Commercial Crew Downselect

[arachnitect]

And while SNC may have international partners, the discussion is about their useable technologies, not funding.

Are the international partners providing any funding? I thought it was just information sharing agreements.

[Robert Thompson]

Boeing, connected. SpaceX, demonstrated.

[Geron]

I voted SpaceX. They are far ahead, they want to lower prices. They want to go to mars. Giving them the most money possible is most prudent. Dreamchaser is great but more complicated and more expensive.

Normally a single provider would mean higher  prices. This would bother me if the proceeds are paid out in dividends. When the proceeds go towards advancing SpaceX mars plans and commercial space in general, I want them to get as much funding as possible. I trust them not to waste it.

I know.... All eggs in one basket, but if successful 4 billion to SpaceX could pay for dev of BFr and landers!

[Star One]

I voted SpaceX. They are far ahead, they want to lower prices. They want to go to mars. Giving them the most money possible is most prudent. Dreamchaser is great but more complicated and more expensive.

Normally a single provider would mean higher  prices. This would bother me if the proceeds are paid out in dividends. When the proceeds go towards advancing SpaceX mars plans and commercial space in general, I want them to get as much funding as possible. I trust them not to waste it.

I know.... All eggs in one basket, but if successful 4 billion to SpaceX could pay for dev of BFr and landers!

This money is not to facilitate Space X's future plans but to obtain independent access to ISS.

[Lar]

This money is not to facilitate Space X's future plans but to obtain independent access to ISS.

SpaceX's future plans are facilitated by winning contracts, developing the launchers, capsules, and infrastructure to execute sucessfully, and making money on the contracts... that money can then be used for other things.

But it's not just the net profit, some of the stuff done will have dual use. So it is win/win

[SoundForesight]

And while SNC may have international partners, the discussion is about their useable technologies, not funding.

Are the international partners providing any funding? I thought it was just information sharing agreements.

That's what I was trying to say. There had been speculation elsewhere in the forums, that SNC could continue without NASA funding because they had ESA, DLR & JAXA as partners.

But, at the SNC press conference on 1/8/2014, where the ESA/SNC cooperation was announced:
(1) Sirangelo said relationships are frameworks for future cooperation--just the beginning.

(2) After DC is certified, future upgrades could incorporate the technologies of partners. For the time being, only ideas are being discussed--projects are in the future.

(3) ESA agreement was a technical understanding, covering 2014 & beginning of 2015. ESA representative said they were "open to exploring the future".

(4) The DLR representative said Germany was interested in ESA spending more on R&D based on previous ISS technologies, but other EU countries were reticent--so no near-term funding from ESA.



And in this Sirangelo interview (http://www.americaspace.com/?p=66395), he notes that...
(1) The foreign agencies could use DC for their missions to ISS (thus providing some future SNC funding).

(2) There are possibilities for modified-DC missions that are non-ISS in the future, but the implication is that these would be much further down the road, and would not be funding that helps now.

(3) DC on non-US launch vehicles would be unmanned--so secondary kind of missions.

It seems like these same comments could also apply to Boeing & SpaceX in the future.


Regarding continuing on without NASA funding, Sirangelo has been hedging--saying that it depends on a future analysis of the business case. There's a limit to R&D budgets for self funding--so it sure seems like each company needs the NASA contract to continue. Any other funding would seem to be too far in the future to help keep the programs running at current employment levels.

[Star One]

This money is not to facilitate Space X's future plans but to obtain independent access to ISS.

SpaceX's future plans are facilitated by winning contracts, developing the launchers, capsules, and infrastructure to execute sucessfully, and making money on the contracts... that money can then be used for other things.

But it's not just the net profit, some of the stuff done will have dual use. So it is win/win

But the OP was talking as if there should be a single award purely so that Space X had more money to facilitate their plans for things such as reaching Mars. To my mind that's not a reason for making an award especially a singular one. Such a singular award defeats the entire objective of injecting competition into the market.

[Darkseraph]

Whomever gets picked, I think we can write off the ~$20 million per passenger cost that's been much repeated in the near term at least. NASA probably won't be sending up 7 passengers at a time, although they might put a small amount of cargo up there. I highly doubt crewed missions will cost the same as the Dragon cargo missions either.


I'm willing to bet, at least for the initial missions we're in the ballpark of ~$50 million per crew member, minimum. Which is not terrible at all, that's still cheaper than what Russia wants to charge, and cheaper than Shuttle if you ignore the massive cargo capacity of the Shuttle.

[MP99]

Whomever gets picked, I think we can write off the ~$20 million per passenger cost that's been much repeated in the near term at least. NASA probably won't be sending up 7 passengers at a time, although they might put a small amount of cargo up there. I highly doubt crewed missions will cost the same as the Dragon cargo missions either.


I'm willing to bet, at least for the initial missions we're in the ballpark of ~$50 million per crew member, minimum. Which is not terrible at all, that's still cheaper than what Russia wants to charge, and cheaper than Shuttle if you ignore the massive cargo capacity of the Shuttle.

$20m per passenger x 7 = $140m per flight. About what NASA are paying for CRS flights today.

$140m / 4 = $35m each.

If you're working from $140m / 3, remember that NASA wants to increase ISS crew size from six to seven as part of justification for the programme. That fourth Western crew member should be able to get a lot more science done, since the crew of three are already handling all the maintenance, as well as some science.

But, agree, cost based on flying seven was always a bit of a PR smokescreen.

Cheers, Martin

[Darkseraph]

Whomever gets picked, I think we can write off the ~$20 million per passenger cost that's been much repeated in the near term at least. NASA probably won't be sending up 7 passengers at a time, although they might put a small amount of cargo up there. I highly doubt crewed missions will cost the same as the Dragon cargo missions either.


I'm willing to bet, at least for the initial missions we're in the ballpark of ~$50 million per crew member, minimum. Which is not terrible at all, that's still cheaper than what Russia wants to charge, and cheaper than Shuttle if you ignore the massive cargo capacity of the Shuttle.

$20m per passenger x 7 = $140m per flight. About what NASA are paying for CRS flights today.

$140m / 4 = $35m each.

If you're working from $140m / 3, remember that NASA wants to increase ISS crew size from six to seven as part of justification for the programme. That fourth Western crew member should be able to get a lot more science done, since the crew of three are already handling all the maintenance, as well as some science.

But, agree, cost based on flying seven was always a bit of a PR smokescreen.

Cheers, Martin

I'm working from the assumption they fly 3 initially and it costs at least 10% more than CRS missions, which I don't think is unreasonable. I believe the costs can come down over time as they provide services to other destinations, ISS crew size increases or reusability pans out.

[CraigLieb]

Despite my wish for dream chaser and spacex to come out on top, my cynical side believes in the power of clout so I think that Boeing will come out on top with a full award.  SpaceX may even   get a smaller award because they are more efficient. In this case, they will be penalized for being better, and the old guard will be rewarded for mediocrity.

Hope I am wrong.
Ideal selection =SpaceX full share and DC half share, Boeing nada.

[Garrett]

Whomever gets picked, I think we can write off the ~$20 million per passenger cost that's been much repeated in the near term at least. NASA probably won't be sending up 7 passengers at a time, although they might put a small amount of cargo up there. I highly doubt crewed missions will cost the same as the Dragon cargo missions either.


I'm willing to bet, at least for the initial missions we're in the ballpark of ~$50 million per crew member, minimum. Which is not terrible at all, that's still cheaper than what Russia wants to charge, and cheaper than Shuttle if you ignore the massive cargo capacity of the Shuttle.

$20m per passenger x 7 = $140m per flight. About what NASA are paying for CRS flights today.

$140m / 4 = $35m each.

If you're working from $140m / 3, remember that NASA wants to increase ISS crew size from six to seven as part of justification for the programme. That fourth Western crew member should be able to get a lot more science done, since the crew of three are already handling all the maintenance, as well as some science.

But, agree, cost based on flying seven was always a bit of a PR smokescreen.

Cheers, Martin

I'm working from the assumption they fly 3 initially and it costs at least 10% more than CRS missions, which I don't think is unreasonable. I believe the costs can come down over time as they provide services to other destinations, ISS crew size increases or reusability pans out.

Reisman said recently that NASA only wants three astronauts (or maybe it was four, too lazy to dig up quote) on Dragon. The rest will be pressurized cargo.
If SpaceX was quoting around $20m for seven astronauts, a first order calculation would result in $47m per passenger for a crew of three.
The real cost per astronaut should be less because SpaceX would also get paid for transporting the extra cargo. Also, my guess is that a crew of 3 + pressurized cargo is cheaper logistically than a crew of 7, further reducing the real cost per astronaut. I think $30 - $35m would be a good ball-park figure.
An apples-to-apples comparison with Russian prices might require knowing if those costs also includes some US cargo transport?

Edit: woah! this was my 1000'th post on NSF! I think that's an accomplishment of sorts, and yet I'll probably refrain from putting it on my CV or telling the wifey
I'll just have a beer instead

[Lar]

Whomever gets picked, I think we can write off the ~$20 million per passenger cost that's been much repeated in the near term at least. NASA probably won't be sending up 7 passengers at a time, although they might put a small amount of cargo up there. I highly doubt crewed missions will cost the same as the Dragon cargo missions either.


I'm willing to bet, at least for the initial missions we're in the ballpark of ~$50 million per crew member, minimum. Which is not terrible at all, that's still cheaper than what Russia wants to charge, and cheaper than Shuttle if you ignore the massive cargo capacity of the Shuttle.

I think it's great you're in this thread, we can count on you to consistently take the most pessimistic view of everything. That keeps fan boys grounded. But there's a chance you're too pessimistic, isn't there?.

[a_langwich]

Whomever gets picked, I think we can write off the ~$20 million per passenger cost that's been much repeated in the near term at least. NASA probably won't be sending up 7 passengers at a time, although they might put a small amount of cargo up there. I highly doubt crewed missions will cost the same as the Dragon cargo missions either.


I'm willing to bet, at least for the initial missions we're in the ballpark of ~$50 million per crew member, minimum. Which is not terrible at all, that's still cheaper than what Russia wants to charge, and cheaper than Shuttle if you ignore the massive cargo capacity of the Shuttle.

I think it's great you're in this thread, we can count on you to consistently take the most pessimistic view of everything. That keeps fan boys grounded. But there's a chance you're too pessimistic, isn't there?.

Does that really sound too pessimistic?  An Atlas V 401 launch would cost at least $120 million (maybe ULA was kind enough to offer block-buy terms), and that's without considering the cost of a capsule/winged thing on top.  Add those, and a custom-produced two-engine Centaur with custom-produced RL-10A4-2 engines, and $150 million would still be very firmly in the range of believable.  Even optimistic.  Put 3 astronauts inside, and you've got $50 million per crew.  Sounds pretty accurate to me, to a first-order approximation.

Aren't Dragon cargo flights about $120 million?  That would be $40 million for 3.  Now add in all the requirements for people, the logistics and extra workers involved, any extra requirements leveed by NASA; I don't think it's unreasonable to think $140-150 million even for SpaceX.

That's with three people; NASA likely hopes to go with four, and of course that makes the numbers look better.  But it won't get anywhere near $20 million.

[Darkseraph]

Whomever gets picked, I think we can write off the ~$20 million per passenger cost that's been much repeated in the near term at least. NASA probably won't be sending up 7 passengers at a time, although they might put a small amount of cargo up there. I highly doubt crewed missions will cost the same as the Dragon cargo missions either.


I'm willing to bet, at least for the initial missions we're in the ballpark of ~$50 million per crew member, minimum. Which is not terrible at all, that's still cheaper than what Russia wants to charge, and cheaper than Shuttle if you ignore the massive cargo capacity of the Shuttle.

I think it's great you're in this thread, we can count on you to consistently take the most pessimistic view of everything. That keeps fan boys grounded. But there's a chance you're too pessimistic, isn't there?.

I don't think that's pessimistic, I think its a pretty good guess for what the initial cost will be. Its still better than Soyuz and there's the possibility it will come down if resuse pans out for Falcon 9. I'd love to be wrong.

[arachnitect]

NASA wants 4 seats.

I'm expecting $40-60M per seat.

[Coastal Ron]

Reisman said recently that NASA only wants three astronauts (or maybe it was four, too lazy to dig up quote) on Dragon.

The number for all the Commercial Crew vehicles is four, since NASA wants the ability to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7.

If SpaceX was quoting around $20m for seven astronauts, a first order calculation would result in $47m per passenger for a crew of three.

When transporting a complement of 4 passengers, if SpaceX keeps to the $140M/flight number that would make it $35M/seat.

The real cost per astronaut should be less because SpaceX would also get paid for transporting the extra cargo.

Depends on how the contract is bid.  If the SpaceX is just providing the spacecraft with four seats and the ability to carry cargo (i.e. the car rental model), it wouldn't matter what NASA sends up - the price would be the same no matter how much "carry-on" the passengers take.

Also, my guess is that a crew of 3 + pressurized cargo is cheaper logistically than a crew of 7, further reducing the real cost per astronaut. I think $30 - $35m would be a good ball-park figure.
An apples-to-apples comparison with Russian prices might require knowing if those costs also includes some US cargo transport?

Once Commercial Crew becomes operational there are too many variables to make any comparisons to what the status quo is today.  Suffice it to say though that overall costs to support a human in space should be going down, which is the direction we need to go if we plan to expand humanity out into space.

Edit: woah! this was my 1000'th post on NSF!

Congrats!

[Rocket Science]

The cost of US space autonomy..? Priceless...

[Nomadd]

 Is there a firm reason that everyone is assuming there will be no short term passengers? No sending up three or four replacements plus two or three specialists for the days the crews overlap?

[guckyfan]

Is there a firm reason that everyone is assuming there will be no short term passengers? No sending up three or four replacements plus two or three specialists for the days the crews overlap?

Garrett Reisman made a statement in his latest presentation. He not only stated that NASA requests four passengers only, but he thinks, that adding scientists doing their own research for short trips would enhance scientific value of ISS research a lot. He used an expression for NASA astronauts that could be considered denigrating in that context. At least this is what I gathered. English is not my first language.