CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[manboy]

Commercial crew will get $696M for FY 2014. See the post below:

Here is a copy of the FY 2014 CJS Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 158 of the bill):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-h3547-hamdt2samdt_xml.pdf

Here is a copy of the report (NASA starts at page 112 of the PDF):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-FM-B.pdf

$696M for commercial report but $171M is conditional on NASA obtaining an independant cost-benefit report for commercial crew. See pages 161-162 of the bill.

(still a downselect this year?)

Probably. The proposals for the next and final phase of the program, Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCAP), are due on the 22nd. The contract is expected to be awarded in either August or September. So we should know the winner of the Commercial Crew Program in about eight months.

[BrightLight]

Just doing some math...
2 astronauts paid by the US every 6 months or 4 "seats" per year to the ISS. Right now the Russians are charging $63 million per seat (is that correct?) which is $252 million per year. Starting in 2018 and going to 2024 (ISS extension). I count 7 years at $252 million per year which is
$1.764 billion to Russia for transport of US astronauts to ISS. Assume no change in cost 
There is some wording about the cost effectiveness of commercial crew in the appropriation- those that are against it would have this number as a metric for value.  I am not saying that I agree that this value is correct but this is an amount that can be used to evaluate costs to the taxpayer.
Can the present mix of suppliers beat this cost to ISS?

[baldusi]

Couple of points:
1) I think it's already at 73M, and the next extension should be at or around 85M.
2) Commercial Crew allows emergency escape for at least 4 (or upto 7, depending on who wins and craft configuration). That means that you can have one extra crew. Since there's a base amount of maintenance tasks at the station, a fourth passenger might mean upto a 50% extra utilization on the USOS. That's a lot of extra value for the 160B investment.
3) If they do direct handover, they could take a surge of three payload specialists for one week, that's a lot extra utilization.
4) Dollars sent to Russia are "lost" to the government. Those payed to US companies mostly "return" through further taxes.

[BrightLight]

Couple of points:
1) I think it's already at 73M, and the next extension should be at or around 85M.
2) Commercial Crew allows emergency escape for at least 4 (or upto 7, depending on who wins and craft configuration). That means that you can have one extra crew. Since there's a base amount of maintenance tasks at the station, a fourth passenger might mean upto a 50% extra utilization on the USOS. That's a lot of extra value for the 160B investment.
3) If they do direct handover, they could take a surge of three payload specialists for one week, that's a lot extra utilization.
4) Dollars sent to Russia are "lost" to the government. Those payed to US companies mostly "return" through further taxes.

As of May 2013 I have seen quoted 71 million but not surprised (nor doubt) that it is now 73 million.
at $71 million per seat the 2018 to 2024 cost using my metric is 1.988 billion in constant dollars - if the Russians costs go to 73 million per seat then its over 2 Billion dollars lost to the taxpayer and that's without taking into account the multiplier for US based companies that would supply the service.  It also assumes incorrectly that the costs will not continue to rise - I assume that as commercial crew gets close to operational, the Russians will attempt to reduce costs.
The appropriation states that congress wants a cost-accounting for the CCiCAP - what is NASA waiting for?

[A_M_Swallow]

As well as the Russians taking people to the ISS NASA could use the SLS + Orion.  It is fair to include them because acting as a backup is one of the official purposes of the pair.  At least one of the comparisons should use the optimistic assumption that the pair of development programs do not slip.  Estimates for the total number of people launched on SLS and the cost per seat can be included.

[rpapo]

As well as the Russians taking people to the ISS NASA could use the SLS + Orion.  It is fair to include them because acting as a backup is one of the official purposes of the pair.  At least one of the comparisons should use the optimistic assumption that the pair of development programs do not slip.  Estimates for the total number of people launched on SLS and the cost per seat can be included.

At what price per seat, and in how many years yet?  I have difficulty in imagining any launch of the SLS+Orion combination at coming in at less than $400M dollars.  Granted, it would be cheaper than launching with the Russians even if the total cost of the flight were $511M or less, but I have my doubts they will make even that price point.

Of course, as was mentioned above, it would be the US Government spending money on US corporations, and a portion of that money would circle back to the US Government, but still...

[BrightLight]

As well as the Russians taking people to the ISS NASA could use the SLS + Orion.  It is fair to include them because acting as a backup is one of the official purposes of the pair.  At least one of the comparisons should use the optimistic assumption that the pair of development programs do not slip.  Estimates for the total number of people launched on SLS and the cost per seat can be included.

There has been discussions in congress about using Orion to ISS, I don't see that happening but my crystal ball is always cloudy.  I don't see how SLS and Orion will be competitive with commercial crew. My point is that we have metrics to evaluate (bound) the costs for Russian services and that congress, through OMB, should be able to determine if CCiCAP is viable and not hold funds back.

[Robotbeat]

Just doing some math...
2 astronauts paid by the US every 6 months or 4 "seats" per year to the ISS. Right now the Russians are charging $63 million per seat (is that correct?) which is $252 million per year. Starting in 2018 and going to 2024 (ISS extension). I count 7 years at $252 million per year which is
$1.764 billion to Russia for transport of US astronauts to ISS. Assume no change in cost 
There is some wording about the cost effectiveness of commercial crew in the appropriation- those that are against it would have this number as a metric for value.  I am not saying that I agree that this value is correct but this is an amount that can be used to evaluate costs to the taxpayer.
Can the present mix of suppliers beat this cost to ISS?

...Don't forget the fact that this is money being spent on the aerospace/defense sector of an intense geopolitical rival.

Economically speaking, it's far better for our country to spend the money here, especially since we're in a recession. A lot of that money can be collected via local, state, and federal taxes, helping to reimburse the taxpayer for any cost differential. Also, it creates local jobs which help reduce the burden on social services from the unemployed. Etc, etc.

It's not a one-to-one comparison.


...not only that, but by supporting Russia's space sector, we are essentially stimulating their launch industry, which is a high-profit export industry... Helping an economic competitor and long-time geopolitical rival. COTS for ISS, which certainly was a cost-effective way to develop a capability to send and return large cargo from ISS post-Shuttle, has already helped bring commercial launch services back to the US. SpaceX has just launched two big foreign satellites into space and has 10 foreign satellites (many made by the domestic Orbital Sciences) on its Falcon 9 launch manifest as we speak, plus the big (read: expensive) Intelsat bird on Falcon Heavy. That is hundreds of millions of dollars (probably billions, if you count the satellites themselves made by Orbital) that is coming into the US and helping eliminate our trade deficit.

It also is helping the domestic Iridium (annual revenue in the hundreds of millions) and domestic Orbcomm (annual revenue in the many tens of millions) launch their new constellations, building a more advanced telecommunications infrastructure that will benefit all Americans.

If you use either Russian or non-commercial-related launch services, you don't get all these benefits. For something like Ares-I, you're basically recreating at great expense the same launch infrastructure that the commercial industry already has, but your enormous costs make it unlikely you're going to get any commercial payloads.

And even ULA is starting to attract commercial customers. If there were more revenues from having 2 commercial crew providers, it'd likely help ULA reduce their per-launch costs enough to attract some business away from the likes of Arianespace.

Commercial crew is a bargain no matter what way you spin it.

[Lars_J]

$696M for commercial report but $171M is conditional on NASA obtaining an independant cost-benefit report for commercial crew. See pages 161-162 of the bill.

Shambolic. That's all I have to say. Where's the cost-benefit report for the other programs?

[Robotbeat]

And I just want to say that the fixed-price mechanism is far better than cost-plus or a straight subsidy if you have secondary goals of stimulating a commercial capacity. In order to be competitive and win the bid, you have to have low costs, which is absolutely essential for getting commercial customers. A straight subsidy might potentially help, but it doesn't encourage a corporate culture of cost efficiency like fixed-price would, and a cost-plus mechanism actively discourages cost efficiency.

[BrightLight]

And I just want to say that the fixed-price mechanism is far better than cost-plus or a straight subsidy if you have secondary goals of stimulating a commercial capacity. In order to be competitive and win the bid, you have to have low costs, which is absolutely essential for getting commercial customers. A straight subsidy might potentially help, but it doesn't encourage a corporate culture of cost efficiency like fixed-price would, and a cost-plus mechanism actively discourages cost efficiency.

I recall the debate in congress was about a 1 to 1 comparison - which to us appears very naive but this is how congress works.  I hope wiser minds prevail and can see the benefits of CC well beyond transport to ISS. Can CC actually cost less than $2 billion - if it can - it will be a truly fantastic bargain.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Also don't forget that there is no reason why NASA could not use the commercial crew services created now for other projects besides the ISS. Even when the ISS is discontinued, NASA will most likely need to get people to LEO.

[TrevorMonty]

COTS has help create SpaceX into a contender for US government missions, which will finally break ULA monopoly. This should save US government $100millions in future launch costs.

[BrightLight]

Also don't forget that there is no reason why NASA could not use the commercial crew services created now for other projects besides the ISS. Even when the ISS is discontinued, NASA will most likely need to get people to LEO.

If I recall correctly, CC is not supposed to be judged on potential future missions, just its application to ISS crew transport.  The value in this criteria is that metrics can be provided for an existing POR and can be judged on that merit alone.  I am not saying that this is a simple or straight-forward task, its not but serving the POR is a rational approach.  I find it hard to believe that a $2 billion+ cost to the American tax payer (via Russia) is better than an indigenous capability - again can CC be developed and operated for $2 billion dollars?

[A_M_Swallow]

As well as the Russians taking people to the ISS NASA could use the SLS + Orion.  It is fair to include them because acting as a backup is one of the official purposes of the pair.  At least one of the comparisons should use the optimistic assumption that the pair of development programs do not slip.  Estimates for the total number of people launched on SLS and the cost per seat can be included.

There has been discussions in congress about using Orion to ISS, I don't see that happening but my crystal ball is always cloudy.  I don't see how SLS and Orion will be competitive with commercial crew. My point is that we have metrics to evaluate (bound) the costs for Russian services and that congress, through OMB, should be able to determine if CCiCAP is viable and not hold funds back.

The report may say that the SLS is uncompetitive with COTS and EELV rockets for small payloads.  Since it will be the world's biggest rocket the SLS it will also be the world's most expensive rocket.  However when the payload weights more than 54 metric tons only the SLS can lift it.

The Orion can take 4 people to the ISS but is more expensive than the SpaceX DragonRider.  The DragonRider will run out of oxygen and battery power within a week if it does not dock, this is too short for a round trip to the Moon but adequate for the ISS.  Where as the Orion's 21.1 days endurance permits lunar round trips.

This amounts to a 'horses for courses' decision.  Orion+SLS is suitable for long trips but is too expensive for regular visits to the ISS.

References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_%28spacecraft%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29

[Rocket Science]

Also don't forget that there is no reason why NASA could not use the commercial crew services created now for other projects besides the ISS. Even when the ISS is discontinued, NASA will most likely need to get people to LEO.

If I recall correctly, CC is not supposed to be judged on potential future missions, just its application to ISS crew transport.  The value in this criteria is that metrics can be provided for an existing POR and can be judged on that merit alone.  I am not saying that this is a simple or straight-forward task, its not but serving the POR is a rational approach.  I find it hard to believe that a $2 billion+ cost to the American tax payer (via Russia) is better than an indigenous capability - again can CC be developed and operated for $2 billion dollars?

I still say it’s a backdoor deal giving welfare to the Russian space sector. Keeps all their bright people gainfully employed lest they be selling their skills to other nefarious nations and a reason to stay engaged in ISS ops...

[rcoppola]

It's interesting that 170+Million is contingent on a cost benefit analysis, as it could very well be the potential difference between 2 systems surviving a down-select as opposed to one.

I fully believe any such analysis will prove this program out. I'm not sure NASA can even do a proper analysis until they get each companies' full proposal and cost/fee structure for their complete, integrated service offerings.

In a very simplified way, selections will be contingent on the following:

1. How much will it cost to bring system A, B or C to full maturity?
2. How soon can system A, B or C be brought to full maturity?
3. How much will the service cost per seat/flight?
4. Do we really need 2 systems to be brought on-line concurrently? Or should we select the system we can field the soonest and will cost the least while providing incremental funds to a second non-simalr system to come on-line a bit later. (ISS to 2024 extension dependent)

I submit the following:

In August, NASA will select one capsule with complete funding to bring on-line asap. (2016-17) And will then select one lifting body (with a smaller funding profile)  to come on-line 1 or 2 years later. (I left company names out as I didn't want to start another SpaceX VS Boeing VS SNC debate. Although, happy to have one in the appropriate thread.

 

[Elmar Moelzer]

Well, having 2 different systems has the big benefit of redundancy. Otherwise, we will be sending astronauts on Soyuz again for, should there be an accident that results in the system being grounded(and then an investigation, etc, etc).

[rcoppola]

Well, having 2 different systems has the big benefit of redundancy. Otherwise, we will be sending astronauts on Soyuz again for, should there be an accident that results in the system being grounded(and then an investigation, etc, etc).

Did you not read where I clearly said I believe they will select 2 "different" systems. But each system would be brought on-line consecutively not concurrently as there will not be funds to do otherwise and perhaps not even that. One capsule and DC. Those are 2 Different vehicles using different rockets, no?

Besides, as much as what you say is obvious, the idea of more then one participant / provider was always about maintaining competition, hopefully resulting in innovations and efficiencies creating downward pricing pressure.

That's how NASA has always primarily justified keeping as many entrants involved for as long as possible. Competitive benefits, not redundancy.

PS: Also, the questions I listed were meant to be the questions I think NASA will be asking themselves, not necessarily what I would ask.

[Robotbeat]

Why one capsule and DC? Why not just 2 capsules?

EDIT:I will say that I think SNC is hungrier to get DC picked than Boeing is to get CST-100 picked. That's just my personal impression. But I think CST-100 is a much, much more conservative and realistic design with fewer unknown unknowns... The hybrid propulsion system being the most prominent issue, IMHO. If DC had used a conventional propulsion system from the start...