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

[BrightLight]

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.

I'm not even sure that Soyuz will be relevant after a operational commercial crew vehicle(s) become available. Soyuz can only accommodate three crew members and the nominal mission for science will require up to six, Soyuz will not give the USA the mission flexibility we will want within the limited ISS docking constraints for Soyuz. Further if there are two vehicles, say CST-100 and Dragon Rider, Soyuz will have to compete against possible package arraignments to lower overall cost.

[Jim]

Soyuz does not compete.  By law, the NASA has to use US provided services if available.

[jongoff]

Soyuz does not compete.  By law, the NASA has to use US provided services if available.

And even if that law didn't exist, there's still INKSNA, which I imagine it would be very hard for NASA to keep getting waivers to buy Soyuzes once there are domestic alternatives.

~Jon

[Robotbeat]

Plus, there's the balance of trade issue. If you use a domestic provider, your balance of trade is generally better than if you use a foreign one.

The national defense argument is pretty strong, as well. Supporting your geopolitical rival's defense industry is counter-productive.

There's also the jobs argument, which I don't think is just "politics." It really matters if you decrease the unemployment rate slightly by getting a domestic provider versus a foreign one because that means just as many people who won't be unemployed and a drag on the safety nets. Instead, they'll be paying taxes and stimulating the local economy. This is a big issue in places like Florida (and certain counties in Florida) which have a much higher unemployment rate than the national average. This is devastating to the local economy long-term and leads to destruction in supply as well as demand as houses become vacant and stuff starts to decay (and families fall apart, etc). Elites may poo-poo the unemployment situation and say "Oh, we can't afford to do anything about that right now, the economy is recovering and growing already and we need to worry about the deficit now" but it is absolutely essential for the viability of our economy, our national strength, and, honestly, just being a decent place to live (and, by neglecting the employment situation now, we're making the long-term deficit worse). But that's a separate topic. My main point is that I object when people say jobs is just about petty politics. It's a valid consideration.

[erioladastra]

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.

Yes, extra supplies, but also extra training dollars and if you have 8 people on the ISS for any significant time it would mean significant issues with life support and housing.  But NASA will need the additional space on the VV for cargo, especially return type stuff.  Dragon helps but is not enough.  It just doesn't make sense to send up 5 expedition people.  It would be great but the additional costs and constraints don't make it neccessary or practical in the near term.  Maybe down the road, but not in the next 6-10 years.  I would love to see it but just not going ot happen.

[erioladastra]

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.

Based on what?  Space-X and Boeing have done an excellent job of keeping to their milestones, often coming in early.  No doubt there will be issues but that is a baseless comment at this stage. 

[yg1968]

It looks like NASA is thinking of downselecting to only one company when CTS is eventually awarded. See this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29593.msg940097#msg940097

[QuantumG]

And even if that law didn't exist, there's still INKSNA, which I imagine it would be very hard for NASA to keep getting waivers to buy Soyuzes once there are domestic alternatives.

They don't now do they? They get a single INKSNA waiver for "ISS operations" which they'll still be getting after the domestic alternatives are available as NASA has said they need it just to keep the ISS flying.

[edkyle99]

It looks like NASA is thinking of downselecting to only one company when CTS is eventually awarded. See this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29593.msg940097#msg940097

A sign that some fiscal sensibility still exists at NASA. 

 - Ed Kyle

[yg1968]

It looks like NASA is thinking of downselecting to only one company when CTS is eventually awarded. See this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29593.msg940097#msg940097

A sign that some fiscal sensibility still exists at NASA. 

 - Ed Kyle

Assuming that it is actually cheaper to have only one company providing services (which I doubt). I wonder if this was also part of the agreement with Wolf.

[Lurker Steve]

It looks like NASA is thinking of downselecting to only one company when CTS is eventually awarded. See this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29593.msg940097#msg940097

A sign that some fiscal sensibility still exists at NASA. 

 - Ed Kyle

Assuming that it is actually cheaper to have only one company providing services (which I doubt). I wonder if this was also part of the agreement with Wolf.

Given the current volume of flights, and no other destinations in LEO, it has to be cheaper. At least NASA would only have to cover 1 companies operations overhead and not 2 or 3.

[yg1968]

If you combine crew and cargo contracts (CTS and CRS2), you would have a much better business case even with only one commercial crew flight per year in my opinion.

[Robotbeat]

It looks like NASA is thinking of downselecting to only one company when CTS is eventually awarded. See this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29593.msg940097#msg940097

A sign that some fiscal sensibility still exists at NASA. 

 - Ed Kyle

Hardly. They'll be stuck scrambling when there's another gap. They will have no bargaining power if the provider wants to up the price (no matter what you say, having two providers nominally gives NASA better bargaining power than nominally one).

And there's absolutely no need for it if it is merged at least partially with commercial cargo, where there already are two providers. Or if there are any other uses for the commercial crew vehicles, which there are. Only in the case where there are ZERO other uses of commercial crew vehicles and where all bargaining power differences are ignored and where no possibility for competition is allowed and where NASA insists on never merging commercial crew with commercial cargo would it ever save a dime  to have just one provider.

I know you pride yourself in having an independent opinion just for the sake of having an independent opinion, but it is not justified in this case. No money would be saved by going with just, say, Boeing (the most expensive of the three providers, going simply by launch vehicle requirements since that's the only firm thing we have to judge at this point). And just because Boeing needs 2 flights a year doesn't mean everyone else does, too.

[pathfinder_01]

They don't now do they? They get a single INKSNA waiver for "ISS operations" which they'll still be getting after the domestic alternatives are available as NASA has said they need it just to keep the ISS flying.

They have to get them to allow them to buy Soyuz flights and Soyuz has served as lifeboat for as long as the ISS. To get the waiver you need Congress's aproval.  I am no sure if they need them for ISS operations, but I do know they need them to buy Soyuz too.

[neilh]

Given the current volume of flights, and no other destinations in LEO, it has to be cheaper. At least NASA would only have to cover 1 companies operations overhead and not 2 or 3.

What's the estimated HSF-specific operations overhead per company, and what's the expected increase in price due to lack of competition?

[jongoff]

And even if that law didn't exist, there's still INKSNA, which I imagine it would be very hard for NASA to keep getting waivers to buy Soyuzes once there are domestic alternatives.

They don't now do they? They get a single INKSNA waiver for "ISS operations" which they'll still be getting after the domestic alternatives are available as NASA has said they need it just to keep the ISS flying.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the waivers for Soyuz purchases were independent of the waivers for continuing ISS operations.

~Jon

[edkyle99]

I know you pride yourself in having an independent opinion just for the sake of having an independent opinion, but it is not justified in this case. No money would be saved by going with just, say, Boeing (the most expensive of the three providers, going simply by launch vehicle requirements since that's the only firm thing we have to judge at this point). And just because Boeing needs 2 flights a year doesn't mean everyone else does, too.

It seems crystal clear to me that paying two companies to support two production lines (and employees) for two different spacecraft and flying each at half the rate would cost more, far more, than just paying one company to do the entire job.  Paying that same company to also use the same basic spacecraft production line for cargo would be even better.  It would result in an American version of Russia's spectacularly successful Soyuz/Progress, which should have been the goal all along.

 - Ed Kyle

[BrightLight]

Given the current volume of flights, and no other destinations in LEO, it has to be cheaper. At least NASA would only have to cover 1 companies operations overhead and not 2 or 3.

What's the estimated HSF-specific operations overhead per company, and what's the expected increase in price due to lack of competition?

back to the Horse Race
IMO the cost for operations and maintenance (M&O) will trump the cost to build the spacecraft, the company that shows the best M&O costs (assume safety is equal??) will be the provider/operator that can win  the service contract.

[QuantumG]

They don't now do they? They get a single INKSNA waiver for "ISS operations" which they'll still be getting after the domestic alternatives are available as NASA has said they need it just to keep the ISS flying.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the waivers for Soyuz purchases were independent of the waivers for continuing ISS operations.

I honestly don't know.. but Gerstenmaier seemed to indicate the opposite when he was asked about it in front of Congress. Anyone?

[neilh]

Given the current volume of flights, and no other destinations in LEO, it has to be cheaper. At least NASA would only have to cover 1 companies operations overhead and not 2 or 3.

What's the estimated HSF-specific operations overhead per company, and what's the expected increase in price due to lack of competition?

back to the Horse Race
IMO the cost for operations and maintenance (M&O) will trump the cost to build the spacecraft, the company that shows the best M&O costs (assume safety is equal??) will be the provider/operator that can win  the service contract.

For operations costs over the lifetime of the spacecraft designs, sure, but I have a hard time seeing how the fixed annual HSF-specific costs of operating these spacecraft would be anywhere near the annual cost of development. I wonder how much of the opposition is based in the implicit belief that since Shuttle had huge operating costs and a standing army of thousands of people, clearly commercial spacecraft must also have huge fixed annual operating costs and a gigantic workforce. I'm personally skeptical that will be the case.