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

[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.

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.

I believe and hope that one of the metrics for  commercial crew is to reduce the "standing army" of support crew to maintain the vehicle, that was one of the conclusions about how to make the HL-20 viable - reduce M&O costs.

[Prober]

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

we had all in one with the Shuttle.  Wasn't the case for CC was that it could be done faster and cheaper?
Also that several spacecraft companies would be needed?

[spectre9]

All spacecraft are not created equal.

I know NASA says that these vehicles will never go BEO but that's just spin.

They want commercial BEO but have to start with "handing over LEO operations to commercial".

LEO, EML1/2, NEAs, LLO,  and moons of Mars are all legitimate destinations.

This isn't just a short sighted carriage to the ISS. In the future there will be many destinations and people will come from all over the world to ride on US built spacecraft.

[Robotbeat]

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

At the end of CCiCAP, if many of the optional milestones have been done, there will be at least two independent manned spacecraft already developed. For manned spacecraft (and because the launch vehicles are essentially going to be used either way and thus only have a per-launch cost added and not an added yearly upkeep cost), the development costs usually are the highest part of the cost anyway.

Not only that, but all 3 plan to use a reusable spacecraft. There is no spacecraft production line, but instead just the per-mission costs of refurbishment (which should be at least an of magnitude less than Shuttle since the vehicles are an order of magnitude smaller and use essentially pre-existing--or rather independently existing--launch vehicles, plus whatever benefit you get from "commercialization" and other customers). We built 5 (or 7, if you count Enterprise and OV-106) of them, then shut down the production line. In the same way, since all of the spacecraft are supposed to be reusable, we may build, say, 2-6 of each (especially for DreamChaser, since it is likely to have a roughly similar concept of operations to Shuttle) and then just reuse them. The launch vehicles will be available either way. We are already paying for the initial production capacity. Paying for a few extra vehicles is a bargain compared to the pain of a gap. Heck, supposing we have to use Orion on SLS as a backup to ISS even once, that would cost about as much as 5-10 flights of one of the commercial crew competitors. If we have to use Orion on SLS twice, that would pay for a whole decade of commercial crew flights. Seeing as gaps usually last 2 or 3 years, we're looking at probably 4-6 flights of Orion... which is 2-3 decades of commercial crew. And most likely, that would mean that BEO exploration would be interrupted, which has its own intangible costs.

If you think of the future gap as something that will and can never happen (and discount all the other aspects of competition and bargaining power, etc), then sure, maybe just go for a single provider. But reality is that we will have a future gap if we don't select at least two. We apparently have enough cargo for two cargo providers, so I fail to see how we will not have enough cargo AND crew for two providers!

[edkyle99]

If you think of the future gap as something that will and can never happen (and discount all the other aspects of competition and bargaining power, etc), then sure, maybe just go for a single provider. But reality is that we will have a future gap if we don't select at least two. We apparently have enough cargo for two cargo providers, so I fail to see how we will not have enough cargo AND crew for two providers!

I don't see a human space flight "gap" as a big problem.  The U.S. has endured multiple "gaps" over the years, but NASA still exists, and U.S. astronauts continue to orbit the Earth.  If a system has a problem, the best way to deal with it is to fix it and fly it promptly.  Even if it funds only one commercial crew system, NASA will also have MPCV/Orion, which means that it will possess twice as many systems as any other country. 

 - Ed Kyle

[DaveH62]

If you think of the future gap as something that will and can never happen (and discount all the other aspects of competition and bargaining power, etc), then sure, maybe just go for a single provider. But reality is that we will have a future gap if we don't select at least two. We apparently have enough cargo for two cargo providers, so I fail to see how we will not have enough cargo AND crew for two providers!

I don't see a human space flight "gap" as a big problem.  The U.S. has endured multiple "gaps" over the years, but NASA still exists, and U.S. astronauts continue to orbit the Earth.  If a system has a problem, the best way to deal with it is to fix it and fly it promptly.  Even if it funds only one commercial crew system, NASA will also have MPCV/Orion, which means that it will possess twice as many systems as any other country. 

 - Ed Kyle

How many systems will China have by 2010?   
Since when is our manned gap not an issue? Is it good to depend on a spiraling Soviet era system that seems to be less reliable every year?
Is SLS a viable backup for CTS? We are only building two?three by 2021? Would we just leave our people up there for 18-24 months while the next SLS is prepped?
Sorry Ed, I think you are wrong on this issue. I believe redundancy can help keep prices down, avoid gaps and strategic disasters and increase innovation which is the only long term tool to reduce cost and increase capability. Sorry to rant, but one SLS backup is likely the cost of either commercial systems entire program development cost to NASA. And if the systems (falcon and atlas) are part of a technology platform in use for other services, unlike Shuttle or SLS, overhead is marginal.

[Go4TLI]

If you think of the future gap as something that will and can never happen (and discount all the other aspects of competition and bargaining power, etc), then sure, maybe just go for a single provider. But reality is that we will have a future gap if we don't select at least two. We apparently have enough cargo for two cargo providers, so I fail to see how we will not have enough cargo AND crew for two providers!

I don't see a human space flight "gap" as a big problem.  The U.S. has endured multiple "gaps" over the years, but NASA still exists, and U.S. astronauts continue to orbit the Earth.  If a system has a problem, the best way to deal with it is to fix it and fly it promptly.  Even if it funds only one commercial crew system, NASA will also have MPCV/Orion, which means that it will possess twice as many systems as any other country. 

 - Ed Kyle

Except of course "interests" are trying their best to cancel Orion and SLS.  At the same time they claimed there was a "market" for all these vehicles if government would only fund their development. 

Note how the latter argument has quited considerably while the former has only picked up steam or at most has advocated bare minimum funding to drag out the schedule and increase risk of eventual cancellation. 

[Jason1701]

If you think of the future gap as something that will and can never happen (and discount all the other aspects of competition and bargaining power, etc), then sure, maybe just go for a single provider. But reality is that we will have a future gap if we don't select at least two. We apparently have enough cargo for two cargo providers, so I fail to see how we will not have enough cargo AND crew for two providers!

I don't see a human space flight "gap" as a big problem.  The U.S. has endured multiple "gaps" over the years, but NASA still exists, and U.S. astronauts continue to orbit the Earth.  If a system has a problem, the best way to deal with it is to fix it and fly it promptly.  Even if it funds only one commercial crew system, NASA will also have MPCV/Orion, which means that it will possess twice as many systems as any other country. 

 - Ed Kyle

Except of course "interests" are trying their best to cancel Orion and SLS.  At the same time they claimed there was a "market" for all these vehicles if government would only fund their development. 

Note how the latter argument has quited considerably while the former has only picked up steam or at most has advocated bare minimum funding to drag out the schedule and increase risk of eventual cancellation. 

Incorrect.

1. If the "interests" you refer to are Bolden, Holdren, and Obama, their latest funding request gives 28% as much funding to the multiple commercial providers as to SLS and MPCV. Is that what you call "bare minimum funding?"

2. Bigelow Aerospace, to name one possible alternate market, has built a new factory and is rapidly increasing its workforce after downsizing when commercial crew seemed to be less certain.

[john smith 19]

Just a brief reminder about the schedule of *all* CCiCAP vehicles.

All bidders were asked to give milestones for future years based on 2 funding profiles

1)$400m a year (which I guess is what NASA reckon they can get the Legislature to agree to).
2) Optimal, with the bidders *desired* level of funding available *when* they need it.

The optimal levels for *all* bidders were deemed proprietary and AFAIK all bidders earliest crewed flight dates are based on the *optimum* funding profiles.

So how likely they are to meet that date depends on how close their profile is to $400m (and of course that the Legislature meets even that funding level), neither of which is known.

Something to keep in mind when you read (for example) that Spacex could be doing crewed launch to ISS by 2015, and any similar claims by the other bidders.

None of them are behind schedule. It's that the funding does not match the schedule based on optimal funding.

I like the fact that all bidders have both a "worst case" and an optimal schedule mapped out in case things do turn out better than NASA presumably expects. They are ready to take advantage if there is advantage to be taken.

But that funding can only be fixed by lobbying your local representatives at the appropriate time on the calendar.

[I suppose what I'm trying to say is that people should keep their enthusiasm under control. Or lobby their Congressman/Senator harder if they want more progress]

Just something to keep in mind.

[Lurker Steve]

If you think of the future gap as something that will and can never happen (and discount all the other aspects of competition and bargaining power, etc), then sure, maybe just go for a single provider. But reality is that we will have a future gap if we don't select at least two. We apparently have enough cargo for two cargo providers, so I fail to see how we will not have enough cargo AND crew for two providers!

I don't see a human space flight "gap" as a big problem.  The U.S. has endured multiple "gaps" over the years, but NASA still exists, and U.S. astronauts continue to orbit the Earth.  If a system has a problem, the best way to deal with it is to fix it and fly it promptly.  Even if it funds only one commercial crew system, NASA will also have MPCV/Orion, which means that it will possess twice as many systems as any other country. 

 - Ed Kyle

Except of course "interests" are trying their best to cancel Orion and SLS.  At the same time they claimed there was a "market" for all these vehicles if government would only fund their development. 

Note how the latter argument has quited considerably while the former has only picked up steam or at most has advocated bare minimum funding to drag out the schedule and increase risk of eventual cancellation. 

Incorrect.

1. If the "interests" you refer to are Bolden, Holdren, and Obama, their latest funding request gives 28% as much funding to the multiple commercial providers as to SLS and MPCV. Is that what you call "bare minimum funding?"

2. Bigelow Aerospace, to name one possible alternate market, has built a new factory and is rapidly increasing its workforce after downsizing when commercial crew seemed to be less certain.

It's going to be very expensive for Bigelow to launch and operate his station, IF it ever gets launched. How many customers have exactly committed to using his station and paying for the periodic re-supply and maintenance of the station.

While Bigelow may be a Billionaire today, that won't last very long if he pays for these costs out of his pocket.

[yg1968]

So how likely they are to meet that date depends on how close their profile is to $400m (and of course that the Legislature meets even that funding level), neither of which is known.

The optimal amount might be higher than $400M. I am guessing that optimal means if they got all of the funding that the President requested ($830M per year, I believe).

[edkyle99]

How many systems will China have by 2010?

Perhaps you mean 2020 or 2030?  I'm not aware of any human spacecraft efforts in China beyond Shenzhou.

 
Since when is our manned gap not an issue? Is it good to depend on a spiraling Soviet era system that seems to be less reliable every year?

"Seems" isn't reality.  Soyuz is the world's most reliable rocket in current service, and it boosts the world's most reliable spacecraft in current service.

Is SLS a viable backup for CTS? We are only building two?three by 2021? Would we just leave our people up there for 18-24 months while the next SLS is prepped?

Of course not.  Soyuz could be an option, but solving whatever issue cropped up with commercial crew in a timely fashion would be the better option.  It doesn't have to take two years.

Sorry Ed, I think you are wrong on this issue. I believe redundancy can help keep prices down, avoid gaps and strategic disasters and increase innovation which is the only long term tool to reduce cost and increase capability.

I would be interested in an example of any low-use rate system that illustrates your belief.  The Air Force never had redundant launch capability until EELV, which as a result costs too much.  NASA in all its history has never possessed redundant crew launch capability.  Neither has Russia/USSR or China.  Are all of these countries wrong too?

 - Ed Kyle

[Prober]

So how likely they are to meet that date depends on how close their profile is to $400m (and of course that the Legislature meets even that funding level), neither of which is known.

The optimal amount might be higher than $400M. I am guessing that optimal means if they got all of the funding that the President requested ($830M per year, I believe).

My nagging issue is man rating the Atlas.   Even with two companies using the launcher the numbers don’t add up.   What like 1 Billion to man rate it?

How does a “Commercial Provider” cough up the cash needed "short term" for a "long term" 1-2 launch schedule per year?

[Jim]

My nagging issue is man rating the Atlas.   Even with two companies using the launcher the numbers don’t add up.   What like 1 Billion to man rate it?

That is way off, more closer to 100 million than 1 billion

[pathfinder_01]

My nagging issue is man rating the Atlas.   Even with two companies using the launcher the numbers don’t add up.   What like 1 Billion to man rate it?

It was like 1 billion to man rate Delta for Orion, I heard Atlas is much cheaper and easier to man rate(I just can't find the bleeping numbers cause it was mention in a video around 2010).  This is also the reason why the ccdev don't want to use Delta(Orion due to its mass would be forced to).

[DaveH62]

How many systems will China have by 2010?

Perhaps you mean 2020 or 2030?  I'm not aware of any human spacecraft efforts in China beyond Shenzhou.

 
Since when is our manned gap not an issue? Is it good to depend on a spiraling Soviet era system that seems to be less reliable every year?

"Seems" isn't reality.  Soyuz is the world's most reliable rocket in current service, and it boosts the world's most reliable spacecraft in current service.

Is SLS a viable backup for CTS? We are only building two?three by 2021? Would we just leave our people up there for 18-24 months while the next SLS is prepped?

Of course not.  Soyuz could be an option, but solving whatever issue cropped up with commercial crew in a timely fashion would be the better option.  It doesn't have to take two years.

Sorry Ed, I think you are wrong on this issue. I believe redundancy can help keep prices down, avoid gaps and strategic disasters and increase innovation which is the only long term tool to reduce cost and increase capability.

I would be interested in an example of any low-use rate system that illustrates your belief.  The Air Force never had redundant launch capability until EELV, which as a result costs too much.  NASA in all its history has never possessed redundant crew launch capability.  Neither has Russia/USSR or China.  Are all of these countries wrong too?

 - Ed Kyle

You are right on with China, they have no Shenzou 2 in the works prior to 2020.

The Soyuz has a huge track record, but they had two failures in 2011. It could be a small number sampling issue with a outriding clump of failure, or it could be a sign of deteriorating manufacturing capabilities and controls. Only time will tell. Even if temporary, I believe all three US modules in Orion, CST and Dragon are potentially superior products, but it will could take decades to prove.

The commercial systems would not be entirely low rate systems, even if they are low rate NASA crew launch systems. They rely on heavily utilized commercial rockets, so the manufacturing and logistics teams will be in place anyhow. The capsules in a worse case scenario will only be used for NASA crew, but capsules need much less infrastructure to support and maintain in storage then something like an SRB. I may be wrong, but I don't see a standing army needed for any of the leading commercial providers.

You know the industry better than I do, but I do think the procurement process can improve results for NASA, especially if they can help push good engineering from their vendors. It is my belief that our past procurement policies contributed to high cost, long planning horizons and inflexible planning processes that locked us in to non-optimal design scenarios and non-existent or costly exit strategies.

[joek]

My nagging issue is man rating the Atlas.   Even with two companies using the launcher the numbers don’t add up.   What like 1 Billion to man rate it?

Per ULA's numbers: Atlas $968M, Delta IV $1.77B; includes human rating, pad work and DEC.

[robertross]

My nagging issue is man rating the Atlas.   Even with two companies using the launcher the numbers don’t add up.   What like 1 Billion to man rate it?

Per ULA's numbers: Atlas $968M, Delta IV $1.77B; includes human rating, pad work and DEC.

IMO, Pad work shouldn't be included in HR the Atlas. (Even though at the moment it is pad specific). Being specific in saying HR the Atlas 'system' might be a bit better, but just the Atlas 'rocket' is another (more appropriate) term.

[Prober]

My nagging issue is man rating the Atlas.   Even with two companies using the launcher the numbers don’t add up.   What like 1 Billion to man rate it?

That is way off, more closer to 100 million than 1 billion

Thanks Jim for the calcification.    That makes this workable.  Also makes Orion or Composite Orion very doable outside of the politics.

[pathfinder_01]

Thanks Jim for the calcification.    That makes this workable.  Also makes Orion or Composite Orion very doable outside of the politics.

?

ATK didn't plan to use Atlas or Delta and other than ATK no company has any interest in composite Orion.

Orion on the other hand would have been lifted by Delta, not Atlas (if you went with the EELV instead of SLS). CCDEV just does not help much there since they are using Atlas. Only Atlas Heavy would be able to lift Orion but I think there were some other issues (Orion’s mass too close to some structural limit or something) for Atlas. ULA recommended Delta for Orion.