CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Elmar Moelzer]

That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.

Confused about how you get to those numbers.

[ChrisWilson68]

That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.

Confused about how you get to those numbers.

He gets that number by assuming that the cost of four flights with 7 astronauts each is exactly the same as the cost of two flights with four astronauts each.  Which is completely nuts, so I understand your confusion about where he came up with it.

Edit: as others have pointed out, even if it's $200 million per flight for two flights per year instead of $140 million per flight, it comes to less than Russia's price.  You have to really stretch to try to get the numbers to come out to being equal to or greater than the Russian price.

Not to mention that on Dragon three more astronauts, or a bunch of supplies, get to come along for free.  ISS might be able to handle a few more people for a couple of weeks.

[yg1968]

That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.

Confused about how you get to those numbers.

He gets that number by assuming that the cost of four flights with 7 astronauts each is exactly the same as the cost of two flights with four astronauts each.  Which is completely nuts, so I understand your confusion about where he came up with it.

Edit: as others have pointed out, even if it's $200 million per flight for two flights per year instead of $140 million per flight, it comes to less than Russia's price.  You have to really stretch to try to get the numbers to come out to being equal to or greater than the Russian price.

Not to mention that on Dragon three more astronauts, or a bunch of supplies, get to come along for free.  ISS might be able to handle a few more people for a couple of weeks.

I am assuming that the price per year is fixed at $560M regardless how many missions you fly during the year. It's a bit of a worst case scenario, I admit. But I get the feeling that the worst case scenario and the best case scenario aren't that far off.

For the comparaison to be fair, you would also have to calculate how much the extra cargo (100kg per extra seat) is worth. But saying that seats are $20M per seat by making unrealistic assumptions is also misleading. So chances are the price will be closer to $70M per seat than it will be to $20M per seat.  If you factor in the extra cargo space, it goes down to $64M which is less than Soyuz which is a good thing.

P.S. Extra cargo = 100 kg / 20,000 kg x $1,600M (based on SpaceX's CRS prices)= $8M per 100kg. Thus 6 empty seats per year replaced by 6 x 100kg of cargo = 6 x $8M =$48M per year for the extra cargo.  $560M less $48M = $512M / 8 seats = $64M per seat.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I am assuming that the price per year is fixed at $560M regardless how many missions you fly during the year.

Unsubstantiated.

[baldusi]

That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.

Confused about how you get to those numbers.

He gets that number by assuming that the cost of four flights with 7 astronauts each is exactly the same as the cost of two flights with four astronauts each.  Which is completely nuts, so I understand your confusion about where he came up with it.

Edit: as others have pointed out, even if it's $200 million per flight for two flights per year instead of $140 million per flight, it comes to less than Russia's price.  You have to really stretch to try to get the numbers to come out to being equal to or greater than the Russian price.

Not to mention that on Dragon three more astronauts, or a bunch of supplies, get to come along for free.  ISS might be able to handle a few more people for a couple of weeks.

I am assuming that the price per year is fixed at $560M regardless how many missions you fly during the year. It's a bit of a worst case scenario, I admit. But I get the feeling that the worst case scenario and the best case scenario aren't that far off.

For the comparaison to be fair, you would also have to calculate how much the extra cargo (100kg per extra seat) is worth. But saying that seats are $20M per seat by making unrealistic assumptions is also misleading. So chances are the price will be closer to $70M per seat than it will be to $20M per seat.  If you factor in the extra cargo space, it goes down to $64M which is less than Soyuz which is a good thing.

P.S. Extra cargo = 100 kg / 20,000 kg x $1,600M (based on SpaceX's CRS prices)= $8M per 100kg. Thus 6 empty seats per year replaced by 6 x 100kg of cargo = 6 x $8M =$48M per year for the extra cargo.  $560M less $48M = $512M / 8 seats = $64M per seat.

You can't make that reasoning. Else, you would have to assume that to fly ten missions per year it would cost 560M. There are certain fixed cost and some per mission costs, plus some discreet jumps, like requiring a new pad for more than the maximum rate of a single one. 560M means four missions. And must probably assume the Cargo Dragon contract. The human certification extra costs and particular tooling and design support for the crewed version would be part of the fixed costs, as would be the crew access tower and ancillary GSE. But most of the rocket (human rating requires extra paperwork and care) and Dragon infrastructure is already there.
As I stated, 200M for two flights would mean a marginal cost of just 80M per extra mission. And would still mean 50M per seat. Which I consider the upper bound in 2010 dollars.
Also there's the payload calculation. People has relatively little weight. You can stuff a lot more payload than 100kg per passenger that you don't take. In particular, there's. Lot of extra capacity and packing volume. So in the end I would guess that a standard flight would carry 4 pax + 400kg of payload.

[GalacticIntruder]

SpaceX specific version of the BB/Bloomberg CC piece. Adds some new footage.

http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2014-05-05/how-elon-musk-plans-to-win-the-galaxy

[yg1968]

I am assuming that the price per year is fixed at $560M regardless how many missions you fly during the year.

Unsubstantiated.

Of course. That's what an assumption is.  But I don't know what percentage is fixed cost. So I have assumed 100% for purpose of being conservative. I was trying to make the point that the cost would be closer to $70M than $20M per seat if you make more realistic assumptions. I have also assumed that SpaceX doesn't get any funds from Bigelow to offset the fact that there is only two flights per year. 

[yg1968]

That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.

Confused about how you get to those numbers.

He gets that number by assuming that the cost of four flights with 7 astronauts each is exactly the same as the cost of two flights with four astronauts each.  Which is completely nuts, so I understand your confusion about where he came up with it.

Edit: as others have pointed out, even if it's $200 million per flight for two flights per year instead of $140 million per flight, it comes to less than Russia's price.  You have to really stretch to try to get the numbers to come out to being equal to or greater than the Russian price.

Not to mention that on Dragon three more astronauts, or a bunch of supplies, get to come along for free.  ISS might be able to handle a few more people for a couple of weeks.

I am assuming that the price per year is fixed at $560M regardless how many missions you fly during the year. It's a bit of a worst case scenario, I admit. But I get the feeling that the worst case scenario and the best case scenario aren't that far off.

For the comparaison to be fair, you would also have to calculate how much the extra cargo (100kg per extra seat) is worth. But saying that seats are $20M per seat by making unrealistic assumptions is also misleading. So chances are the price will be closer to $70M per seat than it will be to $20M per seat.  If you factor in the extra cargo space, it goes down to $64M which is less than Soyuz which is a good thing.

P.S. Extra cargo = 100 kg / 20,000 kg x $1,600M (based on SpaceX's CRS prices)= $8M per 100kg. Thus 6 empty seats per year replaced by 6 x 100kg of cargo = 6 x $8M =$48M per year for the extra cargo.  $560M less $48M = $512M / 8 seats = $64M per seat.

You can't make that reasoning. Else, you would have to assume that to fly ten missions per year it would cost 560M. There are certain fixed cost and some per mission costs, plus some discreet jumps, like requiring a new pad for more than the maximum rate of a single one. 560M means four missions. And must probably assume the Cargo Dragon contract. The human certification extra costs and particular tooling and design support for the crewed version would be part of the fixed costs, as would be the crew access tower and ancillary GSE. But most of the rocket (human rating requires extra paperwork and care) and Dragon infrastructure is already there.
As I stated, 200M for two flights would mean a marginal cost of just 80M per extra mission. And would still mean 50M per seat. Which I consider the upper bound in 2010 dollars.
Also there's the payload calculation. People has relatively little weight. You can stuff a lot more payload than 100kg per passenger that you don't take. In particular, there's. Lot of extra capacity and packing volume. So in the end I would guess that a standard flight would carry 4 pax + 400kg of payload.

Yes I agree. I was trying to make the point that the cost would be more than $20M and probably closer to $70M. But I agree that $50M per seat sounds like a much more realistic estimate. But it remains an estimate. Assuming that the cost per year would be the same is more conservative. In any event, if it comes to less than $70M, it's still a good deal for NASA.

[yg1968]

It looks like the House wants to force NASA to downselect to one. Hopefully, the Senate will not have such a provision. The Report is still in draft form.

The House would force downselection to one provider under CCtCap:

Commercial crew.—The Committee has provided NASA with substantial resources for the commercial crew program (CCP). CCP appropriations have often exceeded the program’s authorized levels and have increased in each of the last four fiscal years despite declining topline spending levels, sequestration and previously expressed concerns about the effective management of Federal investments in the program.

The Committee’s fiscal year 2015 recommendation provides $785,000,000 for the CCP, an increase of $89,000,000 above fiscal year 2014. These funds shall support one industry partner’s advancement through the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) process. The Committee believes that this recommendation strikes the appropriate balance between support for the program’s underlying goal and caution against management approaches that many in the Congress do not endorse. Consistent with prior direction, NASA shall take all steps necessary to incentivize further private investment in the program, including, to the maximum extent possible, taking the industry partners’ level of proposed private investment into account as a selection criterion for CCtCap.

Finally, each CCtCap proposer has now provided NASA with the flight price that would be charged if that proposer ultimately were to conduct missions to the International Space Station (ISS). Those prices will determine how much, if any, savings the CCP will generate compared to Soyuz transportation prices. While this information is currently subject to the CCtCap procurement blackout, NASA shall brief the Committee on expected flight pricing as soon as the blackout period is concluded.

[Elmar Moelzer]

It looks like the House wants to force NASA to downselect to one. Hopefully, the Senate will not have such a provision. The Report is still in draft form.

The House would force downselection to one provider under CCtCap:

Commercial crew.—The Committee has provided NASA with substantial resources for the commercial crew program (CCP). CCP appropriations have often exceeded the program’s authorized levels and have increased in each of the last four fiscal years despite declining topline spending levels, sequestration and previously expressed concerns about the effective management of Federal investments in the program.

The Committee’s fiscal year 2015 recommendation provides $785,000,000 for the CCP, an increase of $89,000,000 above fiscal year 2014. These funds shall support one industry partner’s advancement through the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) process. The Committee believes that this recommendation strikes the appropriate balance between support for the program’s underlying goal and caution against management approaches that many in the Congress do not endorse. Consistent with prior direction, NASA shall take all steps necessary to incentivize further private investment in the program, including, to the maximum extent possible, taking the industry partners’ level of proposed private investment into account as a selection criterion for CCtCap.

Finally, each CCtCap proposer has now provided NASA with the flight price that would be charged if that proposer ultimately were to conduct missions to the International Space Station (ISS). Those prices will determine how much, if any, savings the CCP will generate compared to Soyuz transportation prices. While this information is currently subject to the CCtCap procurement blackout, NASA shall brief the Committee on expected flight pricing as soon as the blackout period is concluded.

Meh, of course the House would say stuff like that.

[Rocket Science]

I like how they say that they increased it from last year all the while side stepping the fact that never met the President's requested amount from the program's inception delaying it by a couple years. We could be flying by next year... sigh...

[bad_astra]

When you need to pat yourself on the back and can't reach it, just redefine where the back begins. Either way, if the down select gets astronauts back in a domestic vehicle fast, good enough.

[yg1968]

I doubt that the Senate's version will have a requirement to downselect. Furthermore, the CJS appropriation bill is unlikely to be passed prior to CCtCap being awarded. Lastly Wolf is retiring and may not be in place by the time the CJS appropriation bill becomes law. 

[rayleighscatter]

Concerning the downselect, this is still just a committee draft so there's a lot of points when it can change and unless SpaceX, Boeing, or SNC are incredibly confident they will be selected as the sole source then all 3 will have lobbyists out suggesting the sole provider language be dropped.

What I found interesting in that though is this:
"Finally, each CCtCap proposer has now provided NASA with the flight price that would be charged if that proposer ultimately were to conduct missions to the International Space Station (ISS)."

I may just be behind the curve but have we heard before that all three have already made official price estimates?

[rcoppola]

Concerning the downselect, this is still just a committee draft so there's a lot of points when it can change and unless SpaceX, Boeing, or SNC are incredibly confident they will be selected as the sole source then all 3 will have lobbyists out suggesting the sole provider language be dropped.

What I found interesting in that though is this:
"Finally, each CCtCap proposer has now provided NASA with the flight price that would be charged if that proposer ultimately were to conduct missions to the International Space Station (ISS)."

I may just be behind the curve but have we heard before that all three have already made official price estimates?

I believe the next part of that reference you selected, was that congress expects to be apprized of those prices after the blackout period is over. But essentially, yes. Prices should have been in all participants proposals delivered to NASA a few months ago. NASA just can't release them as they are all proprietary to the bidders, until after they make a selection.

Although Elon doesn't seem to have an issue throwing out numbers when asked, depending on # of crew on # of flights.

[erioladastra]

First,  I think you would be surprised but I suspect all the companies would prefer a down select.  Maybe SpaceX because they are going regardless so some money may be better.  These companies know there is not enough money so that more than one company just means less money, longer time, etc.

No one gets to go along free to the ISS.

Let's look at the situation.  At this point competition is a farace and quite frankly, as a tax payer, probably a waste of money.  For all practical purposes there are two viable companies - Boeing and SpaceX (sorry, but that is the reality in level of maturity).  The Atlas 5 is one of the biggest drivers of cost for its missions and that is not going to get cheaper with competion (though who knows how the whole SpaceX-ULA thing might play out).  SpaceX is developing their boosters, have external customers, might be under bidding to get the business...but bottom line it won't change much either.  If you don't down select in CCtCAP you will waste a lot of money and time because then the companies - and NASA - will have to spend large amounts of time and money to review another proposal.  Also because of the nature of contracts there is overhead with closing out one contract and start up for the new one.  That is time, nor money, that we don't have.    Also note, I think the companies have ponied up certain sums of mney in the next phase assuming they get the ISS contracts.  For example (made up numbers), say Boeing proffered $50M in tCAP.  If it is going to be a couple of years they then down select, they would be less likely to put that much money.  So they go to say $20M.  That is financially sounds for a company but doesn't really help the long term prospects of getting our astronauts in space.

If the US had unlimited money it would be great to fund 2.  And if you funded these two you could (perhaps, just one scenario) is get Boeing to provide ISS services and SpaceX could continue on and really forge a commercial market.  But the reality is we do not have that money.  The costs of either company exceeds what is being budgeted (and if you don't think the ISS program and astronauts won't push for significant upgrades starting in CCtCAp you are kidding yourself).    Since there is not enough money, the money that has already been spent on SNC and Blue Origins will be a jobs program at best.

[vt_hokie]

For all practical purposes there are two viable companies - Boeing and SpaceX (sorry, but that is the reality in level of maturity). 

IF Sierra Nevada follows through on the orbital test flight of the OTV-1 currently under construction, it's hard to say that SNC isn't equally viable.

[yg1968]

First,  I think you would be surprised but I suspect all the companies would prefer a down select.  Maybe SpaceX because they are going regardless so some money may be better.  These companies know there is not enough money so that more than one company just means less money, longer time, etc. [...]

Shotwell has recently mentionned that SpaceX would prefer competition to be maintained. Competition makes sense for CCtCap for the same reason that it makes sense for CRS. I am encouraged by the fact that new entrants will be allowed for the 2017-2024 CRS2 contracts. In my opinion, astronauts shouldn't be allowed to offer suggestions for improvements under CCtCap. Each companies has already hired astronauts that are directly involved in their respective programs.

[Coastal Ron]

For all practical purposes there are two viable companies - Boeing and SpaceX (sorry, but that is the reality in level of maturity). 

IF Sierra Nevada follows through on the orbital test flight of the OTV-1 currently under construction, it's hard to say that SNC isn't equally viable.

And considering that both SpaceX and Boeing offer capsules, and Sierra Nevada is offering a runway-landing spacecraft, I'd say that NASA - if it was possible - would really like the Dream Chaser to be one of the available choices.

No doubt SNC would need the most of amount of time and money, but I would not be surprised if NASA were to do a 1.5 down-select that Dream Chaser would be the "0.5".

[Lars_J]

I don't think any of the competitors would object to a down-select to two providers, as long as they are one of the two.

IMO, A down-select to 1 (or 1.5) seems very counter-intuitive at this point. Narrow the field to 2 instead, to allow the maximum probability of success.