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

[mmonce]

A giant waste because NASA is developing 2 extra fully functional extremely expensive spacecraft that might not see any use at all.
...

NASA isn't developing them, it's providing seed money and technical assistance.

They're not extremely expensive.  Each one is costing NASA less than 10% of what Orion is.

They won't just be used for ISS. They can be used for any crewed LEO missions, including any future LEO space stations, and for Dragon possibly some BEO.

For 0.1% of one year's US budget deficit, it's bloody good value.

^^^

Isn't this the long-term point of the whole program?

If these vehicles only end up doing 1-2 flights to the ISS every year through 2020, this program isn't all that exciting. It's the other uses of the vehicles that are intriguing. And NASA gets a bargain as a bonus.

[BrightLight]

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.

Thank you.
this sets the cost for crew transport for the US segment at < $378M per year with up to 6 crew active on ISS - a huge savings over the shuttle and adds the extra crew to focus on science - a huge plus for the ISS program. the per seat charge to the tax payer might not change much from the present system using Soyuz but the utilization efficiency goes way up  - this is a very good rational for commercial crew, it might be cheaper, who knows at this point but whats really important is that we can fully utilize the ISS for its intended purpose - science.

[spectre9]

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.

Thanks for the alert.

You're a champ Jim, thanks for setting me straight. 

I guess there's not much point in building new stations when the old one still has plenty of life left in it. 

[BrightLight]

A giant waste because NASA is developing 2 extra fully functional extremely expensive spacecraft that might not see any use at all.
...

NASA isn't developing them, it's providing seed money and technical assistance.

They're not extremely expensive.  Each one is costing NASA less than 10% of what Orion is.

They won't just be used for ISS. They can be used for any crewed LEO missions, including any future LEO space stations, and for Dragon possibly some BEO.

For 0.1% of one year's US budget deficit, it's bloody good value.

^^^

Isn't this the long-term point of the whole program?

If these vehicles only end up doing 1-2 flights to the ISS every year through 2020, this program isn't all that exciting. It's the other uses of the vehicles that are intriguing. And NASA gets a bargain as a bonus.

The point is that with the commercial crew approach NASA and the tax payer gets the use of the ISS as a national laboratory, if it is cheaper then Soyuz that's wonderful, if they get to fly more manned missions that's even better, if there is a commercial use say Bigelow that's icing on the cake.
What is critical is that we can service the ISS at full crew utilization.

[baldusi]

this sets the cost for crew transport for the US segment at < $378M per year with up to 6 crew active on ISS - a huge savings over the shuttle and adds the extra crew to focus on science - a huge plus for the ISS program. the per seat charge to the tax payer might not change much from the present system using Soyuz but the utilization efficiency goes way up  - this is a very good rational for commercial crew, it might be cheaper, who knows at this point but whats really important is that we can fully utilize the ISS for its intended purpose - science.

The Russians are costing something like 400M per year. Add some inflation for the 2017 to 2020, and that's probably about 450M per year. What Commercial Crew would allow is for 450M to 500M per year have a lot more utilization. You have to do the E/P. Even paying 200M per year than what the Russians charge, if it allows 60% more science, it's a great decision. It would surely allow for at least 33% more USOS crews per expedition (4 vs 3), and allow for some temps. The secret is the if now with 3 crew they dedicate 67% of their time for maintenance and 33% to science, adding an additional crew might double the science output! What's an extra 1B in five years if it makes double the science output of your 100B experiment? That's an excellent investment.
Things like EVA's or setting up new equipment might take a whole lot of time. That's what temps are for. Not to mention that they could take people specially trained to do the experiments, to avoid what has happened on COTS-2/3 and the kid's experiments. It could also enable some cheaper experiments.
If you can train an astronaut by NanoRacks that will set up the experiments, he'll have time to train and do more complicated setups that would be very costly to automate or fit into a nanorack. So you could have both more science and cheaper science!

[BrightLight]

With known costs, a possible outcome of commercial crew and commercial cargo is that for once NASA can predict costs for crew transport and logistics support.  Congress and NASA can then develop policy based on rational business practices.
yes, i am an optimist.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Problem is, if two providers are ultimately chosen, then Commercial crew rates will only provide for a flight each year per provider.  Gathering from what Boeing said, companies will need two flights a year.  So all in all, NASA demands (a crew rotation every six months, of four USOS at a time) will only fill the flight rate of a single provider, so dont be surprised if there is increased rhetoric for a single provider.

Now I continue to hear calls for combining crew and cargo, and as we have heard some extra seats might be replaced with cargo.  Replacing a dedicated cargo craft for an unmanned CC with cargo would probably work for SpaceX (one model of Dragon for another), but honestly do we think the incremental costs of a Boeing CST-100 or Dreamchaser with the larger Atlas V are the same as an Antares with Stretched Cygnus on a per volume cargo equation?

 And is it fair for OSC to develop a craft for NASA to only use for roughly five years only to abandon it for something shiny and new, and the effect that would have on NASA's credibility as a stable customer?

[neilh]

With known costs, a possible outcome of commercial crew and commercial cargo is that for once NASA can predict costs for crew transport and logistics support.  Congress and NASA can then develop policy based on rational business practices.
yes, i am an optimist.

One can certainly hope.

[BrightLight]

Problem is, if two providers are ultimately chosen, then Commercial crew rates will only provide for a flight each year per provider.  Gathering from what Boeing said, companies will need two flights a year.  So all in all, NASA demands (a crew rotation every six months, of four USOS at a time) will only fill the flight rate of a single provider, so dont be surprised if there is increased rhetoric for a single provider.

Now I continue to hear calls for combining crew and cargo, and as we have heard some extra seats might be replaced with cargo.  Replacing a dedicated cargo craft for an unmanned CC with cargo would probably work for SpaceX (one model of Dragon for another), but honestly do we think the incremental costs of a Boeing CST-100 or Dreamchaser with the larger Atlas V are the same as an Antares with Stretched Cygnus on a per volume cargo equation?

 And is it fair for OSC to develop a craft for NASA to only use for roughly five years only to abandon it for something shiny and new, and the effect that would have on NASA's credibility as a stable customer?

This is where we have the horse race.
at $189M per LV and spacecraft, is there a provider that can show a business case that works - if the transport cost is the only metric it doesn't look as promising as I would like. If the metric is improved ISS utilization by Americans, then commercial crew is worth its weight.

[yg1968]

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?

I meant 7 seats per launch. But NASA hasn't yet decided if they want more than four astronauts per flight. For the time being, they say that they only need four.

[yg1968]

Problem is, if two providers are ultimately chosen, then Commercial crew rates will only provide for a flight each year per provider.  Gathering from what Boeing said, companies will need two flights a year.  So all in all, NASA demands (a crew rotation every six months, of four USOS at a time) will only fill the flight rate of a single provider, so dont be surprised if there is increased rhetoric for a single provider.

Now I continue to hear calls for combining crew and cargo, and as we have heard some extra seats might be replaced with cargo.  Replacing a dedicated cargo craft for an unmanned CC with cargo would probably work for SpaceX (one model of Dragon for another), but honestly do we think the incremental costs of a Boeing CST-100 or Dreamchaser with the larger Atlas V are the same as an Antares with Stretched Cygnus on a per volume cargo equation?

 And is it fair for OSC to develop a craft for NASA to only use for roughly five years only to abandon it for something shiny and new, and the effect that would have on NASA's credibility as a stable customer?

Given the fact that the ATV will be retired after ATV-5 in 2014, there should be room for a third commercial cargo provider.

[edkyle99]

Problem is, if two providers are ultimately chosen, then Commercial crew rates will only provide for a flight each year per provider.  Gathering from what Boeing said, companies will need two flights a year.  So all in all, NASA demands (a crew rotation every six months, of four USOS at a time) will only fill the flight rate of a single provider, so dont be surprised if there is increased rhetoric for a single provider.

There should be.  As you note, there's hardly a case for one provider, let alone two. 

All NASA has to do is look at EELV for an example of what happens when two "winners" are chosen instead of the planned single winner.  Costs skyrocket.

 - Ed Kyle

[yg1968]

Problem is, if two providers are ultimately chosen, then Commercial crew rates will only provide for a flight each year per provider.  Gathering from what Boeing said, companies will need two flights a year.  So all in all, NASA demands (a crew rotation every six months, of four USOS at a time) will only fill the flight rate of a single provider, so dont be surprised if there is increased rhetoric for a single provider.

There should be.  As you note, there's hardly a case for one provider, let alone two. 

All NASA has to do is look at EELV for an example of what happens when two "winners" are chosen instead of the planned single winner.  Costs skyrocket.

 - Ed Kyle

Costs haven't skyrocketed for COTS and there is 2 commercial cargo providers.

Besides, ULA is only one company and costs still increased. So I am not sure your example makes sense.

[mr. mark]

Problem is, if two providers are ultimately chosen, then Commercial crew rates will only provide for a flight each year per provider.  Gathering from what Boeing said, companies will need two flights a year.  So all in all, NASA demands (a crew rotation every six months, of four USOS at a time) will only fill the flight rate of a single provider, so dont be surprised if there is increased rhetoric for a single provider.

There should be.  As you note, there's hardly a case for one provider, let alone two. 

All NASA has to do is look at EELV for an example of what happens when two "winners" are chosen instead of the planned single winner.  Costs skyrocket.

 - Ed Kyle

Hopefully, there will be a another station in orbit by then, Bigelow. 

[edkyle99]

All NASA has to do is look at EELV for an example of what happens when two "winners" are chosen instead of the planned single winner.  Costs skyrocket.

 - Ed Kyle

Costs haven't skyrocket for COTS and there is 2 commercial cargo providers.

Besides, ULA is only one company and costs still increased. So I am not sure you example makes sense.

It is too soon to say how commercial cargo costs are really going to work out.  Only one of the two providers has actually flown, and only by using an interim launcher and spacecraft.  Both are behind schedule, which has to mean higher costs.  Someone is going to have to eat those costs, eventually. 

EELV was all happy cheap talk too at this stage, when the rockets were just entering service.  Costs have since tripled, or thereabouts. 

It doesn't matter that ULA is just one company.  It is still supporting the costs of two production lines, two launch services, etc.

Wait and see.  My prediction?  Take the per-seat cost of Soyuz, now the stated goal, and triple it.  For starters. 

 - Ed Kyle

[BrightLight]

All NASA has to do is look at EELV for an example of what happens when two "winners" are chosen instead of the planned single winner.  Costs skyrocket.

 - Ed Kyle

Costs haven't skyrocket for COTS and there is 2 commercial cargo providers.

Besides, ULA is only one company and costs still increased. So I am not sure you example makes sense.

It is too soon to say how commercial cargo costs are really going to work out.  Only one of the two providers has actually flown, and only by using an interim launcher and spacecraft.  Both are behind schedule, which has to mean higher costs.  Someone is going to have to eat those costs, eventually. 

EELV was all happy cheap talk too at this stage, when the rockets were just entering service.  Costs have since tripled, or thereabouts. 

It doesn't matter that ULA is just one company.  It is still supporting the costs of two production lines, two launch services, etc.

Wait and see.  My prediction?  Take the per-seat cost of Soyuz, now the stated goal, and triple it.  For starters. 

 - Ed Kyle

It would be useful to support the argument with some metrics - how did you get to 3X $63M?
Maybe we should have a poll on what the per seat cost is for commercial crew?
I agree that it will probably cost more than $63M but I have no idea how to estimate it.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Given the fact that the ATV will be retired after ATV-5 in 2014, there should be room for a third commercial cargo provider.

The cargo lifted by ATV is a responsibility of ESA, and therefore a separate contract that will have to be dealt with by NASA and independent of CC.

as for the entire "horse race" argument, General Boden has stated he would support two entities no matter what ("bailout" was mentioned but dont want to inflame things) but as we have seen with EELV and price differences of the CRS operators, govt operators will buy services from two providers at the advertised price for both, so what is the point in the participants lowering their costs?

(not to knock ULA as they are lowering the fixed costs of the two lines or SpaceX/OSC, but demonstrating policy)

[yg1968]

Given the fact that the ATV will be retired after ATV-5 in 2014, there should be room for a third commercial cargo provider.

The cargo lifted by ATV is a responsibility of ESA, and therefore a separate contract that will have to be dealt with by NASA and independent of CC.

The cargo services for ATV was bartered in exchange for ESA's operational cost for the ISS. But the cargo need is still there and the void is expected to be filled by U.S. commercial companies.

[BrightLight]

Given the fact that the ATV will be retired after ATV-5 in 2014, there should be room for a third commercial cargo provider.

The cargo lifted by ATV is a responsibility of ESA, and therefore a separate contract that will have to be dealt with by NASA and independent of CC.

as for the entire "horse race" argument, General Boden has stated he would support two entities no matter what ("bailout" was mentioned but dont want to inflame things) but as we have seen with EELV and price differences of the CRS operators, govt operators will buy services from two providers at the advertised price for both, so what is the point in the participants lowering their costs?

(not to knock ULA as they are lowering the fixed costs of the two lines or SpaceX/OSC, but demonstrating policy)

I don't have a clean response to the problem of two provider/operators essentially price-fixing the costs, I think this is what happens when the market is too small.  In this case SpaceX competing with Boeing might help if Musk is willing to adjust cost downward to capture more market share.  This can hold true if there is a second destination, which admittedly at this point is a long-shot. I argue that it is the improved ISS utilization that leverages the extra expense of commercial crew to make it worth while.

[QuantumG]

I argue that it is the improved ISS utilization that leverages the extra expense of commercial crew to make it worth while.

I think I asked some of these questions before.. or someone else did, but I don't remember the answer.. or it wasn't completely answered, so I'll ask again:

Isn't it a requirement that the crew vehicles provide on-orbit life support for the crews brought up?

Edit: to answer my own question.. only something like 86 hours.