The CCiCAP Award (PRE- and Post-AWARD DISCUSSION) Thread

[Jim]

I think that ISS is a bad spot for a space station. It's a great test of what can be done but it was so slow being built I feel it's small and obsolete compared to what could be achieved with more advanced technology.

Not true on every point.

1.  ISS  location - it is accessible by every nation and only a 6% in payload for US launch vehicles other than the shuttle

2. It is not small.  It is still not fully utilized and plenty of room for experiements.

3.  It is far from obsolete and there isn't much "new" technology that it could use.

[yg1968]

There is a bit of strategy involved. But as you said, if you say in advance that you will have two awards, the two companies would not really be competing against each other (which is a valid point). So strategy-wise, you are better off leaving that possibility open of choosing only one (even if it is remote).

If it's similar to NLS or CRS, individual task orders (missions/flights) may still be individually competed, and new providers on-ramped over time.  However, if there are only 2 flights/yr, that contract model may not work.  (I imagine under true IDIQ/NTE, the price could potentially be well above Gerst's previously stated budgetary estimate of $80M/seat.)

In any case, there's significant benefit to maintaining competition until contract award, even if only one contract is ultimately awarded.  Non-compete sole-source contracts carry significant overhead (price/cost justification and accounting rules etc.) that aren't required if competitively bid--that only requires two contenders.

I believe some of those factors are reflected in Ed Mango's previous comment "We need competition. The cost for 1 is greater than for 2 or 3."

If you combine crew and cargo, I think that you have a business case even if you have only 1 commercial crew flight per year. In their SAA, Boeing says that it has a buisness case with 2 commercial crew flights per year (and presumably no cargo flights). If you combine cargo and crew, the business case probably works even with only 1 crewed flight per year. That's why I think that CRS2 and the commercial crew services contract need to be either combined or at least awarded at the same time.

[spectre9]

Err no the ISS partners might buy additional crew transport via commercial, but the ISS agreement is a trade. NASA provides the crew transport in exchange for lifting cargo ect.. If you had them going to separate stations they would never use US systems to do so.

It would be awesome to see ESA and JAXA develop their own spacecraft. CSA is much smaller and I'm guessing they wouldn't be able to.

If they don't want to those services will be there. If the prices are competitive with the service they're already using (Soyuz) they would have to consider it.

Not true on every point.

Can I have a hint where I went wrong please? 

[yg1968]

If the other choice is one exclusive provider or just a NASA run spacecraft development - then two CC providers is clearly better.

Will they put a lot of price pressure on each other? Probably not, oligarchies usually don't. But at least they would provide a transportation system to NASA with a lot fewer critical paths - a failure of one does not have to cause a "new" gap.

Great, so you agree that there's no "competition"? Having multiple providers (for anything) certainly has advantages, which is why the military insists on it, but what does this have to do with competition? The claim was:

In any event, the point of having two commercial crew providers is not just for redundancy pruposes, it's also to have competition between the two.

You're saying it's not, fine, I still don't know what Robotbeat was trying to say.. other than just grasp at any opportunity to bring politics into the discussion.

It's not perfect competition but it's still competition. You are competing for an award. If your prices are much higher than everybody else's, you will not get an award. In any event, I am not sure that I understand what you are proposing as an alternative.

I think that you have proposed in the past that NASA not fund commercial crew at all in order to allow competition to grow by itself. That could possibly also work but it won't be ready for 2017. Plus, you are still likely not to have more than 2 commercial crew providers (e.g., Blue Origin and SpaceX). 

[pathfinder_01]

If they don't want to those services will be there. If the prices are competitive with the service they're already using (Soyuz) they would have to consider it.

err...no. They are not using Soyuz. NASA is obligated to provide crew transport to JAXA and ESA in exchange for cargo and othe ISS services. Basically NASA is buying the ride for JAXA and ESA from Russia on Soyuz.

 NASA planned to use Shuttle plus lifeboat as our total crew solution but the lifeboat got cancel so we bought Soyuz for lifeboat duty. Then the shuttle itself proved a bad idea for crew transport(i.e. Any delay on the cargo side caused a delay on the crew side.One person got stuck at the ISS for a month!).  So we used Soyuz for both lifeboat and crewtransport, plus we shut down our own shuttle.

When NASA goes to commercail crew they will be buying seats for ESA and JAXA personel.

[yg1968]

Err no the ISS partners might buy additional crew transport via commercial, but the ISS agreement is a trade. NASA provides the crew transport in exchange for lifting cargo ect.. If you had them going to separate stations they would never use US systems to do so.

It would be awesome to see ESA and JAXA develop their own spacecraft. CSA is much smaller and I'm guessing they wouldn't be able to.

If they don't want to those services will be there. If the prices are competitive with the service they're already using (Soyuz) they would have to consider it.

ESA and JAXA are not paying Russia for Soyuz. The United States is responsable for transporting CSA's, JAXA's and ESA's astronauts. So the United States is paying Russia for CSA's, JAXA's and ESA's astronauts. Once commercial crew is ready, it will be used for transporting ESA, JAXA and CSA astronauts. 

P.S. JAXA has some plans for a crewed capsule but it wouldn't be ready until 2025 at the earliest (assuming that it gets funded).

[pathfinder_01]

Can I have a hint where I went wrong please? 

http://www.spacex.com/Falcon9UsersGuide_2009.pdf

Page 19.

There isn't much difference between ISS orbit 51.6 and 28.5. Maybe a few MT. This is the same for the EELV. It was the shuttle that had the most issuses with the ISS Orbit(and even then it could carry something quite heavy there...ISS modules...).

[Rocket Science]

All three of these vehicles are unique as are two of the launchers. Sometimes it’s not just the price in a competition, but the “value” each one provides… Just my two pennies…

[dcporter]

Can I have a hint where I went wrong please? 

FYI - looks like Jim updated his original post with the key points.  Worth a look-back.

[simonbp]

ESA and JAXA are not paying Russia for Soyuz. The United States is responsable for transporting CSA's, JAXA's and ESA's astronauts. So the United States is paying Russia for CSA's, JAXA's and ESA's astronauts. Once commercial crew is ready, it will be used for transporting ESA, JAXA and CSA astronauts. 

When does that obligation finish? 2020 with the end of the current ISS treaty?

[yg1968]

ESA and JAXA are not paying Russia for Soyuz. The United States is responsable for transporting CSA's, JAXA's and ESA's astronauts. So the United States is paying Russia for CSA's, JAXA's and ESA's astronauts. Once commercial crew is ready, it will be used for transporting ESA, JAXA and CSA astronauts. 

When does that obligation finish? 2020 with the end of the current ISS treaty?

Good question and I am not the best person to answer it. I imagine that the same obligations that existed until the end of 2015 continue to exist until 2020. Perhaps 51D Mascot or someone else can give a better answer to that question.

[yg1968]

In the Canada-NASA MOU, the relevant clauses are the following ones (the other MOUs probably contain similar provisions):

12.1.f. NASA will provide reimbursable Space Shuttle launch and return transportation services to ESA in connection with the assembly of the ESA-provided European pressurized laboratory to the Space Station and its initial outfitting in accordance with the program documentation described in Article 7.2.

12.1.g. NASA will provide reimbursable Space Shuttle launch and return transportation services to the GOJ in connection with the assembly of the GOJ-provided JEM to the Space Station and its initial outfitting in accordance with the program documentation described in Article 7.2.

12.1.h. NASA will be responsible for standard Space Shuttle launch and return transportation services in connection with the assembly of the CSA-provided flight elements to the Space Station (CSA will be responsible for any optional Space Shuttle launch services required in connection with the assembly of the CSA-provided flight elements to the Space Station).

I am assuming that these clauses get extended to 2020.

P.S. See this (edited) post for links to the ISS agreements:

See this link for a good artcile explaing the ISS agreements:
http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet94/FARAND.pdf

See the ISS agreement here:
http://www.jaxa.jp/library/space_law/chapter_4/4-2-2-16/index_e.html

See the Japan MOU:
http://www.jaxa.jp/library/space_law/chapter_3/3-2-2-10_e.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/nasa_japan.html

See the Canadian MOU:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/nasa_csa.html

See the ESA MOU:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/nasa_esa.html

See the Russian MOU:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/nasa_rsa.html

More generally, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station

[baldusi]

Looking at engineers talk about economics is... cute.
You want to study game theory, that's for sure.
To have competition you just needs that you can earn more (expected) profits by bidding low than high. It's that simple. The current situation with (apparently) at least three serious contenders, would allow for some two to participate and still have a serious competition. In fact, you just have to look at the EELV competition. Technically, Boeing and LM bid extremely low prices, so much that Boeing is still taking (some) losses. Then the DoD decided that it wanted "assurance" and payed up for everything. But the initial competition per se was cutthroat.
The biggest issue on tenders like this is twofold. First, will they compete again? And second, can the terms be changed once they contract are signed? The first make a whole world of difference in the attitude against this tender. And the second is the one where "bait-and-switch" tactic is available or not.
If by 2015 we know if the ISS will be extender and by how much. And if NASA decides to make a Crew and Cargo tender for what's expected of the lifetime of the ISS (say, 2017 to 2025), with possible outcomes of one, two (one crew and one cargo) or three (one crew+cargo, one cargo and one crew). Then even with just two competitors you could have a very serious competition. The bait and switch would be avoided in any case save the single winner. And since this would be for the whole life of the ISS (may be a couple of extra years at "renegotiated" prices), they would bid like it's now or never (which it is).

[erioladastra]

There is a bit of strategy involved. But as you said, if you say in advance that you will have two awards, the two companies would not really be competing against each other (which is a valid point). So strategy-wise, you are better off leaving that possibility open of choosing only one (even if it is remote).

If it's similar to NLS or CRS, individual task orders (missions/flights) may still be individually competed, and new providers on-ramped over time.  However, if there are only 2 flights/yr, that contract model may not work.  (I imagine under true IDIQ/NTE, the price could potentially be well above Gerst's previously stated budgetary estimate of $80M/seat.)

In any case, there's significant benefit to maintaining competition until contract award, even if only one contract is ultimately awarded.  Non-compete sole-source contracts carry significant overhead (price/cost justification and accounting rules etc.) that aren't required if competitively bid--that only requires two contenders.

I believe some of those factors are reflected in Ed Mango's previous comment "We need competition. The cost for 1 is greater than for 2 or 3."

If they end up with >2 flights/year, I wonder if they might give more flights to the lowest bidder, while still keeping the other one going at a lower flight rate. Keeps the pressure on to reduce costs while also keeping both companies alive.

There will not be >2 flights a year.  First no need and no way that it won't cost more than 2 flights even if great deals ("buy 2, get one free" ) and second it is not needed

[BrightLight]

I am interested in bounding the cost of commercial crew.
so
6 seats per year (is this correct or does NASA want 6 seats per 6 months = 2 launches per year at 12 seats?).
for the sake of argument, SNC is the most costliest provider (pure speculation and I assume wrong);
Sirangelo said SNC will beat the Russian price of $63M per seat,
6 seats = $378M
2 launches per year = $189M per launch.
This is the minimum bulk cost, if they launch 12 seats at 378M/year the seat cost is half of the Soyuz, or $31.5M.

Can a provider run its business at $189M per launch?

[yg1968]

I think that when commercial crew companies say that they can beat Russians price, they assume that NASA will take all 7 seats.

[BrightLight]

I think that when commercial crew companies say that they can beat Russians price, they assume that NASA will take all 7 seats.

is that 7 seats per launch or 7 seats per year, leaving the rest for cargo?

[simonbp]

Can a provider run its business at $189M per launch?

Presumably SpaceX, Boeing, and SNC have done the math and think they can. If they didn't, they wouldn't be putting so much effort into this.

[BrightLight]

Can a provider run its business at $189M per launch?

Presumably SpaceX, Boeing, and SNC have done the math and think they can. If they didn't, they wouldn't be putting so much effort into this.

Clearly - it is also clear that that sets the upper limit on the LV costs etc.
At $189M per launch, If I'm not mistaken an Atlas V right now costs $130M, leaving $59M for crew, thus the cost per seat to the provider is $10M, including profit. Is this realistic or will the cost escalate the way EELV did?

[baldusi]

All assume a six or seven seats configuration. What NASA would do is put cargo in those places, if the seats are not taken. Besides, the USOS can support four permanent crews. And they can accept some extra crews for a couple of weeks. So with just two launcher per year, they could use almost all the seats.
First launch is with four crew (expedition 1). Second launch is with seven crew, four for the expedition 2 and three temporal. Then the expedition 1 plus the temps go down on the old craft (this would require seat swappable seats). But you'd lose the overlapping of crews on expeditions. They could, instead, take two permanents and four or five temporals. You could put send the temporals to do EVA, to install a new experiment, to set up some new equipment and, why not some publicity stunt, like sending some hero firefighter from NY, or something like that.
For seats to be cheaper you'd need to actually use them creatively. It shouldn't be a problem, since the current limitation on ISS appears to be manpower.