CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[woods170]

Remember that SpaceX has a head start on all this thanks to ISS cargo - a contract that has paid them billions already.

 - Ed Kyle

Just a tad short of 2 billion US$ actually. SpaceX was awarded 396 million US$ under COTS and then 1.6 billion US$ under CRS-1.

You're saying they've been paid for nine CRS flights that haven't happened yet?

Cheers, Martin

No, the real sum of money received by SpaceX from NASA, AT THIS MOMENT, under COTS and CRS, is indeed lower than 2 billion US$ because a good number of CRS missions have not been performed yet. And thus, SpaceX has not been paid for those missions yet.

Ed is mistaken when stating that SpaceX had already received "billions" from NASA under COTS and CRS.
Fact is that upon completion of CRS-1 SpaceX will have received just a tad under 2 billion US$ from NASA (as I explained in my previous post).

[macpacheco]

This is a HUGE win for SpaceX. Lets see. This is more money than if all currently booked/executed commercial launches in SpaceX were done with zero discount.
And being realistic, without Boeing on the same project, there would be a huge risk of congress just cutting funding because they're not getting their payoff.
On the other hand, Boeing, LockMart, ULA and Rocketdyne indeed are dreamkillers for me today. Until they play fair and stop mass bribing of the US federal legislation (even if its legal bribing) for me they are dreamkillers. I have some libertarian blood in me (although I agree less than 10% with the libertarian platform, where I do agree with them I agree with maximum intensity). I have a deep hatred of the revolving door system and the pork barrel practices. Call me Don Quixote for all I care.

[Jarnis]

I agree they were higher risk and I think that was the determining factor.  And I can't shake the feeling that coming out with Boeing getting the biggest share of the pie doesn't also give NASA a better feeling when they go with their hat out to Congress for the money to fund this program.

This. Probably the main reason for selecting Boeing. They have the most pull in Congress. With SpaceX second in that department. Don't be fooled, this is purely a political decision; technical merit didn't really matter.

Technical merit definitely mattered. However, once they had established that all qualified on technical merit, the rest became politics.

[A_M_Swallow]

For Boeing, their goal is to make money, but they still need to produce the hardware to earn it, which means they need to fly.

Huh? They just finished all the milestones of a contract in which they produced nothing but stacks of paper and they got paid the most to do it. They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract. As soon as it stops being profitable, and it will, they'll walk away.. as they've been doing on NASA contracts for years.

That will leave NASA with some money, remember the history of COTS.  I suggest that the first DreamChaser in space is named Phoenix.

[guckyfan]

Someone expressed deep disappointment about the high bid of SpaceX, arguing it does not fit with Elon Musks promises of low cost. I want to break the bid down a bit to see where the money goes.

There are 7 flights to the ISS including the demo flight. At the quoted price of 140 Million $ per flight that is already 1 Billion $.

There is one unmanned and (I think) one manned flight before that. There is also the package for additional NASA requirements. That's at least 400 Million $.

Remaining 1 Billion $. For that they finish developing Dragon V2, building the Control Center, modifying LC 39A. And probably the most expensive bit is doing all the coordination, preparation, and presentation for the milestones. Also any cost exceeding the 140 Million $ for the test flights. Those would be more expensive than operational flights later.

Does not seem grossly overpriced to me.

[Ben the Space Brit]

To me, there are basically two reasons why Boeing got the larger of the two awards. One is purely technical and the other is political in both good and bad ways.

The simple fact is that SpaceX is further down the line to Dragon v.2 than Boeing-Bigelow is to CST-100. The launcher is flying in a crew-ready condition and an early variant of the spacecraft including most flight systems except the LAS is also flying. CST-100 hasn't even had a single flight article flown yet. So, yes, it needs much more money to get to the same goalpost.

Boeing is an old, storied company with spaceflight heritage going back generations. Having the name 'Boeing' on the program is just that much more reassuring to politicians than two relative newcomers whom, let's face it, are not exactly recipients of unquestioning Congressional confidence, unlike an old, big player like Boeing. Yes, I'm sure that there was intense lobbying and the implied threat that the contribution taps might be tightened slightly if CST-100 died.

However, I'm pretty sure that the main motive was the confidence that comes from the name. 'Boeing' inspires political confidence when 'SpaceX' aka 'loud-mouthed outsider/newcomer' and 'Sierra Nevada' aka 'who?' simply do not. NASA needed Boeing to convince Congress that Commercial Crew was a serious program and not just a subsidy for billionaires playing with their overgrown hobby rockets.

[Oli]

NASA must believe there is a bright future for HSF to LEO beyond the ISS, otherwise I don't see how funding 2 vehicles makes sense. Interesting.

To me, there are basically two reasons why Boeing got the larger of the two awards.

They got the larger award because their bid was higher.

We can only speculate why. Maybe they have higher costs, maybe they thought their offer was overall superior to that of the competitors etc.

[MP99]

Someone expressed deep disappointment about the high bid of SpaceX, arguing it does not fit with Elon Musks promises of low cost. I want to break the bid down a bit to see where the money goes.

There are 7 flights to the ISS including the demo flight. At the quoted price of 140 Million $ per flight that is already 1 Billion $.

There is one unmanned and (I think) one manned flight before that. There is also the package for additional NASA requirements. That's at least 400 Million $.

Remaining 1 Billion $. For that they finish developing Dragon V2, building the Control Center, modifying LC 39A. And probably the most expensive bit is doing all the coordination, preparation, and presentation for the milestones. Also any cost exceeding the 140 Million $ for the test flights. Those would be more expensive than operational flights later.

Does not seem grossly overpriced to me.

Not quite how I'd broken it down, but that's pretty much what I was about to post before I saw yours.

Basically, $500m per year over 3 years for development (including any flights before the seven), $150m for extra requirements, $1b for seven flights.

cheers, Martin

[ChrisWilson68]

From what I was reading around, this is great news for SpaceX, probably the most they could have asked for. If the budget is to be cut NASA would have no choice but to stick with its more traditional and well proven contractor, Boeing.

Not true.  NASA has already decided they have confidence in both companies.  SpaceX, with its CRS cargo Dragon delivers, has much more relevant recent experience, and much more of a track record.

If spending cuts force a cut to one or the other, SpaceX wins both on cost and on track record.  They also win on being the only choice that doesn't use Russian engines.

[breadfan]

Excuse the simple question - If one of the winners of the contract can get it done for less than the amount they are awarded, what happens to the surplus funds? Can they use them for whatever other purpose the company sees fit? Or is it returned?

edit:
VVVVVVVVV thanks, good news for the winners I guess if they can drive down costs.

[topsphere]

Excuse the simple question - If one of the winners of the contract can get it done for less than the amount they are awarded, what happens to the surplus funds? Can they use them for whatever other purpose the company sees fit? Or is it returned?

They keep it.

[space_dreamer]

I'm sad the Dream Chaser won't be getting the money, at least there are two company's fully funded.

 (Looking for the silver lining)
I suppose that this is a good result for Bigalow Aerospace who were involved with the CST-100? 

It's in Boeing interest to have a commercial 330 space station as an extra destination for CST-100 (other than the ISS). I hope that Boeing will now use some of the money (and it's political clout) to help get the Bigalow 330 Station in orbit.

[aquanaut99]

Actually, I don't even really care anymore who got the contract. The real problem is that there will be no market for commercial companies post-2020, when ISS gets splashed (I don't believe in a prolongation, not in the current political climate and Bigelow habitats or some other station won't fly for lack of a budget). So we are really looking at 2, at most 3 flights per contractor (or 6 if only one succeeds). So maybe SNC is actually lucky to have gotten the boot.

[Ben the Space Brit]

@Aquanaut,

That's a very negative viewpoint and, frankly, I don't think that we can look six years ahead and say that we can be that certain of something.

[jgoldader]

I was hoping that the CC work would be a chance to bring innovation in hardware, process, and price to US spaceflight, breaking the monopoly of Old Space.  Boeing getting the lion's share really puts a damper on those hopes.  One could cynically game out a future where the Bigelow-Boeing-Blue Origin connection is used to reinforce the status quo.  SpaceX and SNC were envisioning a real hopeful future to human spaceflight; Boeing's layoff alerts show they envision the next government paycheck. 

The CST-100 would have been welcome 10 years ago as a bridge from shuttle to the next big thing, but as the next big thing itself, sucking most of the air out of the room, not so much (CST-100 is very similar to a proposal from John Young and... Vance Brand?...in the wake of STS-107.)

In a fantasy world, SNC's phone would ring with caller ID saying McGregor, TX, but I know there's little reason for Musk to even think of such a thing.

[Wigles]

@Aquanaut,

That's a very negative viewpoint and, frankly, I don't think that we can look six years ahead and say that we can be that certain of something.

The only thing you can be certain about is that the current end of life for the ISS is 2020.

Extension beyond that requires a new commitment by the international partners (or a subset of them) and importantly more money. The politics and economics of this might get better before then, but it also might get worse. Additionally, lead times on a new multinational agreement (most likely including a refurb) are long, such that countries need to start agreeing to it and budgeting for it now in their forecast expenditures.

As for Bigelow... If ISS proved there was a viable business case for a private space station he would be in space already, or at least a lot further down the path.

[ChrisWilson68]

imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killed

You still have Skylon.

He said "realistic".

[ChrisWilson68]

So America needs three new capsules?

Yeah, because you wouldn't want any particular kind of capsule to fly more than once or twice in any given year.

[RonM]

As for Bigelow... If ISS proved there was a viable business case for a private space station he would be in space already, or at least a lot further down the path.

Not really. Why launch a space station when there is no way to reach it? Once Boeing and SpaceX are flying in 2017, then we'll see if Bigelow is serious.

Bigelow did launch two test stations a few years back. Putting hardware in orbit shows they are far down the path. Bigelow's problem has been having to wait for somebody to provide passenger access to LEO. The big question is can Bigelow stay in business while on hold for another three or four years. Boeing has worked with Bigelow and will probably want to help get a commercial space station in LEO to expand their market for CST-100.

[Wigles]

As for Bigelow... If ISS proved there was a viable business case for a private space station he would be in space already, or at least a lot further down the path.

Not really. Why launch a space station when there is no way to reach it? Once Boeing and SpaceX are flying in 2017, then we'll see if Bigelow is serious.

Bigelow did launch two test stations a few years back. Putting hardware in orbit shows they are far down the path. Bigelow's problem has been having to wait for somebody to provide passenger access to LEO. The big question is can Bigelow stay in business while on hold for another three or four years. Boeing has worked with Bigelow and will probably want to help get a commercial space station in LEO to expand their market for CST-100.

Ok... so in-space would be a bit of a stretch but they could be actively promoting a Bigelow station as a replacement for the ISS, soliciting tennants, starting to build, test & certify hardware etc... Taking a leaf out of Elon's book and playing on the current geopolitics by advertising a solution which doesnt require Russia for a cost which may be attractive compared to an ISS refurb (particularly if some ISS components are re-used, e.g. the arm).

I know they are making progress, but they don't appear to be ramping up to take advantage of a commercial crew capability which may only be 3-4 years away.