Dragon vs Cygnus pricing

[wellesly]

I would like a better explanation regarding the contract prices for orbital and spacex. Cygnus is 2000/2700kg x 8=1.9B. Dragon is 6600kg(50% pressurized) x 12=1.6B. Cygnus have more interior volume, 19/27m3 vs 10m3 for dragon.

So Cygnus's only advantage is more interior volume. But why is it a competition if orbital is much more expensive just for more volume but lesser capability?

What are your thoughts on the prices? And why do you think spacex managed to be cheaper?

[QuantumG]

Orbital asked for more than SpaceX. NASA could only accept or reject the offer. If they rejected, Orbital wouldn't get another chance to bid.

In short: welcome to government procurement.

[meekGee]

Difference in philosophy, too.

OSC is going "yeah! we got a higher bid approved".
SpaceX is going "yeah! we're proving that we're more competitive".

SpaceX is in it for the long game, they realize they won't be the only provider for government contracts, and they'd rather be the cheaper one.

As for the whole by-volume comparison, that's just smoke and mirrors.  Rockets lift tons, not cubic meters. 

[edkyle99]

I would like a better explanation regarding the contract prices for orbital and spacex. Cygnus is 2000/2700kg x 8=1.9B. Dragon is 6600kg(50% pressurized) x 12=1.6B. Cygnus have more interior volume, 19/27m3 vs 10m3 for dragon.

So Cygnus's only advantage is more interior volume. But why is it a competition if orbital is much more expensive just for more volume but lesser capability?

What are your thoughts on the prices? And why do you think spacex managed to be cheaper?

My thought is that I'm not sure I understand, or believe, the claimed 6.6 tonne cargo capacity.  Dragon itself weighs 7.5 tonnes or less fully loaded.  To date Dragon has carried less than 1 tonne cargo up, and less than 1.25 tonnes down.  I understand that the bigger Dragon that will be launched by Falcon 9 v1.1 will haul more payload, but to meet the CRS requirements, Dragon will only have to average 1.67 tonnes per flight. 

I would also point out that just because SpaceX bid a lower price does not mean that it necessarily can provide a cheaper mission.  With EELV it wasn't until the launchers entered service that we began to understand how big the cost overruns were.  Remember that Delta 4 was bid at a lower price than Atlas 5 back then.

 - Ed Kyle

[QuantumG]

Yes, wellesly's math is wrong, but the point is the same.

But why is it a competition ..

It's not. Both were awarded contracts.

[joek]

I would like a better explanation regarding the contract prices for orbital and spacex. Cygnus is 2000/2700kg x 8=1.9B. Dragon is 6600kg(50% pressurized) x 12=1.6B. Cygnus have more interior volume, 19/27m3 vs 10m3 for dragon.

So Cygnus's only advantage is more interior volume. But why is it a competition if orbital is much more expensive just for more volume but lesser capability?

What are your thoughts on the prices? And why do you think spacex managed to be cheaper?

Different customer needs, different capabilities, different points in their evolution, (apparently) different business models, ...  Not to mention that OSC came in late after RpK tanked, which imposed other constraints and pressures.

Consider for example cargo that is volume limited.  Cygnus (enhanced) can carry approximately twice the pressurized volume as Dragon.  Thus, one Cygnus flight can carry a pressurized up-volume approximately equivalent to two Dragon flights.  By that simple calculus, NASA is getting a deal from OSC for that type of cargo as Cygnus is less than twice the price/flight as Dragon.  But it's not that simple...

As for the whole by-volume comparison, that's just smoke and mirrors.  Rockets lift tons, not cubic meters. 

ISS needs are measured in several dimensions; mass is only one (in any direction, pressurized, unpressurized, or disposal).  Dragon has capabilities that Cynus does not; Cygnus has capabilities that Dragon does not.  NASA selected a balance.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Price, or even cost, comparisons are also potentially misleading without a significant flight history. Any direct comparisons now are making the implicit assumption that the vehicle's reliabilities are similar, but we have no way of knowing that yet.

[R7]

I would like a better explanation regarding the contract prices for orbital and spacex. Cygnus is 2000/2700kg x 8=1.9B. Dragon is 6600kg(50% pressurized) x 12=1.6B.

Pointless calculations. Contracts are for 20mt upmass, not fully packed flights. CRS-1/2 flew less than half empty.

[mlindner]

My thought is that I'm not sure I understand, or believe, the claimed 6.6 tonne cargo capacity.

There's a Falcon 9 v1.1 for a reason. I believe one of the reasons was that they couldn't reach max payload capacity on Falcon 9 v1.0.

[IRobot]

I would like a better explanation regarding the contract prices for orbital and spacex. Cygnus is 2000/2700kg x 8=1.9B. Dragon is 6600kg(50% pressurized) x 12=1.6B.

Pointless calculations. Contracts are for 20mt upmass, not fully packed flights. CRS-1/2 flew less than half empty.

It is not pointless. You can start by the price difference, then go to the cargo return capability than Dragon has, then add the 12 flights that Dragon provides, which adds flexibility.

And in the end you might wonder where the 20mt upmass number came from...

[R7]

It is not pointless. You can start by the price difference, then go to the cargo return capability than Dragon has, then add the 12 flights that Dragon provides, which adds flexibility.

It is pointless to calculate theoretical prices when the contract is for 20mt. The valid question is how OSC got $95,000/kg while SpaceX 'only' $80,000/kg. Better salesmen? Another question is why more capable spacecraft sold more flights. Cygnuses (sp?) can't fly half-empty to meet the upmass requirement with less flights.

And in the end you might wonder where the 20mt upmass number came from...

The customer's needs.

[QuantumG]

The valid question is how OSC got $95,000/kg while SpaceX 'only' $80,000/kg. Better salesmen?

No.. the valid answer to this valid question has already been given: Orbital bid more than SpaceX. NASA can only accept the bid, they can't alter it.

[Jim]

As for the whole by-volume comparison, that's just smoke and mirrors.  Rockets lift tons, not cubic meters. 

Wrong, the comparison is logistics vehicles and not rockets.

[Ben the Space Brit]

When you think about it, Cygnus and Dragon perform very different services.  Cygnus can probably carry more pressurised volume per launch up the hill but Dragon has the unpressurised volume and cargo return options.  They are thus likely to get different cargoes earmarked for their specific capabilities.  With those different capabilities come differences in pricing structures.

[LouScheffer]

The valid question is how OSC got $95,000/kg while SpaceX 'only' $80,000/kg.

Another factor is that they wanted (sensibly IMO) two different vendors.  So even if cost is their main object, they need to accept the lowest and the second-lowest bid.  Then once you see how they do in practice (reliability, schedule, cost, etc.), on the next round you give a larger share of the pie to the better bidder.  This strategy has been used for purchasing jet engines for many years.

[jnc]

The valid question is how OSC got $95,000/kg while SpaceX 'only' $80,000/kg.

Actually, I'm far more interested in where the difference in the numbers comes from.

E.g. Is Orbital making more money per flight? Did they include a bigger 'potential problem reserve'? Is SpaceX's cost basis lower? Are they subsidizing (slightly) their NASA flights? (I have no idea, these are just obvious possiblities.)

Cygnuses (sp?)

'Cygni'? :-)

Noel

[Jim]

OSC got what they asked for

[Kabloona]

Actually, I'm far more interested in where the difference in the numbers comes from.

It's not that complicated. Orbital upper management put their heads together and came up with a number that they thought was aggressive, but one that NASA would accept. Obviously they already had SpaceX's numbers as a baseline, and they pushed the envelope a bit.

You'd be surprised how some bid numbers like this come down to upper management making a judgement call as to what the "right number" is...after, of course, all the bottoms-up cost analysis gets done with more rigor. After that, the management team decides how aggressive they want to be with profit margin in order to win the contract.

[Lurker Steve]

Difference in philosophy, too.

OSC is going "yeah! we got a higher bid approved".
SpaceX is going "yeah! we're proving that we're more competitive".

SpaceX is in it for the long game, they realize they won't be the only provider for government contracts, and they'd rather be the cheaper one.

As for the whole by-volume comparison, that's just smoke and mirrors.  Rockets lift tons, not cubic meters. 

Actually, it was SpaceX and Kistler that won the initial round of COTS contracts.

Orbital wasn't in the same RFP as SpaceX. They bid as a replacement for Kistler after they failed. If you want to see Orbital and SpaceX compete on pricing for cargo services, wait until the next round. That one should be fairly interesting, since both vendors will know their cost structures very well, and there is basically no development risk involved.

[Jim]

Difference in philosophy, too.

OSC is going "yeah! we got a higher bid approved".
SpaceX is going "yeah! we're proving that we're more competitive".

SpaceX is in it for the long game, they realize they won't be the only provider for government contracts, and they'd rather be the cheaper one.

As for the whole by-volume comparison, that's just smoke and mirrors.  Rockets lift tons, not cubic meters. 

Actually, it was SpaceX and Kistler that won the initial round of COTS contracts.

Orbital wasn't in the same RFP as SpaceX. They bid as a replacement for Kistler after they failed. If you want to see Orbital and SpaceX compete on pricing for cargo services, wait until the next round. That one should be fairly interesting, since both vendors will know their cost structures very well, and there is basically no development risk involved.

That was COTS.   Spacex and OSC did compete head to head on CRS

[Lurker Steve]

Difference in philosophy, too.

OSC is going "yeah! we got a higher bid approved".
SpaceX is going "yeah! we're proving that we're more competitive".

SpaceX is in it for the long game, they realize they won't be the only provider for government contracts, and they'd rather be the cheaper one.

As for the whole by-volume comparison, that's just smoke and mirrors.  Rockets lift tons, not cubic meters. 

Actually, it was SpaceX and Kistler that won the initial round of COTS contracts.

Orbital wasn't in the same RFP as SpaceX. They bid as a replacement for Kistler after they failed. If you want to see Orbital and SpaceX compete on pricing for cargo services, wait until the next round. That one should be fairly interesting, since both vendors will know their cost structures very well, and there is basically no development risk involved.

That was COTS.   Spacex and OSC did compete head to head on CRS

Not much of a competition if they both received contracts.

[dcporter]

I'm also curious about invisible details like which company is making a better margin off of these prices. However, there's probably no way to know, what with these being private companies and all.

The OP's question has been resoundingly answered: the companies are getting different prices because they submitted contracts with different prices. Exactly nothing more or less than that.

[AnalogMan]

Difference in philosophy, too.

OSC is going "yeah! we got a higher bid approved".
SpaceX is going "yeah! we're proving that we're more competitive".

SpaceX is in it for the long game, they realize they won't be the only provider for government contracts, and they'd rather be the cheaper one.

As for the whole by-volume comparison, that's just smoke and mirrors.  Rockets lift tons, not cubic meters. 

Actually, it was SpaceX and Kistler that won the initial round of COTS contracts.

Orbital wasn't in the same RFP as SpaceX. They bid as a replacement for Kistler after they failed. If you want to see Orbital and SpaceX compete on pricing for cargo services, wait until the next round. That one should be fairly interesting, since both vendors will know their cost structures very well, and there is basically no development risk involved.

That was COTS.   Spacex and OSC did compete head to head on CRS

Not much of a competition if they both received contracts.

The third bidder did not receive a contract.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/01/planetspace-officially-protest-nasas-crs-selection/

[baldusi]

Ok, I think I should first explain a bit about auction theory (which is how bids are structured). You have many ways of doing auctions. First question is how many rounds they have. Basically, how many times each bidder can bid a price. Second, is if the bidding is simultaneous or sequential (from a common information POV).
In the case of COTS, it was a simultaneous single round.
The other issue is which price and quantity that you'll require. You might desire for a fixed amount and take the lowest price to get that amount. Or you might take every amount available under a certain price that you'll define.
You might also take each bid at its price, or pay everybody the price of the most expensive bid that you accept (this might actually make everybody bid lower).
In the case of COTS, the amount (20 tonnes) and amount of accepted offers (two) was fixed. Also, since the service was not that homogenous, each bidder got the price they bid (which is actually in NASA advantage).
What happened is that one of the bidders (Krisler) failed, and thus, a second round of all the bidders that had bid higher then SpaceX and Krisler had to be made. As was expected, they had bid a bit higher (else, they've had got the original prize). But contestant were competing among themselves. This is not scheming or anything of that. Each contestant made their business case, and I'm sure they got a very thin margin (if positive at all).
In the particular case of Orbital, this had great synergies with the rest of their portfolio. The Antares would allow them to keep growing their govt payload business, and the Cygnus would help keep their lines occupied, also earning some economies of scale on their LEOStar and GEOStar bus. Thus, if they "only" got their hurdle rate (the return rate that they use to discount their businesses) they would take it for the rest of the synergies.
In SpaceX they would get their capsule and Falcon 9 a steady cashflow over which to leverage the rest of their business.
Orbital did proposed four concepts, that included unpressurized and even return cargo. Yet NASA chose the big pressurized/disposable version. It was probably the cheapest to develop and unpressurized was already covered by the HTV. Overall, you'll see that the capabilities are very complementary and, given that an awardee failed, NASA didn't got a bad deal. Specially if you look at the per volume cost. Just a 6% over Dragon's. And given its form, it might get better utilization.

Capsule	Dragon	Cygnus
Flights1	13	9
Cost (USD M)	$1,600	$1,900
Volume (Pressurized m³)	130	210.6
Volume (Unressurized m³)	182	0.0
Total Max Weight (Pressurized kg)	43,030	21,500
Total Max Weight (Unpressurized kg)	43,030	0
Total Down Mass (kg)	32,500	0
Total Down Volume (m³)	130	0
Dispose Pressurized Volume (m³)	0	211
Dispose Pressurized Weight (kg)	0	10,800
Dispose Unpressurized Volume (m³)	182	0
Dispose Unpressurized Weight (kg)	33,800	0
Pressurized Volume Up Cost (USD 1000/m³)2	$946.75	$1,002.43
Unpressurized Volume Up Cost (USD 1000/m³)2	$676.25	#N/A
Pressurized Weight Up Cost (USD 1000/kg)23	$80.00	$95.00
Unpressurized Weight Up Cost (USD 1000/kg)23	$80.00	#N/A
Down Mass Cost (USD 1000/kg)3	$80.00	#N/A
Down Volume Cost (USD 1000/m³)	$676.25	#N/A
Disposable Press. Vol. Cost (USD 1000/m³)24	#N/A	?
Disposable Press. Weight. Cost (USD 1000/kg)24	#N/A	?
Disposable Unpress. Vol. Cost (USD 1000/m³)24	?	#N/A
Disposable Unpress. Weight. Cost (USD 1000/kg)24	?	#N/A

Some important notes:
¹ I'm adding the COTS flights that actually reach the ISS since I've been given to understand (from Shotwell's commentaries on SPX-2) that they did got paid and counted towards the CRS minimum amount.
² Assuming full usage (that's not a given for unpressurized and down cargo, at least).
³ Assuming that the minimum 20tonnes of the CRS contract are met.
⁴ I know that SpaceX is paid the same price for down pressurized cargo than for up. But I ignore about the Disposal for Cygnus and Dragon's Trunk. Any info?

[mrmandias]

The valid question is how OSC got $95,000/kg while SpaceX 'only' $80,000/kg.

Another factor is that they wanted (sensibly IMO) two different vendors.  So even if cost is their main object, they need to accept the lowest and the second-lowest bid.  Then once you see how they do in practice (reliability, schedule, cost, etc.), on the next round you give a larger share of the pie to the better bidder.  This strategy has been used for purchasing jet engines for many years.

Yes, this is common commercial practice and I can't fault NASA for doing it.  If SpaceX develops an extremely reliable track record and drops their prices even more, then it would make sense to sole source them if there is a new commercial cargo contract.  If not, not.  But for the very first contract, having two vendors is simply sense and if you have to pay a little extra, you pay a little extra.  Think of it as an insurance cost.

[IRobot]

Volume (Pressurized m³)	130	210.6
Volume (Unressurized m³)	182	0.0
Total Down Mass (kg)	32,500	0
Total Down Volume (m³)	130	0
Dispose Pressurized Volume (m³)	0	211
Dispose Pressurized Weight (kg)	0	10,800
Dispose Unpressurized Volume (m³)	182	0
Dispose Unpressurized Weight (kg)	33,800	0
Pressurized Volume Up Cost (USD 1000/m³)2	$946.75	$1,002.43
Unpressurized Volume Up Cost (USD 1000/m³)2	$676.25	#N/A

Something wrong with your volumes and masses...

[meekGee]

As for the whole by-volume comparison, that's just smoke and mirrors.  Rockets lift tons, not cubic meters. 

Wrong, the comparison is logistics vehicles and not rockets.

Then count both pressurized and unpressurized volume, and again SpaceX delivers more.   What about down-pressurized-volume if you're so into volume?

 

[Lurker Steve]

As for the whole by-volume comparison, that's just smoke and mirrors.  Rockets lift tons, not cubic meters. 

Wrong, the comparison is logistics vehicles and not rockets.

Then count both pressurized and unpressurized volume, and again SpaceX delivers more.   What about down-pressurized-volume if you're so into volume?

 

I really hate counting downmass separately.

How are you going to count the capacity of the Crewed version of the Dragon ? Will you count 4 people up and 4 down for a total capacity of 8 ??

[baldusi]

Volume (Pressurized m³)	130	210.6
Volume (Unressurized m³)	182	0.0
Total Down Mass (kg)	32,500	0
Total Down Volume (m³)	130	0
Dispose Pressurized Volume (m³)	0	211
Dispose Pressurized Weight (kg)	0	10,800
Dispose Unpressurized Volume (m³)	182	0
Dispose Unpressurized Weight (kg)	33,800	0
Pressurized Volume Up Cost (USD 1000/m³)2	$946.75	$1,002.43
Unpressurized Volume Up Cost (USD 1000/m³)2	$676.25	#N/A

Something wrong with your volumes and masses...

Where?
Dragon pressurized is 13 x 10m³ (press), 13 x 14m³ (Unpress) while Cygnus is 4 x 18,9m³ + 5 x 27m³ (press).
Dragon up press is 13 x 3,310kg, same for unpress. Cygnus is 4 * 2,000kg + 5 * 2,700kg.
Dragon return is 13 x 2,500kg (pressurized) and 2,600kg (unpressurized burn). Cygnus is 9 x 1,200kg (press burn).
And the cost is 1.6B and 1.9B respectively. What's that I'm missing?

[Jim]

As for the whole by-volume comparison, that's just smoke and mirrors.  Rockets lift tons, not cubic meters. 

Wrong, the comparison is logistics vehicles and not rockets.

Then count both pressurized and unpressurized volume, and again SpaceX delivers more.   What about down-pressurized-volume if you're so into volume?

 

The bulk of the CRS contract is for pressurized up logistics.

[Zed_Noir]

Slightly OT. In doing research for one of the Inspiration Mars threads. You could fitted the current smaller Cygnus PCM module inside an extended Dragon trunk. So in theory, the Dragon Cargo stack for the next round of the CRS program could lift 37 m³ of pressurized cargo to the ISS. You just need the ISS remote manipulator to extract the PCM from the trunk. If SpaceX wants to compete with Orbital for the pressurized cargo carriage.

[guckyfan]

Slightly OT. In doing research for one of the Inspiration Mars threads. You could fitted the current smaller Cygnus PCM module inside an extended Dragon trunk. So in theory, the Dragon Cargo stack for the next round of the CRS program could lift 37 m³ of pressurized cargo to the ISS. You just need the ISS remote manipulator to extract the PCM from the trunk. If SpaceX wants to compete with Orbital for the pressurized cargo carriage.

Quite unlikely they would purchase a pressurized module. They would prefer to build one themselves. But the method is certainly an option.