3.01 BillionIt's a difference of 1.19 Billion or 297 Million per flight for 4 flightsSNCNASA Number: 3.3 Billion, GAO number: 2.55 BillionIt's a difference of 750 Million or 187 Million per flight for 4 flightSpaceXNASA number: 2.6 Billion, GAO number: 1.75 BillionIt's a difference of 850 million or 212 Million per flight for 4 flightsThis is of course all very highly speculative.
I like your assumptions better. They fit the known cost of the respective launch vehicles better and also provide a more reasonable estimate of the development costs, IMO. However, I think the special studies are also optional. If so, we should subtract off $150 million before dividing by four.Boeing: ($4.2 billion - $3.01 billion - $150 million) / 4 = $260 million per flightSpaceX: ($2.6 billion - $1.75 billion - $150 million) / 4 = $175 million per flightSierra: ($3.3 billion - $2.55 billion - $150 million) / 4 = $150 million per flightI like the Boeing and SpaceX figures, but the Sierra Nevada figure still seems a little low. An Atlas V is so much more expensive than a Falcon 9 that I don't see how the per-flight cost of a DreamChaser could be less than that of a Dragon 2. Regardless, though, they are better than my original figures.Taking that one step further and subtracting out all the flights one then comes up with development costs of...Boeing: $4.2 billion - $150 million - 8 x $260 million = $1.97 billionSpaceX: $2.6 billion - $150 million - 8 x $175 million = $1.050 billionSierra: $3.3 billion - $150 million - 8 x $150 million = $1.95 billionMuch better, but now it almost seems like the SpaceX development figure is too low. However, if we remember that SpaceX got $400 million during COTS to do a lot of work that Boeing and Sierra Nevada would have to do during CCtCap (e.g. standing up a supply chain and establishing a production facility), the numbers now seem right.By George, we just might have it!
Sierra costs are lower because they would re-use the spacecraft. CST & Dragon are priced with a new capsule for each flight. My guess but it makes sense.
Quote from: abaddon on 01/07/2015 12:26 pmSierra costs are lower because they would re-use the spacecraft. CST & Dragon are priced with a new capsule for each flight. My guess but it makes sense.CST-100 is reused.
Quote from: erioladastra on 01/08/2015 06:04 pmQuote from: abaddon on 01/07/2015 12:26 pmSierra costs are lower because they would re-use the spacecraft. CST & Dragon are priced with a new capsule for each flight. My guess but it makes sense.CST-100 is reused.Do you have a source for that? I am not doubting you, but it'd be nice to see an official statement to support that.
They've been pretty consistent on it, here for example:http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/ccts/index.page
Quote from: arachnitect on 01/08/2015 07:19 pmThey've been pretty consistent on it, here for example:http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/ccts/index.pageDragon (both V1 and V2) are also designed to be reusable, however, the CRS-1 contract was priced assuming a new Dragon for each mission, and so far that's what has happened.Designing the capsule for reusability and pricing the CCtCAP contract to assume reusability are two different things, this link does not demonstrate the latter.
HOUSTON, Sept. 16, 2014 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] will receive an award of $4.2 billion from NASA to build and fly the United States’ next passenger spacecraft. [...]Under the Commercial Crew Transportation (CCtCap) phase of the program, Boeing will build three CST-100s at the company’s Commercial Crew Processing Facility at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
Since they're guaranteed at least 4 flights (not incl. pad abort), I'm assuming there's some kind of reuse going on. I'm feeling pretty confident in that, but if somebody's sitting on a reference to new capsules on every mission, please share.
Quote HOUSTON, Sept. 16, 2014 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] will receive an award of $4.2 billion from NASA to build and fly the United States’ next passenger spacecraft. [...]Under the Commercial Crew Transportation (CCtCap) phase of the program, Boeing will build three CST-100s at the company’s Commercial Crew Processing Facility at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Since they're guaranteed at least 4 flights (not incl. pad abort), I'm assuming there's some kind of reuse going on. I'm feeling pretty confident in that, but if somebody's sitting on a reference to new capsules on every mission, please share.
Quote from: arachnitect on 01/09/2015 10:05 pmQuote HOUSTON, Sept. 16, 2014 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] will receive an award of $4.2 billion from NASA to build and fly the United States’ next passenger spacecraft. [...]Under the Commercial Crew Transportation (CCtCap) phase of the program, Boeing will build three CST-100s at the company’s Commercial Crew Processing Facility at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Since they're guaranteed at least 4 flights (not incl. pad abort), I'm assuming there's some kind of reuse going on. I'm feeling pretty confident in that, but if somebody's sitting on a reference to new capsules on every mission, please share.I think there's possibly some loose wording going on there. There are three structural test articles being built; one for the pad abort, one for the unmanned test flight, and one for the first manned test flight. I think it is possible (not definite) that the "CCtCAP phase" cited above is referring to those flights.It's definitely possible they are planning on re-flying one or more of those structural test articles, but I am not convinced of it yet.
Sorry, do not know where I read about the unmanned flight. I just watched the press conf again and you are right.
Quote from: Jcc on 09/27/2014 06:09 pmWait a minute. If the maximum award is six post certification missions for each, and the minimum is 2, then if SpaceX gets all 6 and Boeing gets 2, then there will only be 8 missions under the contract, not 12? The contract is done and for more missions they need a new contract? Otherwise, what is the point of providing a min-max range if both are guaranteed to get the max (6)?Given that scenario, yes there would only be eight missions--unless NASA chose to make additional awards to Boeing for the other four missions, in which case those four would not be competed as they could not be awarded to SpaceX under CCtCap.Boeing and SpaceX are not guaranteed the maximum number of six missions, only the minimum of two. Whether NASA chooses to exercise any optional post-certification missions is TBD, as those may not be awarded until after certification is complete.CCtCap includes both DDT&E (certification) and services acquisition (post-certification missions). The min-max structure is typical for indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) acquisition contracts, which must state a minimum and maximum contract quantity or value.
Wait a minute. If the maximum award is six post certification missions for each, and the minimum is 2, then if SpaceX gets all 6 and Boeing gets 2, then there will only be 8 missions under the contract, not 12? The contract is done and for more missions they need a new contract? Otherwise, what is the point of providing a min-max range if both are guaranteed to get the max (6)?
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/ccts/index.pageCtrl-f "reusable"