CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion 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).

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.

I was not disagreeing with you, merely adding. Agree on the competition being good (which is indeed the main point).

[Lar]

$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?

To answer you would require a dip into the Space Policy section. But I think you know the answer already. They have more pork.

[rcoppola]

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...

Yes. As much as I love DC, it does need to retire and/or mitigate much more risk then the other 2 systems. NASA has indeed said as much. And I am on the record as saying it as well. However...

As for DC being the second selection?  I think price and time to market is priority one and NASA will select accordingly between SpaceX and Boeing. I believe at which point they will then select to continue funding the DC as it offers additional mission profiles that it can use to compete, as opposed to just on price.

I suppose what I mean is once you select either Dragon or CST, why keep funding a more expensive system that doesn't really offer substantially different or greater capabilities? That leaves DC standing.

[Robotbeat]

Because both CST-100 and Dragon can evolve in a very straightforward manner for BLEO missions when NASA needs them. Eventually ISS will be gone, and in its place we'll probably have some BLEO program (does anyone deny this?). Having vehicles which can service that capability makes a lot of sense for NASA. It's much harder for DC to do BLEO type missions.

EDIT:I hope DC gets its chance, I just don't think it's as good of a pick for commercial crew right now. It could be quite a good vehicle for servicing a Bigelow station or something if they get a better propulsion system (i.e. not hybrid).

[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.

I was not disagreeing with you, merely adding. Agree on the competition being good (which is indeed the main point).

Well shame on me then for such a terse opening line to my response. There should be a thumbs down button for that. So, cool and I agree redundancy would be an added benefit both to NASA and the international commercial market.

[rcoppola]

Because both CST-100 and Dragon can evolve in a very straightforward manner for BLEO missions when NASA needs them. Eventually ISS will be gone, and in its place we'll probably have some BLEO program (does anyone deny this?). Having vehicles which can service that capability makes a lot of sense for NASA. It's much harder for DC to do BLEO type missions.

EDIT:I hope DC gets its chance, I just don't think it's as good of a pick for commercial crew right now. It could be quite a good vehicle for servicing a Bigelow station or something if they get a better propulsion system (i.e. not hybrid).

I don't think NASA will be factoring BLEO into their decision. Not when they are currently spending billions on Orion. Also, while I like the idea of at least one CC vehicle being able to take on a future BLEO role, I don't think we need both selections to be able to do so. I  suspect there will be lots to do in LEO for a long time to come that will keep a vehicle like DC viable.

[Robotbeat]

So you think NASA won't take into account BLEO (which they're certainly heading for) but WILL take into account some sort of post-ISS LEO facility?

[Oli]

So the ISS extension to 2024 is guaranteed? Otherwise its difficult to do a cost-benefit analysis...

[BrightLight]

So the ISS extension to 2024 is guaranteed? Otherwise its difficult to do a cost-benefit analysis...

The Obama administration approved of the extension on January 9th at the International Space Exploration Forum. That does not however guarantee that the ESA and Russian partners will agree.  If they don't, I suspect it will be hard to justify CC only on the merit of ISS transport alone.

[rcoppola]

So you think NASA won't take into account BLEO (which they're certainly heading for) but WILL take into account some sort of post-ISS LEO facility?

As far as I am aware, NASA has not directly listed BLEO capability as having serious weighting towards the selection criteria. So purely from a legal standpoint, heavily weighting BLEO capability after the fact would be problematic to say the least.

However, I certainly agree that it would be wise to select at least one system with that potential future capability. Whether for HSF and/or Robotics exploration.

But let's assume they will take it into account to some degree, I just don't think NASA currently rates CC BLEO capability to the point where they'll feel the need to have both selections be BLEO capable.

Lastly, I personally think LEO will offer more near future opportunities for these systems to be viable and close their business cases outside of NASA.

[Robotbeat]

Look, primarily I think NASA is concerned with getting systems that work. Does anyone doubt that either SpaceX or Boeing could deliver their stated vehicle in a decent timeframe if given plenty of funding? I don't, mainly because both those companies have shown a capability to launch things to orbit, operate them in space successfully, and return them safely to Earth.

But I do doubt that Dreamchaser could mainly because of its hybrid propulsion system (though more complicated ascent aerodynamics doesn't help, either). I think they'll have to revamp that entirely before they fly orbitally. (Not that it's literally impossible, but it's going to be very unwieldy with a hybrid system...)

I think NASA is going to be conservative and probably pick both SpaceX and Boeing if they get to fund two systems. But again, it's possible that Boeing may drop CST-100 entirely if they don't get full funding (I think SpaceX will win the lion's share of funding, with another half of the funding for someone else), at which point SNC could continue along.

[joek]

So the ISS extension to 2024 is guaranteed? Otherwise its difficult to do a cost-benefit analysis...

The Obama administration approved of the extension on January 9th at the International Space Exploration Forum. That does not however guarantee that the ESA and Russian partners will agree.  If they don't, I suspect it will be hard to justify CC only on the merit of ISS transport alone.

Assuming Soyuz seat price trend continues for the foreseeable future, it will be difficult if not impossible to show a CCP positive cost-benefit based purely on direct costs for ISS transportation, even if ISS is extended until 2024.  (On that basis, my rough estimate is CCP break-even somewhere beyond 2028.)

Getting to a positive cost-benefit will require including other factors, such as indirect benefits (funds retained and not sent to Russia, potential future markets, etc.), as well as the benefit from increased ISS utilization.  Then again, the requirement is for a cost-benefit analysis, not necessarily that it must demonstrate a positive cost-benefit.

That said, I think this is at least in part a response to an IG report late last year which dinged NASA for not having developed credible life-cycle cost estimates for CCP.

[yg1968]

My understanding of the report is that the cost benefit analysis is for the life operations expectancy of ISS based on the study that NASA is currently doing on this (which is expected to be 2028).

[Geron]

Does any one remember the cots D option SpaceX was pushing for in 2008-2009? The funds requested for human conversion of dragon were I believe under $300 million total. What do you think SpaceX is spending all the extra money on?

[QuantumG]

Does any one remember the cots D option SpaceX was pushing for in 2008-2009? The funds requested for human conversion of dragon were I believe under $300 million total. What do you think SpaceX is spending all the extra money on?

That was a very different program. The COTS-D requirement was basically "show you can do it and we'll buy it." Here's the milestones. Their plan was to add a traditional escape tower, life support and seats to essentially the same Dragon as we're seeing flying cargo now.

[A_M_Swallow]

Commercial Crew is paying for the man rating of the vehicles as well as development of the spacecraft.  If Dream Chaser replaces the CST-100 then the cost of man rating the Atlas 5 will have to be transferred to the Dream Chaser program.

[a_langwich]

Regarding cost justifying commercial crew, I wonder what capacity for down-mass (besides the obvious human crew) the various CC participants have?  If a vehicle had a capacity of 4-7, but was only returning 3, that would imply it has some spare capacity.

Adding the capability to return more than three people to Earth would open the possibility of a seven-man ISS rotation, which would nearly double the possible crew time dedicated to experiments.

Having the capability to return experiments in the CC vehicles as well as cargo Dragon would be an immense improvement as well.  One of the key requirements in increasing the scientific usefulness of ISS is reducing the total time required to put an experiment on ISS and retrieve the results.  Engineers can appreciate that running one test every six years is a bad way to find answers and a good way to spend the rest of your life looking (and that's even ignoring the dollar costs).  Frequent availability for mass up and down are needed for a faster cycle.

Both of those options represent immense value over Soyuz.

[baldusi]

Exactly! Cost-benefit has to include all the extra value (and all hidden costs).
As I've stated multiple time, CC has to transport at least four people because it is specified to take a whole crew to the USOS (four). Since there's a base level of maintenance, that extra crew might mean as much as an extra 50% utilization, it can change our benefit significantly.
Just to make an example, let's assume that CC is 200M more expensive per year as Soyuz (4 vs 3 cre), but you only get 20% extra utilization. Then, when you do the numbers, is something like: spend 3B with Soyuz and get X utilization, or spend 3.2B (7% extra cost) on CC and get 20% more utilization. Which is an excellent value proposition.
And we didn't had to get into sending money abroad vs spendng it in the US, the recovery of lost capabilities or the potential to start a commercial market on LEO.

[Lurker Steve]

There is nothing wrong with performing a cost-benefit analysis. Unfortunately, this is getting done about 5-6 years too late. Shouldn't you be looking at the costs and benefits of a program before it even starts ?

That's like taking a drive from Seattle to Orlando to visit Disney World, only to turn around once you get to Georgia because the Small Small World ride is closed for renovations.

[yg1968]

One problem with the report that I have is that it seems that it will analyse the developmental costs of commercial crew when factoring the costs versus Soyuz. That seems unfair, Russia isn't charging the United States for its developmental costs. Those are considered sunk costs. The analysis should look at the cost per seat for commercial crew and if it's cheaper than Soyuz, it's a good deal. If the cost per seat is significantly higher than Soyuz, the company offering these prices should be downselected.