Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion

[mkent]

There has been much discussion about the cost of NASA’s commercial crew program: the disparity between the Boeing and SpaceX awards, how it compares to Soyuz seats, etc.  If I may be so bold, for my first post I’d like to start a new thread for cost analyses of this important program.

To start, why is there such a large disparity between the Boeing and SpaceX CCtCap awards?

It was announced on Tuesday that Boeing received a CCtCap award of $4.2 billion and SpaceX received an award of $2.6 billion, a difference of $1.6 billion.  Each award included finishing the development of their respective vehicles, up to $150 million in special studies, an unmanned test flight, a manned test flight, and 2-6 operational flights.  The advertised award amounts were contract maximums and assumed all of the special studies and operational flights would be awarded.

The key to understand the dollar disparity is noting two things: 1) The Boeing CST-100 will launch on an Atlas V while the SpaceX Dragon will launch on a Falcon 9, and 2) SpaceX began Dragon development under the COTS program while Boeing did not.

Boeing has always been launch-vehicle agnostic for its CST-100 vehicle.  Company executives have stated this several times.  They would be happy to fly on the Atlas V, the Delta IV, or the Falcon 9.  They even mentioned flying on the proposed Liberty launch vehicle should it ever become available.

According to a post-award article in the Wall Street Journal, however, NASA wanted two different (American) launch vehicles for the contract.  With Dragon going up on the Falcon 9, CST-100 would have to go up on the Atlas V.

The list price of a Falcon 9 is $61.2 million.  According to ULA Vice President George Sowers, the cost of an Atlas V 401 is $164 million.  The CST-100, however, requires an Atlas V 422.  That configuration has an extra RL-10 upper-stage engine and two solid rocket boosters that the 401 doesn’t have.  With RL-10s said to cost between $10-20 million each, an Atlas V 422 would cost $174-$184 million plus the cost of the two solids.  It is probably conservative to say that the Atlas V 422 costs $125 million more than the Falcon 9.

Eight flights (two test plus six operational) at an extra $125 million each yield an extra $1.0 billion, over half the disparity.  That brings the capsule and development-cost disparity from $1.6 billion down to $600 million.

In addition, SpaceX received nearly $400 million in COTS funding from NASA to develop its cargo Dragon vehicle.  It is essentially an unmanned prototype of its crew Dragon, though some systems differ.  Boeing did not receive a COTS award.  The work SpaceX did under COTS will have to be done by Boeing under CCtCap.

Thus the true disparity between the two contractors is about $200 million – a difference, but not a large one.

Note also that SpaceX received a $1.6 billion CRS contract from NASA as well.  While most of that is going to build and launch the Falcons and Dragons required under that contract, a portion of that was likely used to build up the Dragon assembly line.  Boeing will be performing that work under the CCtCap contract.  However it is impossible for anyone outside of SpaceX to know how much that was, so for this analysis it is ignored.

Any comments?

I hope I have added something valuable to the discussion.

[mkent]

About the cost of CCtCap compared to Soyuz seats...

Each company's CCtCap award is the development cost + $150 million special studies cost + 8 x flight cost.  With two variables for each contractor, we as of yet have no way of determining the true per-seat operational cost of the Dragon or CST-100.

Elon Musk has stated the crew Dragon operational cost will be $140 million / flight, but that was before CCtCap and based on four crew flights per year.  Considering the SpaceX CCtCap award was for significantly more than what Mr. Musk has said development of crew Dragon would be, it is likely NASA's requirements for CCtCap have invalidated the $140 million figure.

While we don't know the operational cost of either vehicle, we do know the overall value of the CCtCap contract -- $6.8 billion.

NASA's latest Soyuz contract with Russia cost $458 million for six seats, or $76.3 million per.  The $6.8 billion CCtCap contract could therefore pay for 89 seats on the Soyuz, assuming the price didn't go up in the meantime.

In addition to the four test flights, the CCtCap contract contains 12 operational flights during which 48 astronauts will travel to the station.

However, that assumes only four seats per flight.  The Dragon and the CST-100 can each carry seven.  NASA prefers to forgo the three extra seats per flight and fill the slots with cargo instead.  Flying seven seats per flight would provide 84 astronauts a trip to the station.  So for 89 Soyuz seats' worth of costs, NASA can fly 84 seats worth of crew and cargo to the station on the CCtCap contract.

Since NASA considers the cargo more valuable than the extra astronauts, one could argue that the value to NASA is more than 84 seats' worth, but I think it's close enough to the Soyuz to call it a wash.

[Coastal Ron]

Welcome to NSF, and bold move making your first post as a new topic!

There has been much discussion about the cost of NASA’s commercial crew program: the disparity between the Boeing and SpaceX awards, how it compares to Soyuz seats, etc.  If I may be so bold, for my first post I’d like to start a new thread for cost analyses of this important program.

To start, why is there such a large disparity between the Boeing and SpaceX CCtCap awards?

We need more information, and part of that should come with the Selection Statement that NASA will release at some point.

The key to understand the dollar disparity is noting two things: 1) The Boeing CST-100 will launch on an Atlas V while the SpaceX Dragon will launch on a Falcon 9, and 2) SpaceX began Dragon development under the COTS program while Boeing did not.

Yes, so likely the two major drivers are:

A.  Cost of the Falcon 9 v1.1 versus the Atlas V 402
B.  Cost of developing the Dragon V2 versus the CST-100

Boeing has always been launch-vehicle agnostic for its CST-100 vehicle.  Company executives have stated this several times.  They would be happy to fly on the Atlas V, the Delta IV, or the Falcon 9.  They even mentioned flying on the proposed Liberty launch vehicle should it ever become available.

While true, they have only been planning to fly on the Atlas V at this point.

According to a post-award article in the Wall Street Journal, however, NASA wanted two different (American) launch vehicles for the contract.  With Dragon going up on the Falcon 9, CST-100 would have to go up on the Atlas V.

Andy Pasztor is far from being a good source of unbiased information, so it's best to disregard what he said and wait for the NASA Selection Statement to understand what the determining factors were.

Eight flights (two test plus six operational) at an extra $125 million each yield an extra $1.0 billion, over half the disparity.  That brings the capsule and development-cost disparity from $1.6 billion down to $600 million.

The total number of flights is 6, performed by some combination of Boeing and SpaceX.  If both are certified then they are guaranteed at least 2ea of the flights, with 2ea flights left to be assigned.

Boeing did not receive a COTS award.  The work SpaceX did under COTS will have to be done by Boeing under CCtCap.

True, but Boeing has received more Commercial Crew funding overall than SpaceX.

I hope I have added something valuable to the discussion.

Good questions, and some good assumptions.  We need more information though, and the Selection Statement will help with that I think.

And again, Welcome to NSF!

[MP99]

From http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34785.0

1.  If you take the complete contract value of all of ULA's backlog missions and the total block buy inclusive of the capability contracts (which many on this forum like to call a subsidy---incorrectly) and divide by the total number of missions you get an average mission price of $225M.  This includes all missions, DOD, NASA commercial, Atlas V 401 thru Delta IV heavy.

2.  Within the current block buy, the total price of an Atlas V 401 (comparable to a Falcon 9 1.1) is $164M.  This number is arrived at by taking the incremental price as spelled out in the contract and adding an allocation of the capability cost.  The allocation was on a simple per mission basis.

3.  The incremental price of an Atlas V 401 is less than $100M.  This is the cost to the USG to increase the block buy from 26 missions to 27.  We are not giving the specific number at this time.

(My bold.)

ISTM that test flights and a 2017 first flight will fall within the timeframe of the ULA block buy (assuming they aren't late).

IIUC, the difference between those $100m and $164m figures is that they are covered by the capability contracts.

A commercial entity buying a flight would have to reimburse a proportion of the capability contract (CC) amount. Thus the $164m figure would apply.

If NASA was buying the flight, I believe they would pay the $100m amount, as the USG has already paid for the CC. (Can someone confirm this, please?)

My guess is that Boeing, as a commercial organisation providing a commercial service, will pay the $164m figure (as the analysis above assumes).

BUT NOTE THAT THIS INCLUDES A CC REPAYMENT TO THE USG. This should be more than $64m per flight, by breaking down Dr Sowers' figures. [**]

Over eight flights, ISTM that the Boeing bid includes ballpark of $500m in repayments, which I understand go straight into the DoD budget.

While the $164m figure is a true reflection of the cost of the launch, the USG has already budgeted the CC element. Congress could increase NASA's budget by $64m per Boeing crew flight AT ABSOLUTELY NO NET INCREASE TO THE TOP LINE BUDGET. It will be repaid straight back.

[**] the amount of a CC repayment should actually decrease slightly for each additional launch purchased ($62m, $60m), since it's a reciprocal function, mathematically. 1/27th, 1/28th, 1/29th, etc.

Also, of course, this analysis (and the OP) assumes block-buy prices continue throughout the period of the eight flights. If the CC continues and the total number of ULA flights goes down post-2017, the size of any repayments might even go up.

###################

Alternative view:- Since NASA is ultimately paying the bill, they only have to pay the "less than $100M" figure, and the analysis in the OP is wrong.

###################

I think we need Jim to settle this one.

Would the cost of the Atlas V flights in Boeing's bid include a repayment towards the Capability Contract?

Cheers, Martin

Edit: oh, and welcome to the forum! Good first post.

Edit 2: tl;dr version: the $164m in the OP analysis includes the capability contract (CC) that the USG is *already paying*. One way or another it should not be counted twice, though the full $164m might have to come out of NASA's budget (which would be to the benefit of the DoD).

[Rocket Science]

The was never going to be a down select without the being Boeing included no matter the cost unless they pulled out on their own....

[HIP2BSQRE]

There has been much discussion about the cost of NASA’s commercial crew program: the disparity between the Boeing and SpaceX awards, how it compares to Soyuz seats, etc.  If I may be so bold, for my first post I’d like to start a new thread for cost analyses of this important program.

To start, why is there such a large disparity between the Boeing and SpaceX CCtCap awards?

It was announced on Tuesday that Boeing received a CCtCap award of $4.2 billion and SpaceX received an award of $2.6 billion, a difference of $1.6 billion.  Each award included finishing the development of their respective vehicles, up to $150 million in special studies, an unmanned test flight, a manned test flight, and 2-6 operational flights.  The advertised award amounts were contract maximums and assumed all of the special studies and operational flights would be awarded.

The key to understand the dollar disparity is noting two things: 1) The Boeing CST-100 will launch on an Atlas V while the SpaceX Dragon will launch on a Falcon 9, and 2) SpaceX began Dragon development under the COTS program while Boeing did not.

Boeing has always been launch-vehicle agnostic for its CST-100 vehicle.  Company executives have stated this several times.  They would be happy to fly on the Atlas V, the Delta IV, or the Falcon 9.  They even mentioned flying on the proposed Liberty launch vehicle should it ever become available.

According to a post-award article in the Wall Street Journal, however, NASA wanted two different (American) launch vehicles for the contract.  With Dragon going up on the Falcon 9, CST-100 would have to go up on the Atlas V.

The list price of a Falcon 9 is $61.2 million.  According to ULA Vice President George Sowers, the cost of an Atlas V 401 is $164 million.  The CST-100, however, requires an Atlas V 422.  That configuration has an extra RL-10 upper-stage engine and two solid rocket boosters that the 401 doesn’t have.  With RL-10s said to cost between $10-20 million each, an Atlas V 422 would cost $174-$184 million plus the cost of the two solids.  It is probably conservative to say that the Atlas V 422 costs $125 million more than the Falcon 9.

Eight flights (two test plus six operational) at an extra $125 million each yield an extra $1.0 billion, over half the disparity.  That brings the capsule and development-cost disparity from $1.6 billion down to $600 million.

In addition, SpaceX received nearly $400 million in COTS funding from NASA to develop its cargo Dragon vehicle.  It is essentially an unmanned prototype of its crew Dragon, though some systems differ.  Boeing did not receive a COTS award.  The work SpaceX did under COTS will have to be done by Boeing under CCtCap.

Thus the true disparity between the two contractors is about $200 million – a difference, but not a large one.

Note also that SpaceX received a $1.6 billion CRS contract from NASA as well.  While most of that is going to build and launch the Falcons and Dragons required under that contract, a portion of that was likely used to build up the Dragon assembly line.  Boeing will be performing that work under the CCtCap contract.  However it is impossible for anyone outside of SpaceX to know how much that was, so for this analysis it is ignored.

Any comments?

I hope I have added something valuable to the discussion.

Another way to think of it:

NASA wants:

2 Testing flights per company = 4 total flights

12 max Total flights/ (6 per company)

4 min total flights/ (2 per company)

Min. number of total flights: 8 flights

Max. total flights: 2+2+6+6 =16 flights

Total contact award: $6.8 billion dollars

That is for an average of 425 millions/flight!

SpaceX got  $2.6 billion for up to 8 flights.  (2 test and 6 for real flights) = $325 million/ flight average

Total number of people =25 people= approx. $110 m/person


Boeing got  up $4.2 billion for up to 8 flights (2 tests and 6 for real flights) =$525 million/flight average
Boeing number of people= 25 people = approx. $168 million/person.

[cartman]

The total number of flights is 6, performed by some combination of Boeing and SpaceX.  If both are certified then they are guaranteed at least 2ea of the flights, with 2ea flights left to be assigned.

They have budgeted 6 flights per company, this was changed in April.

[cartman]

Lets make some back-of-the-envelope calculations:
SpaceX got $1.6B for 12 CRS flights, or $135M/flight. We have also seen a $20M/seat for 7 seats or $140M/flight quote from Elon Musk during the Dragon V2 unveil. So for 8 flights (2 testing and 6 operational), SpaceX should be charging around $1.12B. So that makes it around $60M for the rocket and $80M for the Dragon.

If we add the $150M for the special studies, that leaves $1.33B for development of the vehicle and the pad work that is needed for human astronauts (mousestronauts are already covered!).

Lets say that each Atlas V 422 ends up costing around $150M, and that Boeing charges the same as SpaceX for each CST-100, then 8 flights should cost around $1.85B. If we add the $150M for the special studies, that leaves $2.2B for development of the vehicle, the pad work, the man-rating of the Atlas V and the pad abort in 2016.

So the difference in development cost between the 2 bids is $900M minus the cost of man-rating the Atlas V.

In total, my wild-ass guess is that about $1.2B of the $1.6B difference (or around 70% of the difference) is due to the rocket and the rest is due to the fact that the CST-100 is behind the Dragon V2 in its development (or Boeing charges more per CST-100).

[MP99]

up to 6 flights.  (2 test and 4 for real flights)

Eight. 2 + 6.

Cheers, Martin

[dglow]

up to 6 flights.  (2 test and 4 for real flights)

Eight. 2 + 6.

Cheers, Martin

NASA total: 2 test flights, 4 operational flights minimum, then up to 8 additional operational flights.

Each company will fly three flights (one test + two operational), and as many as four beyond that. At $6.8B NASA is funding as many as 14 flights... plus two operational capsules. 

For SpaceX, $2.6B / 7 flights @ 4 seats per flight = $93M per seat including development costs... though the test flight could go up with less than a full complement of four.


_{corrected per cartman – thanks}

[cartman]

FWIW, the test flight may not fly with a full complement of four; also: SpaceX's award includes an additional F9 launch, the in-flight abort test.

Thats already paid for by the money they got in the previous phase

[joek]

About the cost of CCtCap compared to Soyuz seats ...

Elon Musk has stated the crew Dragon operational cost will be $140 million / flight, but that was before CCtCap and based on four crew flights per year.  Considering the SpaceX CCtCap award was for significantly more than what Mr. Musk has said development of crew Dragon would be, it is likely NASA's requirements for CCtCap have invalidated the $140 million figure.

Likely on the order of twice that $140M/flight.

[butters]

CCtCap is designed in a way that obfuscates the underlying marginal cost of the services rendered. Development and "certification" costs are mixed in, and it orders an uncertain number of flights ranging from a extremely low flight rate to a very low flight rate. The first issue prevents outsiders from understanding the costs, while the second issue prevents Boeing and SpaceX from accurately predicting their costs.

[joek]

CCtCap is designed in a way that obfuscates the underlying marginal cost of the services rendered. Development and "certification" costs are mixed in, and it orders an uncertain number of flights ranging from a extremely low flight rate to a very low flight rate. The first issue prevents outsiders from understanding the costs, while the second issue prevents Boeing and SpaceX from accurately predicting their costs.

The latter is not a CCtCap-specific contract design or artifact.  It is a standard FAR IDIQ (Federal Acquisition Regulation, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity) contract artifact, and is arguably the only rational framing for the CCtCap post-certification missions.  It is intended to allow the government to predict costs; it does not prevent suppliers from predicting their costs, although it makes it more difficult as the prices under such contracts are generally NTE (not to exceed), which as a rule means everyone bids based on worst case (highest expected cost given lowest award quantity).  Which does not mean that will be the price the government will pay, as a number of the post-certification missions may be competitively bid between SpaceX and Boeing and, all other things equal, the lowest bid for a given mission will win the award.

[sdsds]

Recognizing it is hypothetical, but assuming for the moment both providers conduct successful certification flights, are two flights from each then purchased at a pre-negotiated price, and only at that point are additional flights purchasable at potentially lower price points?

[joek]

Recognizing it is hypothetical, but assuming for the moment both providers conduct successful certification flights, are two flights from each then purchased at a pre-negotiated price, and only at that point are additional flights purchasable at potentially lower price points?

Short answer: No.  Only guarantee is that at least two PCM's (post-certification missions) will be awarded to each; the timing of those awards is TBD and at NASA's discretion.  The not-to-exceed (NTE) price for those (and all subsequent PCM's) are pre-negotiated depending on year of order and quantity ordered in that year.

The only substantive difference between those two guaranteed PCM's and the others is that they may be ordered prior to completion of certification.*  However, the ATP (authority to proceed) for such missions will be issued only after completion of certification.  Subsequent PCM's may be ordered (and subsequent task orders and ATP issued) only after certification is completed.


* edit: e.g., For each CCtCap awardee (Boeing and SpaceX) NASA could conceivable order the two guaranteed PCM's at the earliest opportunity (today?) at the pre-negotiated price.  Award of the other PCM's would have to wait until certification (2017 or whenever).

[butters]

The latter is not a CCtCap-specific contract design or artifact.  It is a standard FAR IDIQ (Federal Acquisition Regulation, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity) contract artifact, and is arguably the only rational framing for the CCtCap post-certification missions.  It is intended to allow the government to predict costs; it does not prevent suppliers from predicting their costs, although it makes it more difficult as the prices under such contracts are generally NTE (not to exceed), which as a rule means everyone bids based on worst case (highest expected cost given lowest award quantity).  Which does not mean that will be the price the government will pay, as a number of the post-certification missions may be competitively bid between SpaceX and Boeing and, all other things equal, the lowest bid for a given mission will win the award.

Got it, so the government uses this idiotic IDIQ so they can accurately predict how much they will pay by agreeing to overpay for services they subsequently deem unnecessary. Like buying an excessively large data plan for your cell phone so that you never have to worry about overage fees. You just pay a predictably excessive price every month. Makes sense.

[joek]

Got it, so the government uses this idiotic IDIQ so they can accurately predict how much they will pay by agreeing to overpay for services they subsequently deem unnecessary. Like buying an excessively large data plan for your cell phone so that you never have to worry about overage fees. You just pay a predictably excessive price every month. Makes sense.

Close, but not quite.  CCtCap requires a commitment from all awardees to a not to exceed (NTE) price for a given order quantity in a given year.  When it comes time for an award, NASA asks those CCtCap awardees to bid for the mission.  CCtCap awardees are required to bid, and while their price may not be higher than the previously contracted NTE, it may be lower.

[sdsds]

The not-to-exceed (NTE) [prices] are pre-negotiated depending on year of order and quantity ordered in that year.

When it comes time for an award, NASA asks those CCtCap awardees to bid for the mission.  CCtCap awardees are required to bid, and while their price may not be higher than the previously contracted NTE, it may be lower.

And to be clear, Boeing and SpaceX have different contracts and different NTE price schedules. And since they would be providing the same service those awards would have to go to the vendor whose bid price is lowest. So either Boeing would bid less than its NTE price, or the award(s) would go to SpaceX?

[joek]

And to be clear, Boeing and SpaceX have different contracts and different NTE price schedules. And since they would be providing the same service those awards would have to go to the vendor whose bid price is lowest. So either Boeing would bid less than its NTE price, or the award(s) would go to SpaceX?

Yes--all other things equal--the award would go to SpaceX (assuming they are low bid).  Factors that might skew the award to other than low bid for a particular mission are ...

H.8 POST CERTIFICATION MISSION TASK ORDERING PROCEDURES (APPLICABLE TO CLIN 002)

(a)   Requirements for Competition.
In the event that two (2) or more commercial crew transportation contracts are awarded, a fair opportunity to be considered for task orders issued under this contract based upon the specific task order requirements will be provided, unless the Contracting Officer determines that one of the following apply:

(1)   The Agency need is of such urgency that competing the requirements among Contractors would result in unacceptable delays;

(2)   Only one Contractor is capable of providing the service at the level of quality required because the service ordered is unique or highly specialized;

(3)   The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order issued under the contract, provided that all Contractors were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order; or

(4)   It is necessary to place an order to satisfy the minimum guarantee per clause B.4, Post Certification Missions (IDIQ) (CLIN 002).

[su27k]

In http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/41924nasa-commercial-crew-awards-leave-unanswered-questions, Jeff Foust made some interesting guesses on the cost breakdown:

“Our plan to execute the contracts is per the proposed budget as outlined in the 2015 NASA request,” Lueders said. That budget proposal requested $848.3 million for commercial crew in 2015, and a total of nearly $3.42 billion for the program from 2015 through 2019.

However, a Sept. 18 report by the NASA Office of Inspector General on the ISS program noted that the agency has assumed a per-seat price for commercial crew missions of $70.7 million, the same as it will pay for a Soyuz seat in 2016. Twelve flights with four astronauts per flight results in a total transportation cost of nearly $3.4 billion. That, coupled with the commercial crew development costs in the budget proposal, would be consistent with the $6.8 billion combined value of the CCtCap contracts.

Of course the problem with this idea is how can the two companies' total bid price just happen to be equal to the total CC budget plus 48 seats at Soyuz seat price.

[Steven Pietrobon]

In http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/41924nasa-commercial-crew-awards-leave-unanswered-questions, Jeff Foust made some interesting guesses on the cost breakdown:

“Our plan to execute the contracts is per the proposed budget as outlined in the 2015 NASA request,” Lueders said. That budget proposal requested $848.3 million for commercial crew in 2015, and a total of nearly $3.42 billion for the program from 2015 through 2019.

From below, that's $3415M for development, but its going to cost $6800M. That leaves $3385 for operations. Here are the numbers from the FY2015 budget request. Unfortunately, NASA doesn't separate cargo and crew costs.

         2015   2016   2017   2018   2019   Total
-------------------------------------------------
CCDEV   848.3  872.3  791.7  730.9  172.0  3415.2
ISSCC  1530.7 1602.4 1617.0 1630.9 2159.1  8540.1

CCDEV = Commercial Crew Development
ISSCC = International Space Station Crew and Cargo

Obviously, there are crew launch costs in 2018 and 2019. The number in 2018 would make sense for six crew, but then there is a $528M jump in 2019. For two extra crew, that is $264M per crew member (including the cargo to support that crew). It also works out that for six crew at this price, 6x264M = $1584M, which is close to the preceding years amount. That includes the cargo to support that crew as well.

If we take that $3385 value for 12x4 = 48 crew, that works out to $70.5M per crew member. That's close to the Soyuz price, but there appears to be a lot of additional overhead on top of that NASA pays for as well. However, if NASA pays the full amount of $6800M for 24 crew (which is eight crew a year for three years, the expected period of the contract, then that works out to $141M per crew member, not including development costs.

[mkent]

The Sierra Nevada press release accompanying their protest of the CCtCap award gives us a glimpse of their proposed price: $3.3 billion.  With this we can now make comparisons among all three entrants.
The funding received for COTS, CCDEV, CCiCap, and proposed for CCtCap is as follows:




COTS   CCDEV  CCiCap  CCtCap     Total
  $0  $125.6  $212.5  $3,300  $3,638.1  Sierra Nevada
$396   $75.0  $440.0  $2,600  $3,511.0  SpaceX
  $0  $130.9  $460.0  $4,200  $4,790.9  Boeing


My first post above showed that using the Atlas V instead of the Falcon 9 added about $1 billion to the cost of the Boeing and Sierra Nevada proposals.  If we reduce those two totals by that amount, we can get a better comparison of the CST-100, Dragon, and DreamChaser vehicles without the Falcon 9 and Atlas V obscuring the respective prices.  Those figures would then be $2,638.1 million (Sierra Nevada), $3,511.0 million (SpaceX), and $3,790.9 million (Boeing).

That would put the cost of completing the DreamChaser at $872.9 million less than the crew Dragon.  My question is: Is this credible?

edit/Lar: format fix using teletype to get cols to line up

[su27k]

That would put the cost of completing the DreamChaser at $872.9 million less than the crew Dragon.  My question is: Is this credible?

But it's not just the cost of completing DC, it included the cost of 6 operational flights, no? Since SpaceX is bidding a new Dragon V2 for every mission while DC can be reused, this may explain why their bid is higher than SNC in your calculation.

[terryy]

Maybe we should look at the number of operational flights from NASA's point of view. With a crew rotation of 6 months and three years of ISS operations (currently) left that means they only need a total of 6 crew flights from 2018 through 2020.

So the way I read the flight split is if one provider falls flat on their face then the other provider gets all 6 flights, the maximum.  But if both providers do get certified then each will be guaranteed at least 2 flights and they split the remaining 2 flights depending on schedule and cost.

But the bottom line is I think there will only be 6 operational flights from Boeing and SpaceX combined  through 2020.

[Jcc]

My understanding is that of the 12 operational flights, 2 each are guaranteed to Boeing and SpaceX, and 8 can be competed. So, if SpaceX wins most of those, their award will be more than the 2.6B announced and Boeing's will be less than the total announced, resulting in a savings to NASA.

[Zed_Noir]

My understanding is that of the 12 operational flights, 2 each are guaranteed to Boeing and SpaceX, and 8 can be competed. So, if SpaceX wins most of those, their award will be more than the 2.6B announced and Boeing's will be less than the total announced, resulting in a savings to NASA.

AIUI the CC contracts are for doing the maximum number of launches. One unmanned demo, one manned demo, two certification & four optional post certification flights for a total of 8 flights. So the CC providers could do 8 to 16 flights total or 6 to 12 operational flights.

So $2.6B is what SpaceX will get if they do 8 flights. Less flights means less money.

IMO NASA will only do 8 flights before the initial CC program is ended and a follow-on program started with better understanding of the CC acquisition costs from the providers.

[Jcc]

My understanding is that of the 12 operational flights, 2 each are guaranteed to Boeing and SpaceX, and 8 can be competed. So, if SpaceX wins most of those, their award will be more than the 2.6B announced and Boeing's will be less than the total announced, resulting in a savings to NASA.

AIUI the CC contracts are for doing the maximum number of launches. One unmanned demo, one manned demo, two certification & four optional post certification flights for a total of 8 flights. So the CC providers could do 8 to 16 flights total or 6 to 12 operational flights.

So $2.6B is what SpaceX will get if they do 8 flights. Less flights means less money.

IMO NASA will only do 8 flights before the initial CC program is ended and a follow-on program started with better understanding of the CC acquisition costs from the providers.

Right, so if that's the case, Boeing will get less than $4.2B, and NASA spends less than $6.8B total.

[joek]

My understanding is that of the 12 operational flights, 2 each are guaranteed to Boeing and SpaceX, and 8 can be competed. So, if SpaceX wins most of those, their award will be more than the 2.6B announced and Boeing's will be less than the total announced, resulting in a savings to NASA.

Yes, up to eight post-certification operational missions may be competed.  However, the maximum number of post-certification missions for each CCtCap awardee is six.  Thus, SpaceX and Boeing may each receive a maximum of four of those competed missions for a total of six each.

No, the maximum quoted contract value for SpaceX and Boeing would not change.  The SpaceX $2.6B and Boeing $4.2B numbers are based on the maximum number (six) of CCtCap post-certification missions for each.

[Jcc]

My understanding is that of the 12 operational flights, 2 each are guaranteed to Boeing and SpaceX, and 8 can be competed. So, if SpaceX wins most of those, their award will be more than the 2.6B announced and Boeing's will be less than the total announced, resulting in a savings to NASA.

Yes, up to eight post-certification operational missions may be competed.  However, the maximum number of post-certification missions for each CCtCap awardee is six.  Thus, SpaceX and Boeing may each receive a maximum of four of those competed missions for a total of six each.

No, the maximum quoted contract value for SpaceX and Boeing would not change.  The SpaceX $2.6B and Boeing $4.2B numbers are based on the maximum number (six) of CCtCap post-certification missions for each.

Wait a minute. If the maximum award is six post certification missions for each, and the minimum is 2, then if SpaceX gets all 6 and Boeing gets 2, then there will only be 8 missions under the contract, not 12? The contract is done and for more missions they need a new contract? Otherwise, what is the point of providing a min-max range if both are guaranteed to get the max (6)?

[ncb1397]

My understanding is that of the 12 operational flights, 2 each are guaranteed to Boeing and SpaceX, and 8 can be competed. So, if SpaceX wins most of those, their award will be more than the 2.6B announced and Boeing's will be less than the total announced, resulting in a savings to NASA.

Yes, up to eight post-certification operational missions may be competed.  However, the maximum number of post-certification missions for each CCtCap awardee is six.  Thus, SpaceX and Boeing may each receive a maximum of four of those competed missions for a total of six each.

No, the maximum quoted contract value for SpaceX and Boeing would not change.  The SpaceX $2.6B and Boeing $4.2B numbers are based on the maximum number (six) of CCtCap post-certification missions for each.

Wait a minute. If the maximum award is six post certification missions for each, and the minimum is 2, then if SpaceX gets all 6 and Boeing gets 2, then there will only be 8 missions under the contract, not 12? The contract is done and for more missions they need a new contract? Otherwise, what is the point of providing a min-max range if both are guaranteed to get the max (6)?

Putin wants a do-over of the cold war where Russia comes out triumphant. One of the people that he put into power in the Ukraine insurgency wrote a book where Soviet Union fighter jets from another dimension(in which the Soviet Union came out on top) sinks a U.S. Aircraft Carrier in our dimension. This is the mindset folks. In other words, 2 flights per year, 2017-2020 is the scope. After 2020, Russia will set its sights on beating the U.S. in BEO. They can't exactly afford both BEO and ISS, NASA is probably in the same boat. "My LEO station is better than yours" wouldn't rehash the moon race to Putin's satisfaction.

[joek]

Wait a minute. If the maximum award is six post certification missions for each, and the minimum is 2, then if SpaceX gets all 6 and Boeing gets 2, then there will only be 8 missions under the contract, not 12? The contract is done and for more missions they need a new contract? Otherwise, what is the point of providing a min-max range if both are guaranteed to get the max (6)?

Given that scenario, yes there would only be eight missions--unless NASA chose to make additional awards to Boeing for the other four missions, in which case those four would not be competed as they could not be awarded to SpaceX under CCtCap.

Boeing and SpaceX are not guaranteed the maximum number of six missions, only the minimum of two.  Whether NASA chooses to exercise any optional post-certification missions is TBD, as those may not be awarded until after certification is complete.

CCtCap includes both DDT&E (certification) and services acquisition (post-certification missions).  The min-max structure is typical for indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) acquisition contracts, which must state a minimum and maximum contract quantity or value.

[joek]

COTS   CCDEV  CCiCap  CCtCap     Total
  $0  $125.6  $212.5  $3,300  $3,638.1  Sierra Nevada
$396   $75.0  $440.0  $2,600  $3,511.0  SpaceX
  $0  $130.9  $460.0  $4,200  $4,790.9  Boeing

My first post above showed that using the Atlas V instead of the Falcon 9 added about $1 billion to the cost of the Boeing and Sierra Nevada proposals.  If we reduce those two totals by that amount, we can get a better comparison of the CST-100, Dragon, and DreamChaser vehicles without the Falcon 9 and Atlas V obscuring the respective prices.  Those figures would then be $2,638.1 million (Sierra Nevada), $3,511.0 million (SpaceX), and $3,790.9 million (Boeing).

That would put the cost of completing the DreamChaser at $872.9 million less than the crew Dragon.  My question is: Is this credible?

Nit: $877.49M less (see below).  Credible?  Maybe.  We don't know the $ split between DDT&E/certification and post-certification missions.  Maybe the selection board found it less than credible and higher risk than they were willing to accept.

[sdsds]

I offer no proof, but nonetheless feel it is highly unlikely NASA would purchase six CCtCap PCMs from each supplier. More: I suspect NASA would only purchase six PCMs from one supplier if the other supplier had failed to achieve certification. The most likely outcome is two PCMs from one supplier and four from the other, for a total of six.

Two of those missions would be competed, and purchased at the "market" price. CCtCap would thus have demonstrably reached the goal of establishing a competitive, commercial marketplace where NASA can purchase missions.

If it turns out the suppliers have underestimated their costs NASA could "force" one of them to continue providing missions at a loss, but that seems unlikely to be the intent. If it turns out at least one supplier's costs allow them to offer flights at less than their CCtCap NTE price, NASA is free to purchase as many of those as it needs under a new competitive acquisition, not limited by CCtCap restrictions.

[Jcc]

And if one competitor's prices are consistently lower than the other for the same service, NASA should buy most if not all missions from that supplier, unless they want to subsidize one of them in order to maintain that capability.

[docmordrid]

My understanding is that of the 12 operational flights, 2 each are guaranteed to Boeing and SpaceX, and 8 can be competed. So, if SpaceX wins most of those, their award will be more than the 2.6B announced and Boeing's will be less than the total announced, resulting in a savings to NASA.

>
>
Putin wants a do-over of the cold war where Russia comes out triumphant. One of the people that he put into power in the Ukraine insurgency wrote a book where Soviet Union fighter jets from another dimension(in which the Soviet Union came out on top) sinks a U.S. Aircraft Carrier in our dimension. This is the mindset folks. In other words, 2 flights per year, 2017-2020 is the scope. After 2020, Russia will set its sights on beating the U.S. in BEO. They can't exactly afford both BEO and ISS, NASA is probably in the same boat. "My LEO station is better than yours" wouldn't rehash the moon race to Putin's satisfaction.

Russia's signals have certainly been mixed, even within a single article. The headline screams significant ISS  support, but further in it's less certain.

Moscow Times (Sept. 24, 2014)....

[Zed_Noir]

Wait a minute. If the maximum award is six post certification missions for each, and the minimum is 2, then if SpaceX gets all 6 and Boeing gets 2, then there will only be 8 missions under the contract, not 12? The contract is done and for more missions they need a new contract? Otherwise, what is the point of providing a min-max range if both are guaranteed to get the max (6)?

Given that scenario, yes there would only be eight missions--unless NASA chose to make additional awards to Boeing for the other four missions, in which case those four would not be competed as they could not be awarded to SpaceX under CCtCap.

Boeing and SpaceX are not guaranteed the maximum number of six missions, only the minimum of two.  Whether NASA chooses to exercise any optional post-certification missions is TBD, as those may not be awarded until after certification is complete.

CCtCap includes both DDT&E (certification) and services acquisition (post-certification missions).  The min-max structure is typical for indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) acquisition contracts, which must state a minimum and maximum contract quantity or value.

You confusing the number of flights with operational flights.

....
AIUI the CC contracts are for doing the maximum number of launches. One unmanned demo, one manned demo, two certification & four optional post certification flights for a total of 8 flights. So the CC providers could do 8 to 16 flights total or 6 to 12 operational flights.

So $2.6B is what SpaceX will get if they do 8 flights. Less flights means less money.

IMO NASA will only do 8 flights before the initial CC program is ended and a follow-on program started with better understanding of the CC acquisition costs from the providers.

The 8 flights from my post up thread means each provider will send up one unmanned demo, one manned demo and 2 certification flights each. With no optional post certification flights.

[sdsds]

Moscow Times (Sept. 24, 2014)....

For me this link (to the non-mobile version) works better.

[joek]

You confusing the number of flights with operational flights.

Huh?  In what way am I confused?

Other than the certification flight, all other pre-certification flights are a function of the CCtCap contract between the awardees and NASA.  If you have knoweldge of the contract particulars, please tell.

That said, a good guess is probably at least two pre-certification flights (unmanned test, then crewed test), followed by the crewed certification flight to ISS--give or take an abort or other test flight.

After certification we know there will be a minimum of two operational (post-certification) flights per CCtCap awardee, and a maximum of six per CCtCap awardee.

The 8 flights from my post up thread means each provider will send up one unmanned demo, one manned demo and 2 certification flights each. With no optional post certification flights.

There is only one certification flight for each CCtCap awardee--they must complete that or they are not certified.  Only after that will authority to proceed (ATP) for post-certification missions be granted.

No idea where you get the idea that there are two certification flights each.  There are two guaranteed post-certification flights to each CCtCap awardee.

[symbios]

There is one unmanned and one manned (NASA and contractor crewed) certification flight and then there are two post certification flights guarantied.

Plus the four optional that is to be competed.

This for each provider.

[joek]

There is one unmanned and one manned (NASA and contractor crewed) certification flight and then there are two post certification flights guarantied.

There is only one certification flight--the crewed flight to the ISS.  That flight must be completed prior to design certification review (DCR).  Certification is complete after successful fulfillment of DCR.  CCtCap does not call for or require any other certification flights. 

While it is a reasonable assumption that there will be one or more test flights prior to that certification flight, it is only an assumption, not a given.  The number and timing of any such test flights would be stipulated in the CCtCap proposals and has not been made public.

[symbios]

Sorry, do not know where I read about the unmanned flight. I just watched the press conf again and you are right.

[Roy_H]

That would put the cost of completing the DreamChaser at $872.9 million less than the crew Dragon.  My question is: Is this credible?

Nothing wrong with the numbers, just your assumption that what is billed to NASA represents the cost to the company. DreamChaser probably cost more to build than either CST-100 or Dragon-V2, it is just that more of the cost has been born by SNC.

[mkent]

The GAO press release for the Sierra Nevada protest provided some interesting numbers on the Commercial Crew contract that, with the proper interpretation, will tell us a great deal about how much the commercial crew vehicles will cost.

From the original NASA announcement we learned that the total contract award for the two winners was $4.2 billion for Boeing and $2.6 billion for SpaceX.  Sierra Nevada later announced that their bid for the contract was $3.3 billion.  These bids included development of their respective crew systems, two test flights, six operational flights, and up to $150 million in special studies.

The GAO release contains different numbers.  It stated that the Boeing bid was $3.01 billion, the SpaceX bid $1.75 billion, and the Sierra Nevada bid was $2.55 billion.

If we assume that these numbers are for the development phase of the program and also that the development phase includes the manned and unmanned test flights, then we have enough information to determine the per-flight cost of each system to NASA.

Using these numbers and the equation (development cost) + (special studies) + 6 x (operational cost) = total bid, we get...

Boeing: $3.01 billion + $150 million + 6X = $4.2 billion
SpaceX: $1.75 billion + $150 million + 6X = $2.6 billion
Sierra: $2.55 billion + $150 million + 6X = $3.3 billion

Solving for X in each case, we get a per-mission operational cost for each system.  Also included is the per-astronaut (divided by four) and the per-seat (divided by seven) cost.


Per Mission   Per Astro    Per Seat     Contractor
$173 million  $43 million  $25 million  Boeing
$117 million  $29 million  $17 million  SpaceX
$100 million  $25 million  $14 million  Sierra Nevada


Some conclusions:

1) Comparing the development cost of any (or all) of these vehicles to the $17.5 billion development cost of Orion tells me that Commercial Crew is a bargain.

2) Comparing the per-seat* (or even the per-astronaut) cost of any of these vehicles to the $70 million per-seat cost of Soyuz tells me that Commercial Crew is a bargain.

3) The Sierra Nevada figure seems to me to be awfully low.  DreamChaser would have launched on an Atlas V 422.  ULA VP George Sower stated that the average Atlas V 401 cost is $164 million.  The 422 should be higher.  If this figure is accurate then even the Boeing figure seems too low.  I cannot explain this discrepancy.

Note also for comparison the government cost of an unmanned Falcon 9 is $90 million once all of the extras are included.

All of this, of course, is dependent on the assumptions stated above.  So the question is, Is this the proper interpretation of the figures?

*Since the Soyuz carries only three astronauts and no cargo, the proper figure of merit IMHO is the per-seat figure.  NASA can choose whether to fill a "seat" with crew or cargo according to whichever they find more valuable on any given flight.

[rayleighscatter]

The GAO press release for the Sierra Nevada protest provided some interesting numbers on the Commercial Crew contract that, with the proper interpretation, will tell us a great deal about how much the commercial crew vehicles will cost.

From the original NASA announcement we learned that the total contract award for the two winners was $4.2 billion for Boeing and $2.6 billion for SpaceX.  Sierra Nevada later announced that their bid for the contract was $3.3 billion.  These bids included development of their respective crew systems, two test flights, six operational flights, and up to $150 million in special studies.

The GAO release contains different numbers.  It stated that the Boeing bid was $3.01 billion, the SpaceX bid $1.75 billion, and the Sierra Nevada bid was $2.55 billion.

If we assume that these numbers are for the development phase of the program and also that the development phase includes the manned and unmanned test flights, then we have enough information to determine the per-flight cost of each system to NASA.

Using these numbers and the equation (development cost) + (special studies) + 6 x (operational cost) = total bid, we get...

Boeing: $3.01 billion + $150 million + 6X = $4.2 billion
SpaceX: $1.75 billion + $150 million + 6X = $2.6 billion
Sierra: $2.55 billion + $150 million + 6X = $3.3 billion

Solving for X in each case, we get a per-mission operational cost for each system.  Also included is the per-astronaut (divided by four) and the per-seat (divided by seven) cost.


Per Mission   Per Astro    Per Seat     Contractor
$173 million  $43 million  $25 million  Boeing
$117 million  $29 million  $17 million  SpaceX
$100 million  $25 million  $14 million  Sierra Nevada


Some conclusions:

1) Comparing the development cost of any (or all) of these vehicles to the $17.5 billion development cost of Orion tells me that Commercial Crew is a bargain.

2) Comparing the per-seat* (or even the per-astronaut) cost of any of these vehicles to the $70 million per-seat cost of Soyuz tells me that Commercial Crew is a bargain.

3) The Sierra Nevada figure seems to me to be awfully low.  DreamChaser would have launched on an Atlas V 422.  ULA VP George Sower stated that the average Atlas V 401 cost is $164 million.  The 422 should be higher.  If this figure is accurate then even the Boeing figure seems too low.  I cannot explain this discrepancy.

Note also for comparison the government cost of an unmanned Falcon 9 is $90 million once all of the extras are included.

All of this, of course, is dependent on the assumptions stated above.  So the question is, Is this the proper interpretation of the figures?

*Since the Soyuz carries only three astronauts and no cargo, the proper figure of merit IMHO is the per-seat figure.  NASA can choose whether to fill a "seat" with crew or cargo according to whichever they find more valuable on any given flight.

The following is purely speculation on my part...

It seems that the the NASA numbers are the potential highest cost if all options are exercised. I'm wondering if the GAO numbers are the minimum required (remaining development as well as two flights). To further the speculation and get into some fuzzy math the optional 4 flights would seem to make up the vast bulk of the options, by cost. So by taking the two numbers (Original - New) and then dividing by 4 you get roughly the per flight cost for each proposal.

(alphabetically):
Boeing
NASA number: 4.2 Billion, GAO number: 3.01 Billion
It's a difference of 1.19 Billion or 297 Million per flight for 4 flights

SNC
NASA Number: 3.3 Billion, GAO number: 2.55 Billion
It's a difference of 750 Million or 187 Million per flight for 4 flight

SpaceX
NASA number: 2.6 Billion, GAO number: 1.75 Billion
It's a difference of 850 million or 212 Million per flight for 4 flights

This is of course all very highly speculative.

[mkent]

The following is purely speculation on my part...

It seems that the the NASA numbers are the potential highest cost if all options are exercised. I'm wondering if the GAO numbers are the minimum required (remaining development as well as two flights). To further the speculation and get into some fuzzy math the optional 4 flights would seem to make up the vast bulk of the options, by cost. So by taking the two numbers (Original - New) and then dividing by 4 you get roughly the per flight cost for each proposal.

(alphabetically):
Boeing
NASA number: 4.2 Billion, GAO number: 3.01 Billion
It's a difference of 1.19 Billion or 297 Million per flight for 4 flights

SNC
NASA Number: 3.3 Billion, GAO number: 2.55 Billion
It's a difference of 750 Million or 187 Million per flight for 4 flight

SpaceX
NASA number: 2.6 Billion, GAO number: 1.75 Billion
It's a difference of 850 million or 212 Million per flight for 4 flights

This is of course all very highly speculative.

I like your assumptions better.  They fit the known cost of the respective launch vehicles better and also provide a more reasonable estimate of the development costs, IMO.  However, I think the special studies are also optional.  If so, we should subtract off $150 million before dividing by four.

Boeing: ($4.2 billion - $3.01 billion - $150 million) / 4 = $260 million per flight
SpaceX: ($2.6 billion - $1.75 billion - $150 million) / 4 = $175 million per flight
Sierra: ($3.3 billion - $2.55 billion - $150 million) / 4 = $150 million per flight

I like the Boeing and SpaceX figures, but the Sierra Nevada figure still seems a little low.  An Atlas V is so much more expensive than a Falcon 9 that I don't see how the per-flight cost of a DreamChaser could be less than that of a Dragon 2.  Regardless, though, they are better than my original figures.

Taking that one step further and subtracting out all the flights one then comes up with development costs of...

Boeing: $4.2 billion - $150 million - 8 x $260 million = $1.97 billion
SpaceX: $2.6 billion - $150 million - 8 x $175 million = $1.050 billion
Sierra: $3.3 billion - $150 million - 8 x $150 million = $1.95 billion

Much better, but now it almost seems like the SpaceX development figure is too low.  However, if we remember that SpaceX got $400 million during COTS to do a lot of work that Boeing and Sierra Nevada would have to do during CCtCap (e.g. standing up a supply chain and establishing a production facility), the numbers now seem right.

By George, we just might have it!

[abaddon]

Sierra costs are lower because they would re-use the spacecraft.  CST & Dragon are priced with a new capsule for each flight.  My guess but it makes sense.

[rayleighscatter]

I like your assumptions better.  They fit the known cost of the respective launch vehicles better and also provide a more reasonable estimate of the development costs, IMO.  However, I think the special studies are also optional.  If so, we should subtract off $150 million before dividing by four.

Boeing: ($4.2 billion - $3.01 billion - $150 million) / 4 = $260 million per flight
SpaceX: ($2.6 billion - $1.75 billion - $150 million) / 4 = $175 million per flight
Sierra: ($3.3 billion - $2.55 billion - $150 million) / 4 = $150 million per flight

I like the Boeing and SpaceX figures, but the Sierra Nevada figure still seems a little low.  An Atlas V is so much more expensive than a Falcon 9 that I don't see how the per-flight cost of a DreamChaser could be less than that of a Dragon 2.  Regardless, though, they are better than my original figures.

Taking that one step further and subtracting out all the flights one then comes up with development costs of...

Boeing: $4.2 billion - $150 million - 8 x $260 million = $1.97 billion
SpaceX: $2.6 billion - $150 million - 8 x $175 million = $1.050 billion
Sierra: $3.3 billion - $150 million - 8 x $150 million = $1.95 billion

Much better, but now it almost seems like the SpaceX development figure is too low.  However, if we remember that SpaceX got $400 million during COTS to do a lot of work that Boeing and Sierra Nevada would have to do during CCtCap (e.g. standing up a supply chain and establishing a production facility), the numbers now seem right.

By George, we just might have it!

Good point on the corrections. This might give us some good estimates, still assuming the NASA numbers are the top and the GAO numbers the bottom.

Like abaddon I'd have to guess reusability is the reason for SNC's lower flight cost. It's been hinted at that an Atlas V 401 actually starts around 100 million, but it's the USAF requirements that drive the price up. So an Atlas to SNC's HSF requirements might have fallen somewhere between those two numbers and SNC might have had an ambitious planned price for refurbishing craft between flights, with maybe only 2 or 3 total Dreamchasers produced.

[erioladastra]

Sierra costs are lower because they would re-use the spacecraft.  CST & Dragon are priced with a new capsule for each flight.  My guess but it makes sense.

CST-100 is reused.

[abaddon]

Sierra costs are lower because they would re-use the spacecraft.  CST & Dragon are priced with a new capsule for each flight.  My guess but it makes sense.

CST-100 is reused.

Do you have a source for that?  I am not doubting you, but it'd be nice to see an official statement to support that.

[arachnitect]

Sierra costs are lower because they would re-use the spacecraft.  CST & Dragon are priced with a new capsule for each flight.  My guess but it makes sense.

CST-100 is reused.

Do you have a source for that?  I am not doubting you, but it'd be nice to see an official statement to support that.

They've been pretty consistent on it, here for example:
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/ccts/index.page

FWIW they discard the whole SM including the abort motors. They dump the heat shield during the landing phase, so I'm assuming that doesn't get reused either.

[abaddon]

They've been pretty consistent on it, here for example:
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/ccts/index.page

Dragon (both V1 and V2) are also designed to be reusable, however, the CRS-1 contract was priced assuming a new Dragon for each mission, and so far that's what has happened.

Designing the capsule for reusability and pricing the CCtCAP contract to assume reusability are two different things, this link does not demonstrate the latter.

[arachnitect]

They've been pretty consistent on it, here for example:
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/ccts/index.page

Dragon (both V1 and V2) are also designed to be reusable, however, the CRS-1 contract was priced assuming a new Dragon for each mission, and so far that's what has happened.

Designing the capsule for reusability and pricing the CCtCAP contract to assume reusability are two different things, this link does not demonstrate the latter.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-09-16-Boeing-CST-100-Selected-as-Next-American-Spacecraft

HOUSTON, Sept. 16, 2014 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] will receive an award of $4.2 billion from NASA to build and fly the United States’ next passenger spacecraft. [...]
Under the Commercial Crew Transportation (CCtCap) phase of the program, Boeing will build three CST-100s at the company’s Commercial Crew Processing Facility at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Since they're guaranteed at least 4 flights (not incl. pad abort), I'm assuming there's some kind of reuse going on. I'm feeling pretty confident in that, but if somebody's sitting on a reference to new capsules on every mission, please share.

[Coastal Ron]

Since they're guaranteed at least 4 flights (not incl. pad abort), I'm assuming there's some kind of reuse going on. I'm feeling pretty confident in that, but if somebody's sitting on a reference to new capsules on every mission, please share.

I'm not sure anyone knows for sure, since if each company submitted more than one bid (for various options, which I would think could include reusability) we may not know what features were part of the winning bid.  And NASA was waiting for the GAO protest to be over before releasing bid details.

I think for SpaceX and the current CRS-1 contract they didn't bid reusability for their deliveries because of the additional certification effort that would have been needed, but they built the vehicles intending that they could be reused.  However no vehicles have been re-flown yet, so maybe the market for used cargo vehicles never materialized.  We'll see what happens with the CRS-2 contract.

As for Commercial Crew vehicles, if Boeings business case only closes by reusing at least the capsule portion of their system, then I'm sure they will reuse them.  And maybe the Boeing document you reference gives hints of that.  Certainly the aerospace industry needs to become proficient at reusing flight hardware post-Shuttle, so let's hope they do that.

[abaddon]

HOUSTON, Sept. 16, 2014 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] will receive an award of $4.2 billion from NASA to build and fly the United States’ next passenger spacecraft. [...]
Under the Commercial Crew Transportation (CCtCap) phase of the program, Boeing will build three CST-100s at the company’s Commercial Crew Processing Facility at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Since they're guaranteed at least 4 flights (not incl. pad abort), I'm assuming there's some kind of reuse going on. I'm feeling pretty confident in that, but if somebody's sitting on a reference to new capsules on every mission, please share.

I think there's possibly some loose wording going on there.  There are three structural test articles being built; one for the pad abort, one for the unmanned test flight, and one for the first manned test flight.  I think it is possible (not definite) that the "CCtCAP phase" cited above is referring to those flights.

It's definitely possible they are planning on re-flying one or more of those structural test articles, but I am not convinced of it yet.

[arachnitect]

HOUSTON, Sept. 16, 2014 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] will receive an award of $4.2 billion from NASA to build and fly the United States’ next passenger spacecraft. [...]
Under the Commercial Crew Transportation (CCtCap) phase of the program, Boeing will build three CST-100s at the company’s Commercial Crew Processing Facility at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Since they're guaranteed at least 4 flights (not incl. pad abort), I'm assuming there's some kind of reuse going on. I'm feeling pretty confident in that, but if somebody's sitting on a reference to new capsules on every mission, please share.

I think there's possibly some loose wording going on there.  There are three structural test articles being built; one for the pad abort, one for the unmanned test flight, and one for the first manned test flight.  I think it is possible (not definite) that the "CCtCAP phase" cited above is referring to those flights.

It's definitely possible they are planning on re-flying one or more of those structural test articles, but I am not convinced of it yet.

The capsule is designed to be reused and they've talked about doing it. I really do think that's the current plan, but I also know that plans have a way of changing. Coastal Ron makes some good points a couple posts up about the possibility of multiple bids. Without being in on the NASA/Boeing communications, I doubt we'll know for sure until flights are really underway.

It certainly would have gotten my attention if erioladastra had said they won't be reusing them.

[yg1968]

Sorry, do not know where I read about the unmanned flight. I just watched the press conf again and you are right.

It's a reasonable assumption. Although it was not required, each company had an uncrewed flight under the CCiCap milestones optional milestones. NASA said that they expected companies to suggest such a flight but they did not require it.

[yg1968]

Wait a minute. If the maximum award is six post certification missions for each, and the minimum is 2, then if SpaceX gets all 6 and Boeing gets 2, then there will only be 8 missions under the contract, not 12? The contract is done and for more missions they need a new contract? Otherwise, what is the point of providing a min-max range if both are guaranteed to get the max (6)?

Given that scenario, yes there would only be eight missions--unless NASA chose to make additional awards to Boeing for the other four missions, in which case those four would not be competed as they could not be awarded to SpaceX under CCtCap.

Boeing and SpaceX are not guaranteed the maximum number of six missions, only the minimum of two.  Whether NASA chooses to exercise any optional post-certification missions is TBD, as those may not be awarded until after certification is complete.

CCtCap includes both DDT&E (certification) and services acquisition (post-certification missions).  The min-max structure is typical for indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) acquisition contracts, which must state a minimum and maximum contract quantity or value.

My guess is that 6 post certification flights will be ordered for each company because NASA will want redudancy. The deadline for NASA to order post-certification missions is September 2019.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32412.msg1257904#msg1257904

[srepetsk]

Sierra costs are lower because they would re-use the spacecraft.  CST & Dragon are priced with a new capsule for each flight.  My guess but it makes sense.

CST-100 is reused.

Do you have a source for that?  I am not doubting you, but it'd be nice to see an official statement to support that.

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/ccts/index.page

Ctrl-f "reusable"

[abaddon]

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/ccts/index.page

Ctrl-f "reusable"

Yes, by that logic Dragon V1 is also being reused right now.  Great job refuting something I'd already responded to above.

Oh, lest I forget, Falcon 9 is being reused right now.  Because it was designed to be reused.  Right?

[woods170]

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-09-16-Boeing-CST-100-Selected-as-Next-American-Spacecraft

HOUSTON, Sept. 16, 2014 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] will receive an award of $4.2 billion from NASA to build and fly the United States’ next passenger spacecraft. [...]
Under the Commercial Crew Transportation (CCtCap) phase of the program, Boeing will build three CST-100s at the company’s Commercial Crew Processing Facility at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Since they're guaranteed at least 4 flights (not incl. pad abort), I'm assuming there's some kind of reuse going on. I'm feeling pretty confident in that, but if somebody's sitting on a reference to new capsules on every mission, please share.

That's not quite right. Each entrant is guaranteed two (as in 2) flights, with an option to fly six (as in 6) per entrant.
With Boeing building three CST-100 craft and them having only two guaranteed ISS crew missions I'm not ready to accept that CST-100 will be re-used during CCtCAP.
Perhaps when the number of ISS crew missions goes beyond the guaranteed two per entrant, but otherwise CST-100 will probably be single-use, much like is now the case with CRS Dragon.
For the record: I don't see re-use of Dragon 2 either on CCtCAP. Probably all-new for each ISS crew mission as well.

[arachnitect]

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-09-16-Boeing-CST-100-Selected-as-Next-American-Spacecraft

HOUSTON, Sept. 16, 2014 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] will receive an award of $4.2 billion from NASA to build and fly the United States’ next passenger spacecraft. [...]
Under the Commercial Crew Transportation (CCtCap) phase of the program, Boeing will build three CST-100s at the company’s Commercial Crew Processing Facility at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Since they're guaranteed at least 4 flights (not incl. pad abort), I'm assuming there's some kind of reuse going on. I'm feeling pretty confident in that, but if somebody's sitting on a reference to new capsules on every mission, please share.

That's not quite right. Each entrant is guaranteed two (as in 2) flights, with an option to fly six (as in 6) per entrant.
With Boeing building three CST-100 craft and them having only two guaranteed ISS crew missions I'm not ready to accept that CST-100 will be re-used during CCtCAP.
Perhaps when the number of ISS crew missions goes beyond the guaranteed two per entrant, but otherwise CST-100 will probably be single-use, much like is now the case with CRS Dragon.
For the record: I don't see re-use of Dragon 2 either on CCtCAP. Probably all-new for each ISS crew mission as well.

Unmanned test, manned test, and at least two post-certification missions. What am I missing?

[su27k]

Some random musing about Commercial Crew cost.

Just saw this on the news: India says manned space mission to cost $1.4 bln, the same article says China spent $2.62 billion up to its first manned flight.

Latest Commercial Crew cost accounting from NASA FY19 budget shows the following:
SpaceX: $1.741B
Boeing: $2.635B
The numbers includes all the NASA investment in CCDev1/2, CCiCAP and CCtCAP. For CCtCAP, it includes all milestone payments (including those not yet completed), but excludes Post Certification Missions and Special Studies.

I think this clearly shows just how cost effective public private partnership are, even when the government is footing most of the bills. SpaceX is only 20% more expensive than India and cheaper than China, while Boeing is actually on par with the Chinese cost.

[Zed_Noir]

Some random musing about Commercial Crew cost.

Just saw this on the news: India says manned space mission to cost $1.4 bln, the same article says China spent $2.62 billion up to its first manned flight.

Latest Commercial Crew cost accounting from NASA FY19 budget shows the following:
SpaceX: $1.741B
Boeing: $2.635B
The numbers includes all the NASA investment in CCDev1/2, CCiCAP and CCtCAP. For CCtCAP, it includes all milestone payments (including those not yet completed), but excludes Post Certification Missions and Special Studies.

I think this clearly shows just how cost effective public private partnership are, even when the government is footing most of the bills. SpaceX is only 20% more expensive than India and cheaper than China, while Boeing is actually on par with the Chinese cost.

.
Slight dis-agreement. You are comparing 3 person vehicles (China & India) to 7 person vehicles (SX & B).

Both China & India are constrained in their vehicle crew size due to their current less capable hypergolic launchers (LM-2F & GSLV-III).

[SWGlassPit]

When you compare cost, you also need to compare currency and purchasing power parity differences.  How much does an engineer or a technician in the US cost vs one in India or China?

[Comga]

When you compare cost, you also need to compare currency and purchasing power parity differences.  How much does an engineer or a technician in the US cost vs one in India or China?

Yes and no
The cost is the cost, when converted to dollars,as much as once can establish a cost for Chinese development that uses their armed forces.
The main point, however, is that SpaceX, and even Boeing, are being cost competitive, even cost dominant, while using well paid American engineers and other staff.
That's the triumph of "commercial space".