CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[cartman]

How much does that $25M per seat go down if we reuse the dragon? If refurb cost can get to $10M and a standard launch is $60M, then its about $10M per seat.

[Nindalf]

Even at the full $108 million/seat, since this is money that's being spent in America, it's probably a better deal for American government than spending $80 million in Russia, just by counting the consequent immediate increase in tax revenue (income and sales taxes, as people take their salaries and profits home to spend, giving other people salaries and profits to spend, etc.).

The Dragon V2 contract isn't really even spending more money (as long as they can actually do it).  The effective discount for government to buy domestic is at least that high.  I think it would be hard for congress to object to this spending, unless they want to discontinue the ISS.

But $175 million in aerospace spending probably won't bring in $95+ million in taxes in such a simple way.  There needs to be some upside beyond six CST-100 rides, and some patience for the investment to produce a payoff.  On top of that, it would launch on the Atlas V, which would have to be man-rated, is currently dependent on the Russian RD-180 (the purchase of which is not domestic spending, if it will even be available), and its operator has just made an announcement that suggests it may be discontinued right in the middle of this program.  Congress might not go for it.

[john smith 19]

On the innovation question, I think the ultimate goal is what matters. I still believe in the vision of NASP of routine civilian access to space, even if that was never really that program's goal and even if I won't realistically live to see it:

Somewhat off topic?

While SpaceX is keeping the dream alive, albeit with a pragmatic and measured evolutionary approach, this is the type of thing NASA should be about.  Unfortunately, we have become too timid and too risk averse to push the boundaries or invest in ambitious R&D, at least in the civilian world.  What goes on at places like Groom Lake we may never know, but what good does it do for humanity if we only invest in advancing weaponry?

Ever read the NASA charter? "Humanity" has quite a narrow definition. 

Maybe Dream Chaser seemed like it was keeping some vestige of that dream and spirit alive, even if in reality it was no revolutionary vehicle. I was always a fan of the HL-20.

You appear to be profoundly ignorant of how innovative Dream Chaser is.

1)First human carrying orbital lifting body. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

2)Hybrid main propulsion system functioning as both launch escape and on orbit OMS. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

3) A human rated space vehicle whose primary structure is entirely carbon fibre composite. That has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

This was all done on a budget 1/2 that of the (much) more conservative CTS100 and Dragon systems.

[erioladastra]

On the innovation question, I think the ultimate goal is what matters. I still believe in the vision of NASP of routine civilian access to space, even if that was never really that program's goal and even if I won't realistically live to see it:

Somewhat off topic?

While SpaceX is keeping the dream alive, albeit with a pragmatic and measured evolutionary approach, this is the type of thing NASA should be about.  Unfortunately, we have become too timid and too risk averse to push the boundaries or invest in ambitious R&D, at least in the civilian world.  What goes on at places like Groom Lake we may never know, but what good does it do for humanity if we only invest in advancing weaponry?

Ever read the NASA charter? "Humanity" has quite a narrow definition. 

Maybe Dream Chaser seemed like it was keeping some vestige of that dream and spirit alive, even if in reality it was no revolutionary vehicle. I was always a fan of the HL-20.

You appear to be profoundly ignorant of how innovative Dream Chaser is.

1)First human carrying orbital lifting body. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

2)Hybrid main propulsion system functioning as both launch escape and on orbit OMS. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

3) A human rated space vehicle whose primary structure is entirely carbon fibre composite. That has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

This was all done on a budget 1/2 that of the (much) more conservative CTS100 and Dragon systems.

Not meaning to sound like I am raining on your parade - I greatly admire and respect the SNC work - but to be technically correct this was not "done" on 1/2 that.  It was IN WORK.  it was not yet a human rated sapce vehicle, it hadn't really flown (drop test is a great start), it did not have a working hybrid motor...  Just keeping it in perspective. 

[baldusi]

I'm doing the numbers the other way around. I'm assuming 150M per flight, one unmanned, once certification and six operative missions. That's 1.2B for flights, which leaves 1.4B for development. Which seems about right.

[joek]

I hear alot about our paying the Russians $71M per seat to fly to the ISS, but I can't find information on what the estimated cost will be per seat on the CST 100 and manned Dragon. Is this information published any where?

It's apparently up to over $80 million now, by the way http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-spacex-to-team-with-nasa-on-space-taxi/.  Although I have to say I am a little dubious about that claim, I had a hard time trying to find it amid lots of reports that it is over $70.

We don't have an estimated price per seat if you are excluding development costs.  I don't know that anyone has done an estimated price per seat including CCiCAP and CCtCAP but it would obviously be far  higher than anything the Russians have charged us.

$80M/seat was originally stated as what NASA was budgeting long ago in Congressional testimony by Gerstenmaier.  Since he didn't say "including DDT&E and certification costs", I have assumed he was referring to annual/operating costs.

In any case, there is absolutely no way Commercial Crew beats Soyuz on a simple and direct $/seat basis vs. overall CC program $/seat costs unless you project CC at 4 seats/yr into at minimum mid- to late-2020's.  (And now, given the size of the CCtCap awards, likely well beyond, but I haven't done the numbers.)

In short, to justify CCtCap, you need to go well beyond annual/operations $seat numbers.

[Mader Levap]

In short, to justify CCtCap, you need to go well beyond annual/operations $seat numbers.

Weaning out of Soyuz is sufficient, I think.

[ChrisWilson68]

In short, to justify CCtCap, you need to go well beyond annual/operations $seat numbers.

To be precise, that's to justify CCtCap as they chose to award it.  If they had gone with a downselect to just SpaceX it would have been justifiable on a pure cost basis within a much shorter period.

[vt_hokie]

Somewhat off topic?

I would argue relevant in establishing context for my argument that the agency has lost its pioneering spirit.

You appear to be profoundly ignorant of how innovative Dream Chaser is.

Not at all.  That's why I said that while not revolutionary like an SSTO spaceplane with aircraft-like turnaround, it still kept alive some vestige of that spirit of going into the unknown and advancing the state of technology.

[Req]

On the innovation question, I think the ultimate goal is what matters. I still believe in the vision of NASP of routine civilian access to space, even if that was never really that program's goal and even if I won't realistically live to see it:

Somewhat off topic?

While SpaceX is keeping the dream alive, albeit with a pragmatic and measured evolutionary approach, this is the type of thing NASA should be about.  Unfortunately, we have become too timid and too risk averse to push the boundaries or invest in ambitious R&D, at least in the civilian world.  What goes on at places like Groom Lake we may never know, but what good does it do for humanity if we only invest in advancing weaponry?

Ever read the NASA charter? "Humanity" has quite a narrow definition. 

Maybe Dream Chaser seemed like it was keeping some vestige of that dream and spirit alive, even if in reality it was no revolutionary vehicle. I was always a fan of the HL-20.

You appear to be profoundly ignorant of how innovative Dream Chaser is.

1)First human carrying orbital lifting body. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

2)Hybrid main propulsion system functioning as both launch escape and on orbit OMS. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

3) A human rated space vehicle whose primary structure is entirely carbon fibre composite. That has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

This was all done on a budget 1/2 that of the (much) more conservative CTS100 and Dragon systems.

Not meaning to sound like I am raining on your parade - I greatly admire and respect the SNC work - but to be technically correct this was not "done" on 1/2 that.  It was IN WORK.  it was not yet a human rated sapce vehicle, it hadn't really flown (drop test is a great start), it did not have a working hybrid motor...  Just keeping it in perspective.

Also, how much money had been spent on HL20 by the various parties, and how much money did SpaceDev spend on it before SNC got their hands on it?

[yg1968]

Sirangelo said they spent just as much on DC as NASA did.

[WindyCity]

I suspect that the determining factor in choosing SpaceX and Boeing over SNC was safety. The DC could fail in more ways than a capsule, which outweighed its advantages in terms of lower G forces and cross range capability. The CST-100 is a boring, tried and true technology, and Boeing has a proven track record of getting the job done. Dragon V2 pushes the envelope with its Super Dracos and propulsive landing, and major components have already been vetted with the Dragon V1; but it still has a parachute in reserve for a water landing if the rockets fizzle. DV2 also has a heat shield that would allow it to go BEO; NASA might view this capability as an ace in the hole if Orion runs into trouble. All in all, while über cool, DC was too risky, and NASA wants a space taxi, not a space Formula 1.

[vt_hokie]

Agree, I just think commercial crew then was the wrong program to try to spur innovation.  NASA's ISS crew rotation/assured crew return needs don't mesh with pushing the envelope, which means NASA really needs separate programs for doing that imo.

[Nibb31]

There was a time when NASA did X-vehicles for envelope-pushing and innovation.

[dror]

(1)Excluding development (as 60%), including 6 flight of 7 seats:
~$25M per seat to ISS
That's the price for a comercial client after this contract ends.

Where does the 60% number come from?

Somewhere pn this thread it was quoted that development was the bigger part of this contract so 60% seems to be the lower limit of being the bigger part.
If we take baldusi's $150M per flight, the final cost gets even lower since two of these flights are part of the development (certification) process.
I am more concerned from the crs1 price of $80M per ton ($1.6B / 20T). Is this the real price for cargo?

[Darkseraph]

Keith Cowing seems to be upset that CST-100 is too Apollo ( cause like it has a similar shape to Apollo, therefore it's a redundant as the horse and wagon!). From what I've seen of the interiors, both capsules seem very modern though. They're both landing with parachutes initially anyway, both going to carry the same amount of people, both can be reused 10 times. Overall I wasn't disappointed with the choices, just relieved that there's been a decisive direction for ISS crew transport that has paths for growth outside of the ISS, in the future. We could have ended up with a down select to one, which would have been a disaster.

[guckyfan]

I am more concerned from the crs1 price of $80M per ton ($1.6B / 20T). Is this the real price for cargo?

That does not take into account vacuum cargo and downmass cargo. It refers to pressurized upmass only.

[dror]

I am more concerned from the crs1 price of $80M per ton ($1.6B / 20T). Is this the real price for cargo?

That does not take into account vacuum cargo and downmass cargo. It refers to pressurized upmass only.

I guessed it's the same for cctcap and crs1

[MP99]

Maybe Dream Chaser seemed like it was keeping some vestige of that dream and spirit alive, even if in reality it was no revolutionary vehicle. I was always a fan of the HL-20.

You appear to be profoundly ignorant of how innovative Dream Chaser is.

1)First human carrying orbital lifting body. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

2)Hybrid main propulsion system functioning as both launch escape and on orbit OMS. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

3) A human rated space vehicle whose primary structure is entirely carbon fibre composite. That has never been flown anywhere on the planet.

This was all done on a budget 1/2 that of the (much) more conservative CTS100 and Dragon systems.

I'll start by saying I love DC, but...

1) In the real world, there are no prizes for innovation for its own sake. A spacecraft made of cheese would be innovative. A lifting-body gives a low-g reentry, but other than that, how much benefit is there really from a runway landing over a capsule landing on land? Anything else? Land landing on abort, I guess.

2) Are you sure that was actually in the vehicle that was submitted for CCtCap?

3) Again, as per (1). Orion abandoned carbon fibre because it was no lighter, and risk of damage. SNC may have a sufficiently different design (less penetrations, etc), that it's truly a weight benefit to them. (I could believe this, given their very different OML.)

However, the risk of hidden damage, and the difficulty of detecting it, does actually remain a very real risk.

It's quite possible this was actually a major factor in NASA rejecting DC.

Cheers, Martin

[guckyfan]

I am more concerned from the crs1 price of $80M per ton ($1.6B / 20T). Is this the real price for cargo?

That does not take into account vacuum cargo and downmass cargo. It refers to pressurized upmass only.

I guessed it's the same for cctcap and crs1

Does that mean in CRS1 a freezer delivered to the ground by Dragon has the same calculated value as the same mass of garbage disposed by Cygnus?