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

[joek]

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.

Close enough; see chart below.

...this sets the cost for crew transport for the US segment at < $378M per year with up to 6 crew active on ISS...

I don't see how that obtains, and seems overly optimistic.  To "beat" a Souyz $/seat price of ~$65M/seat (2016-2017) with seven  seats occupied sets an upper bound of ~$450M/flight or ~$900M/yr.  If Ed Mango's estimate is right, it's $80M/seat, presumably with four seats/flight.

edit: correct figure titel

[pathfinder_01]

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

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

No. NASA provides on-orbit lifesupport unless it is a tourist(then they need to make arragements with the company and in that case most likely you would be limited to whatever extra cargo capacity is on the ccrew craft). NASA may purchase cargo capacity from the ccdev craft instead of seats. So they could say send 4 crew and purchase the remaining seats as cargo.

In other words lifesupport could be prepositioned via a cargo craft for NASA crew(Food, Water, LIOH catrages, ect..). You might want to send clothes with the ccdev craft just to make sure Barbara(a backup crew) isn't forced to wear Bob's uniform if Bob can't make the flight but no requirment there.

[pathfinder_01]

the only limit to how many crew can be on the ISS at one time is just the number of available docking ports?

ISS life Support limits the crew to 7 total and 14 in surge capacity(meaning the regenerative lifesupport systems will not be able to handle more than 7 and you are going to need to use LIOH cartriges and Oxygen candles to support this many).

[Ronsmytheiii]

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?

If so, for how long?

Life support (ECLSS) has to support a crew of seven on the cv for three days independently, while on station the cabin can use ISS ECLSS via drag through duct like Soyuz or the shuttle airlock. ISS ECLSS is the limiting factor for crew size, but can accommodate large crews for short durations as seen with shuttle/ station crew periods.

[BrightLight]

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.

I think that since the ISS was designed to operate with six crew members the ISS environmental support will be used for the mission duration.  Don Petit said that his main task on ISS during construction was to fix and adjust all the subsystems and had little time for science, I think the situation is still the same.  With two extra crew, I beleve that science can be doubled or even tripled.

[joek]

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

Discussed back in the CCiDC days; more recently this post.  However...

No. NASA provides on-orbit lifesupport unless it is a tourist...

Not just "tourist".  The definition of "tourist" or "non-NASA crew" appears to apply to anyone "beyond the four NASA crew required for the ISS increment"...

3.1.1.6   The CTS shall provide habitable consumables such as food, water, clothing, oxygen, nitrogen, CO2 removal, personal hygiene, and other required consumables for non NASA crew during the docked portion of the mission when the non-NASA crew are on the ISS.
 
Rationale:  For any mission model that requires additional crew beyond the four NASA crew required for the ISS increment, the CTS will be responsible for carrying the required logistics in the spacecraft to support the additional crewmembers during docked timeframe.  NASA will not have the ability to pre-position supplies on ISS via another cargo launch vehicle due to the required ISS logistics support via CRS, Progress, and ATV/HTV vehicles.  Thus the CTS will be responsible for providing food, water, clothing, and other logistics for non NASA crew.

[pathfinder_01]

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

Discussed back in the CCiDC days; more recently this post.  However...

No. NASA provides on-orbit lifesupport unless it is a tourist...

Not just "tourist".  The definition of "tourist" or "non-NASA crew" appears to apply to anyone "beyond the four NASA crew required for the ISS increment"...

3.1.1.6   The CTS shall provide habitable consumables such as food, water, clothing, oxygen, nitrogen, CO2 removal, personal hygiene, and other required consumables for non NASA crew during the docked portion of the mission when the non-NASA crew are on the ISS.
 
Rationale:  For any mission model that requires additional crew beyond the four NASA crew required for the ISS increment, the CTS will be responsible for carrying the required logistics in the spacecraft to support the additional crewmembers during docked timeframe.  NASA will not have the ability to pre-position supplies on ISS via another cargo launch vehicle due to the required ISS logistics support via CRS, Progress, and ATV/HTV vehicles.  Thus the CTS will be responsible for providing food, water, clothing, and other logistics for non NASA crew.

Ah that appears to be the rationale not the rule. Rationale is the reason(i.e. Sprit of the law vs. letter of the law). For non-NASA crew yes they need to make arangments(bring it with you, buy it from Russia yourself ect.). For NASA crew NASA makes the arragement(i.e. if NASA sends 5 instead of 4).

[erioladastra]

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.

Note, lets be clear.  NASA requires up to 4.  There will not be more than 4 NASA crew on a flight - it would add too much cost and not buy you anything (note that the additional will have to be expeidtion and it would cost $$$ to add more life support than for 6).  People need to stop dreaming of more than 4 (unless 4 + tourist).

[erioladastra]

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.

I think you or someone posted this before.  It is not practical and too complex.  All expedition people have to be trained for EVA so you are not going to save any real training or work there.  If you are going to spend the training/time you are going to want them to stay 6 months.  Note that astronauts who can fly but can't do a 6 month expedition have been told to find other jobs - NASA will NOT be doing temporal or short flights like that. 

[pathfinder_01]

Note, lets be clear.  NASA requires up to 4.  There will not be more than 4 NASA crew on a flight - it would add too much cost and not buy you anything (note that the additional will have to be expeidtion and it would cost $$$ to add more life support than for 6).  People need to stop dreaming of more than 4 (unless 4 + tourist).

The only costs would be extra supplies/lifesupport. NASA would have to buy the flight, not the seats. In other words unless someone else purchase thoose seats NASA has purchased them anyway.

[Prober]

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

Looking into my tea leaves ....... a year from now Commercial Crew is not going to be meeting the milestones.    NASA will need to refocus the program and request from Congress much more funding.

It will become more apparent that Commercial Crew will be pushing toward 2018-2021 timeframe.

[pathfinder_01]

My tea leaves say that a year from now Commercial Crew is not going to be meeting the milestones and much more funding will be requested.

It will become more apparent that Commercial Crew will be pushing toward 2018-2021 timeframe.

Does not work that way. They don't meet milstones agreed to in cciap, they don't get paid. They are not yet under a FAR contract. In the case of the EELV boeing and LM put more money in than DOD did.

[neilh]

My tea leaves say that a year from now Commercial Crew is not going to be meeting the milestones and much more funding will be requested.

It will become more apparent that Commercial Crew will be pushing toward 2018-2021 timeframe.

I'm curious about what your reasoning is.

[BrightLight]

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.

Close enough; see chart below.

...this sets the cost for crew transport for the US segment at < $378M per year with up to 6 crew active on ISS...

I don't see how that obtains, and seems overly optimistic.  To "beat" a Souyz $/seat price of ~$65M/seat (2016-2017) with seven  seats occupied sets an upper bound of ~$450M/flight or ~$900M/yr.  If Ed Mango's estimate is right, it's $80M/seat, presumably with four seats/flight.

edit: correct figure titel

Thank you for the graph, it is clear and understandable.  With these costs, I can now understand how SNC was able to say that they can beat the Soyuz price per seat and still make a profit.
I still contend that the purpose of commercial crew is to improve the utilization of the ISS. It also gets NASA out of the taxi business and into exploration.

[joek]

I still contend that the purpose of commercial crew is to improve the utilization of the ISS. It also gets NASA out of the taxi business and into exploration.

Agree.  I also believe that at least in the context of ISS, looking at this as a competition between CTS and Soyuz $/seat, or purely on a $/seat basis, is an extremely limited view.  An alternative metric is $/hr of usable crew time (time available for supporting research)...

A. Given:
1. ISS fixed cost of $3B/yr.
2. USOS crew of 3 provides ~35hrs of usable hrs/wk (per GAO).
3. Soyuz price $60M/seat (2015 pricing, per GAO).
4. Crew consumables 4.7kg/day/person (per NASA).
5. Crew cargo transportation $60K/kg (CRS pricing).
6. THEN ISS usable crew time cost is ~$1.8M/hr

B. Assuming:
1. An additional crew member for a total of 4.
2. Additional crew member adds 25% usable crew time(~44hrs total, conservative).
3. CTS price $80M/seat (+25% vs. Soyuz A.3).
4. THEN ISS usable crew time cost is ~$1.5M/hr (-16%).

In short, in the context of ISS, $/seat for crew transportation is pretty much in the noise when compared to $/hr of usable crew time.

[BrightLight]

I still contend that the purpose of commercial crew is to improve the utilization of the ISS. It also gets NASA out of the taxi business and into exploration.

Agree.  I also believe that at least in the context of ISS, looking at this as a competition between CTS and Soyuz $/seat, or purely on a $/seat basis, is an extremely limited view.  An alternative metric is $/hr of usable crew time (time available for supporting research)...

A. Given:
1. ISS fixed cost of $3B/yr.
2. USOS crew of 3 provides ~35hrs of usable hrs/wk (per GAO).
3. Soyuz price $60M/seat (2015 pricing, per GAO).
4. Crew consumables 4.7kg/day/person (per NASA).
5. Crew cargo transportation $60K/kg (CRS pricing).
6. THEN ISS usable crew time cost is ~$1.8M/hr

B. Assuming:
1. An additional crew member for a total of 4.
2. Additional crew member adds 25% usable crew time(~44hrs total, conservative).
3. CTS price $80M/seat (+25% vs. Soyuz A.3).
4. THEN ISS usable crew time cost is ~$1.5M/hr (-16%).

In short, in the context of ISS, $/seat for crew transportation is pretty much in the noise when compared to $/hr of usable crew time.

That's the way to show a point - well done, my hats off to you.  I don't know if these numbers will hold but this is a rational baseline to understand the business side of the commercial crew argument.

[QuantumG]

That's the way to show a point - well done, my hats off to you.  I don't know if these numbers will hold but this is a rational baseline to understand the business side of the commercial crew argument.

Second. I would have just said "crews no longer have to go to Russia".

[spacejulien]

I still contend that the purpose of commercial crew is to improve the utilization of the ISS. It also gets NASA out of the taxi business and into exploration.

Agree.  I also believe that at least in the context of ISS, looking at this as a competition between CTS and Soyuz $/seat, or purely on a $/seat basis, is an extremely limited view.  An alternative metric is $/hr of usable crew time (time available for supporting research)...

A. Given:
1. ISS fixed cost of $3B/yr.
2. USOS crew of 3 provides ~35hrs of usable hrs/wk (per GAO).
3. Soyuz price $60M/seat (2015 pricing, per GAO).
4. Crew consumables 4.7kg/day/person (per NASA).
5. Crew cargo transportation $60K/kg (CRS pricing).
6. THEN ISS usable crew time cost is ~$1.8M/hr

B. Assuming:
1. An additional crew member for a total of 4.
2. Additional crew member adds 25% usable crew time(~44hrs total, conservative).
3. CTS price $80M/seat (+25% vs. Soyuz A.3).
4. THEN ISS usable crew time cost is ~$1.5M/hr (-16%).

In short, in the context of ISS, $/seat for crew transportation is pretty much in the noise when compared to $/hr of usable crew time.

Great post! Good assessment! Fully seconded!

[Nomadd]

 There seems to be a lot of people assuming Soyuz won't compete. They don't charge what it takes to launch customers. They charge what the market bears. It doesn't cost $120 million to launch a Soyuz. They could cut their prices in half and still make a profit.

 And, I would count on anything from the GAO as "given"

[jtrame]

There seems to be a lot of people assuming Soyuz won't compete. They don't charge what it takes to launch customers. They charge what the market bears. It doesn't cost $120 million to launch a Soyuz. They could cut their prices in half and still make a profit.

 And, I would count on anything from the GAO as "given"

Then I would assume policy, Congress, National pride, or some combination of the above to factor in.