Commercial Crew Cost Analyses & Discussion

[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.