Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[envy887]

How many billions for commercial crew so far?

So far? Hard to tell, as we don't have a running count of what's been paid. The estimated total non-recurring cost will be $5.912 billion. And the recurring per seat cost will be an estimated $50.6 million for SpaceX and $81.8 million for Boeing.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf

But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.

[cppetrie]

I was under the impression these are essentially fixed price contracts not cost-plus, so the total expenditure should be relatively known based on the contracts signed. How much of that has been paid out based on milestones achieved may be murky since we don’t necessarily know all those milestones that yield payments. But shouldn’t we know a reasonable estimate of what the cost of getting this program going is?

[gongora]

I would guess by the end of the demo flights they'll probably have paid out at least 2/3 of the money (maybe a bit more).

[envy887]

I was under the impression these are essentially fixed price contracts not cost-plus, so the total expenditure should be relatively known based on the contracts signed. How much of that has been paid out based on milestones achieved may be murky since we don’t necessarily know all those milestones that yield payments. But shouldn’t we know a reasonable estimate of what the cost of getting this program going is?

They are fixed price contracts, but both sides can negotiate changes. Some milestones won't be completed or paid for, like SpaceX's propulsive Dragon 2 landing related development and testing. So the exact cost is not known, but the $5.912 billion is close.

[abaddon]

But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.

Also ignoring there will be two completely different systems operational: different pads, rockets, and capsules.

[QuantumG]

But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.

Yep, at least a tenth the price of Shuttle development... and NASA will almost certainly keep paying for Soyuz seats after commercial crew comes into service anyway.

[deruch]

I was under the impression these are essentially fixed price contracts not cost-plus, so the total expenditure should be relatively known based on the contracts signed. How much of that has been paid out based on milestones achieved may be murky since we don’t necessarily know all those milestones that yield payments. But shouldn’t we know a reasonable estimate of what the cost of getting this program going is?

 
Yes, NASA certainly knows.  But the contracts' disclosed values are for both Development and Operation (max. 6 flights/provider) combined, and there is no public breakdown that separates those out.  Apparently, it's proprietary.  So, we're left with various attempts to estimate/calculate the per-launch or per-seat prices NASA is paying based on various sources.  @envy just linked the best that's available, if you haven't read that yet you're really missing out. 

In addition to the costs of the CCtCap contracts, NASA has also paid for CCDev1&2, CCiCap, and CPC agreements as part of the Commercial Crew development process.  Including the full value of the current CCtCap contracts (with 12 crew rotation flights in addition to the test flights), the full total is ~$8.3B.  Plus, there are also Commercial Crew management costs within the agency (i.e. program office staffing and overhead, etc).  So, it's not quite as straightforward as just what's in the CCtCap contracts.  Though, since that is the thread we're in, straying too far off is going to end up being OT.

[Johnnyhinbos]

Right - much better to fund SLS to be the ISS delivery (once per annum) vehicle. Oh wait, no - SLS has a way better and brighter future - DSG, which will get us (US) _near_ the moon. So, will get us Apollo 8, something we did in 1968.

(Apologies for the off topic rant, but honestly this whole NASA manned space flight thing is such a disaster...)

[envy887]

But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.

Yep, at least a tenth the price of Shuttle development... and NASA will almost certainly keep paying for Soyuz seats after commercial crew comes into service anyway.

Why would they pay for Soyuz? I think the plan is to trade seats on CC vehicles to the Russians in exchange for seats on Soyuz, so that both US and Russian crew use all three vehicles.

[Coastal Ron]

But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.

No, Commercial Crew is a 1:1 replacement for Soyuz, which is a vehicle that can transport and KEEP crew at the ISS by being a lifeboat. The Shuttle could not do that.

[envy887]

I was under the impression these are essentially fixed price contracts not cost-plus, so the total expenditure should be relatively known based on the contracts signed. How much of that has been paid out based on milestones achieved may be murky since we don’t necessarily know all those milestones that yield payments. But shouldn’t we know a reasonable estimate of what the cost of getting this program going is?

 
Yes, NASA certainly knows.  But the contracts' disclosed values are for both Development and Operation (max. 6 flights/provider) combined, and there is no public breakdown that separates those out.  Apparently, it's proprietary.  So, we're left with various attempts to estimate/calculate the per-launch or per-seat prices NASA is paying based on various sources.  @envy just linked the best that's available, if you haven't read that yet you're really missing out. 

In addition to the costs of the CCtCap contracts, NASA has also paid for CCDev1&2, CCiCap, and CPC agreements as part of the Commercial Crew development process.  Including the full value of the current CCtCap contracts (with 12 crew rotation flights in addition to the test flights), the full total is ~$8.3B.  Plus, there are also Commercial Crew management costs within the agency (i.e. program office staffing and overhead, etc).  So, it's not quite as straightforward as just what's in the CCtCap contracts.  Though, since that is the thread we're in, straying too far off is going to end up being OT.

Still, for that 8.3 billion NASA got cheap access (in terms of recurring cost) to 3 cargo spacecraft, 2 crew spacecraft, and 2 launch vehicles. Plus they have access to FH and Atlas/Vulcan for no development cost. That's a pretty great bargain considering the historical development and recurring cost of NASA vehicles and spacecraft.

But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.

No, Commercial Crew is a 1:1 replacement for Soyuz, which is a vehicle that can transport and KEEP crew at the ISS by being a lifeboat. The Shuttle could not do that.

CC vehicles add capabilities beyond what Soyuz can do, including some that Shuttle had and some it did not.

[su27k]

How many billions for commercial crew so far?

So far? Hard to tell, as we don't have a running count of what's been paid.

There is a running count in NASA's budget request, but it's delayed for a year, so we only have the cost up to FY16 for now (from https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2018_budget_estimates.pdf, page 543).

If I used my calculator correctly total cost up to FY16 is $3.212B.

[abaddon]

No, Commercial Crew is a 1:1 replacement for Soyuz, which is a vehicle that can transport and KEEP crew at the ISS by being a lifeboat. The Shuttle could not do that.

Two vehicles

[deruch]

I was under the impression these are essentially fixed price contracts not cost-plus, so the total expenditure should be relatively known based on the contracts signed. How much of that has been paid out based on milestones achieved may be murky since we don’t necessarily know all those milestones that yield payments. But shouldn’t we know a reasonable estimate of what the cost of getting this program going is?

 
Yes, NASA certainly knows.  But the contracts' disclosed values are for both Development and Operation (max. 6 flights/provider) combined, and there is no public breakdown that separates those out.  Apparently, it's proprietary.  So, we're left with various attempts to estimate/calculate the per-launch or per-seat prices NASA is paying based on various sources.  @envy just linked the best that's available, if you haven't read that yet you're really missing out. 

In addition to the costs of the CCtCap contracts, NASA has also paid for CCDev1&2, CCiCap, and CPC agreements as part of the Commercial Crew development process.  Including the full value of the current CCtCap contracts (with 12 crew rotation flights in addition to the test flights), the full total is ~$8.3B.  Plus, there are also Commercial Crew management costs within the agency (i.e. program office staffing and overhead, etc).  So, it's not quite as straightforward as just what's in the CCtCap contracts.  Though, since that is the thread we're in, straying too far off is going to end up being OT.

Still, for that 8.3 billion NASA got cheap access (in terms of recurring cost) to 3 cargo spacecraft, 2 crew spacecraft, and 2 launch vehicles. Plus they have access to FH and Atlas/Vulcan for no development cost. That's a pretty great bargain considering the historical development and recurring cost of NASA vehicles and spacecraft.

That 8.3 billion was just for Commercial Crew, it doesn't include Cargo (COTS and CRS).  So, for it they are getting ~two thirds of 1 cargo spacecraft (Dream Chaser), 2 crew spacecraft, the man-rating of 2 previously developed launchers (F9 and Atlas V), 12 crew rotation missions, and a small amount of work from Blue Origin and other assorted companies.  The work with Blue has since expanded and is continuing in an unfunded manner, which while it carries Program costs won't add to the 8.3B number. 

I agree, it's been a pretty darn good deal, even if it's not quite as good as what you listed.  But, adding in COTS funding would get all that, and it wasn't so much.  Plus, if Boeing and/or SpaceX can develop their capsule business to find regular non-NASA customers it's going to be a major additional win.  We'll see if SpaceX sells more circumlunar trips or Bigelow actually gets his space hotel going.

[pathfinder_01]

But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.

Also ignoring there will be two completely different systems operational: different pads, rockets, and capsules.

The rockets for commercial crew and cargo are shared with other users. Only Antares has no other customers. This generates huge savings over the shuttle which had no other users.

The cost of the pads is paid for by the rocket company and split over users via launch prices. Space X leases 39A from NASA so for NASA it is cash coming in on that one. ULA leases the pad from the Airforce and launches many Atlas flights from the same pad. With the shuttle NASA had to pay to keep it's pads operational and had no one else to split the cost with.


Having more than 1 capsule means that hopefully problems that affect one do not affect the other(i.e. The shuttle and it's 2 year shutdowns). This gives us greater redundancy and back up.  Also if there were only a single capsule then there would be a monopoly position. I rather doubt Orion would cost as much as it does if NASA could buy something equivalent from another vender. It gives both companies reasons to control their prices. 

Now there are some increased costs for having two vehicles in terms of training. but since NASA does not build or maintain either vehicle there is little to no savings by going with one. i.e. South West can fly a single type of plane  and generate savings, but they would never lower their prices if they were the ONLY airline you could fly.

[deruch]

SpaceX leases 39A from NASA so for NASA it is cash coming in on that one.

SpaceX's lease only pays for Operations&Maintenance on the pad, there's no net revenue for NASA.  NASA benefits by not having to pay those costs, but that's in the nature of a savings only.

[Jim]

 

But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.

Also ignoring there will be two completely different systems operational: different pads, rockets, and capsules.

The rockets for commercial crew and cargo are shared with other users. Only Antares has no other customers. This generates huge savings over the shuttle which had no other users.

The cost of the pads is paid for by the rocket company and split over users via launch prices. Space X leases 39A from NASA so for NASA it is cash coming in on that one. ULA leases the pad from the Airforce and launches many Atlas flights from the same pad. With the shuttle NASA had to pay to keep it's pads operational and had no one else to split the cost with.

Air Force pad lease costs are on the order of a few dollars per year

[Hog]

No, Commercial Crew is a 1:1 replacement for Soyuz, which is a vehicle that can transport and KEEP crew at the ISS by being a lifeboat. The Shuttle could not do that.

Two vehicles

Two American vehicles, dual American redundancy.

[Hog]

But the goal of commercial crew is not to replace the Russians, but to replace the Shuttle. It will be far cheaper than Shuttle, even counting non-recurring costs for CC and ignoring them for Shuttle.

Yep, at least a tenth the price of Shuttle development... and NASA will almost certainly keep paying for Soyuz seats after commercial crew comes into service anyway.

Why would they pay for Soyuz? I think the plan is to trade seats on CC vehicles to the Russians in exchange for seats on Soyuz, so that both US and Russian crew use all three vehicles.

Soyuz has always been a backup to the 2 American vehicles.  Paying with seats or paying with dollars, is still paying.  Similar to how Canada "pays" their 2.9% towards ISS costs, in return we get the odd CSA Astro to work on ISS, and once in a Blue Moon, get an ISS Command position.(that was great)

[joek]

Air Force pad lease costs are on the order of a few dollars per year

But amortized cost (effectively the mortgage) on construction-improvements is undoubtedly much higher.  E.g., assuming $100M in pad construction-improvements with a straight line depreciation over 25 years yields $4M/yr, not accounting for the cost of money.  Spreading that cost across as many launches/customers as possible is beneficial.