Commercial Crew: On Course to Purposeful Flight - ISPCS

[Lar]

Which is essentially what I just said.  While NASA does not have oversight here, they do have extensive insight.  To blindly state the you can build a new Dragon every time for less than 10 reused Starliners, and NASA will just fork over the cash, is false.   

Except that's exactly what is happening. NASA is paying for new Dragons and reused Starliners, and paying more for the Starliner trips. Maybe not 1:10 but that was hyperbole, the point is SpaceX is providing the service for less than Boeing.

You're quibbling. Don't do that, it's boring.

[gongora]

We don't know the cost of a Starliner flight, and we don't know the cost of a Crew Dragon flight.  You can't get it by dividing the total contract amount, that's ridiculous.  The majority of those amounts is initial development.

[Lar]

We don't know the cost of a Starliner flight, and we don't know the cost of a Crew Dragon flight.  You can't get it by dividing the total contract amount, that's ridiculous.  The majority of those amounts is initial development.

When I buy a car I'm paying for the initial development too... my share of it (me and every other car buyer) is bundles into the price.

When considering what a flight costs, dividing number of flights into the contract price is exceedingly valid.

[AncientU]

We don't know the cost of a Starliner flight, and we don't know the cost of a Crew Dragon flight.  You can't get it by dividing the total contract amount, that's ridiculous.  The majority of those amounts is initial development.

When I buy a car I'm paying for the initial development too... my share of it (me and every other car buyer) is bundles into the price.

When considering what a flight costs, dividing number of flights into the contract price is exceedingly valid.

If Dragon crew flights cost something like 50% more than CRS-1 cargo (could be 100% more) -- $200M per flight -- and SpaceX is supplying two demos plus six crew rotations, then that leaves $1B for development out of the original $2.6B.   Removing the $62M per flight for Falcon, that leaves the new capsule price around $140M.  For Boeing, assuming $2B for development, remaining $2.2B yields $275M per flight.  Atlas X22 is about half of that (possibly more than half), leaving $130-$140M for a Starliner launch, amortizing the initial development of three(?) capsules* over these eight flights. 

That new Dragons cost about the same as a few reuses on Starliner isn't ridiculous in the slightest. 
The delta between Falcon and AtlasV makes it likely more expensive to fly Starliner than Dragon.

* At ten reuses per capsule -- which obviously will not happen during this initial Crew contract --  the price per flight might become significantly cheaper than a new Dragon.

[gongora]

We don't know the cost of a Starliner flight, and we don't know the cost of a Crew Dragon flight.  You can't get it by dividing the total contract amount, that's ridiculous.  The majority of those amounts is initial development.

When I buy a car I'm paying for the initial development too... my share of it (me and every other car buyer) is bundles into the price.

When considering what a flight costs, dividing number of flights into the contract price is exceedingly valid.

It's not even remotely valid if you don't have separate contracts for development and production flights.  You're not paying for the initial development of the car, you're paying what the car company thinks they can get away with charging you for one unit of their product.  They hope to eventually make enough profit on selling tens of thousands of those individual units to cover their development cost on the car.  That's not how the commercial crew vehicles are priced.

[OM72]

We don't know the cost of a Starliner flight, and we don't know the cost of a Crew Dragon flight.  You can't get it by dividing the total contract amount, that's ridiculous.  The majority of those amounts is initial development.

When I buy a car I'm paying for the initial development too... my share of it (me and every other car buyer) is bundles into the price.

When considering what a flight costs, dividing number of flights into the contract price is exceedingly valid.

It's not even remotely valid if you don't have separate contracts for development and production flights.  You're not paying for the initial development of the car, you're paying what the car company thinks they can get away with charging you for one unit of their product.  They hope to eventually make enough profit on selling tens of thousands of those individual units to cover their development cost on the car.  That's not how the commercial crew vehicles are priced.

Ding, ding. 

Again, these advertised bids are for book-keeping of the NASA budget.
Flights to ISS are still TBD contractually. 
NASA has insight to the development.  NASA requires BoE's and they will use their insight of the programs to either justify or call BS on the price being asked. 

[gongora]

Flights to ISS are still TBD contractually. 

Wrong.  The flights to ISS have already been ordered under the contract at already agreed to pricing.

[woods170]

Flights to ISS are still TBD contractually. 

Wrong.  The flights to ISS have already been ordered under the contract at already agreed to pricing.

Gongora is correct. As has been stated earlier, the CCtCAP contracts are max value contracts and cover a maximum of 8 missions, per provider (2 demo missions and 6 PCM missions).

The six PCM missions, per provider, have already been awarded. But for some funny reason that information seems to have been completely overlooked by ReturnTrajectory.

Here's a link to fresh up his/her memory: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/mission-awards-secure-commercial-crew-transportation-for-coming-years

Jan 3, 2017

NASA took another big step to ensure reliable crew transportation to the International Space Station into the next decade. The agency’s Commercial Crew Program has awarded an additional four crew rotation missions each to commercial partners, Boeing and SpaceX, to carry astronauts to and from the International Space Station.

The four additional missions will fly following NASA certification. They fall under the current Commercial Crew Transportation Capability contracts, and bring the total number of missions awarded to each provider to six.

[gongora]

The task orders are:
PCM-1 : NNK16MA03T
PCM-2: NNK16MA58T
PCM-3,4,5,6: NNK17MA01T

[Jcc]

As was pointed out above, a big part of the cost difference between Starliner and Dragon2 is probably the launch vehicle costs, but remember that Starliner also expends the whole service module, which includes abort engines and some orbital engines. Much more hardware there than a Dragon trunk. Also they expend the heat shield, etc.

Another point is that it is doubtful that one Starliner will be reused 10 times for NASA or anyone else, since they are building two for crew flight, and there are only 6-8 missions available under the current contract. In effect, they will at best be used 3-4 times.

[envy887]

For what it's worth, this study estimates the loaded recurring cost at $405M for Dragon and $654M for Starliner. About one third to one half the difference would appear to be the launch vehicles.

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

[DigitalMan]

For what it's worth, this study estimates the loaded recurring cost at $405M for Dragon and $654M for Starliner. About one third to one half the difference would appear to be the launch vehicles.

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

Interesting.  It’s a good thing Boeing is reusing starliner to keep costs down, I wonder what it would have been without reuse.  Money spent on ISS does not usually benefit BEO exploration hardware.

I’d rather see long term focus given to exploration.

[john smith 19]

We don't know the cost of a Starliner flight, and we don't know the cost of a Crew Dragon flight.  You can't get it by dividing the total contract amount, that's ridiculous.  The majority of those amounts is initial development.

When I buy a car I'm paying for the initial development too... my share of it (me and every other car buyer) is bundles into the price.

When considering what a flight costs, dividing number of flights into the contract price is exceedingly valid.

It's not even remotely valid if you don't have separate contracts for development and production flights.  You're not paying for the initial development of the car, you're paying what the car company thinks they can get away with charging you for one unit of their product.  They hope to eventually make enough profit on selling tens of thousands of those individual units to cover their development cost on the car.  That's not how the commercial crew vehicles are priced.

Ding, ding. 

Again, these advertised bids are for book-keeping of the NASA budget.
Flights to ISS are still TBD contractually. 
NASA has insight to the development.  NASA requires BoE's and they will use their insight of the programs to either justify or call BS on the price being asked.

Welcome to the forum.   

The interesting thing about CC is how it's phrased.

If it's "undercut any foreign competitors seat price" that's  a ceiling price. The more extortionate the foreign competitors price the better, but the goal is good value for "The US taxpayer."

If it's "To return assured US access to LEO regardless of cost" that's kind of a blank check to the vendors. 

If I were a US taxpayer I know which of those options I'd prefer.  From what I've seen the prolonged lack of competition in this market has made prices escalate and performance stagnate that even limited competition has an an interesting effect on prices.

I'm curious, what are the Russians looking to charge now, relative to CC? Are they still being unreasonable or are they starting to believe it might actually happen?

Russian (and TBF ULA's) pricing should serve as a powerful lesson to what happens when you have a monopoly supplier (HSF launch to ISS, or NSS launch) in this area.

BTW. Starting an argument with a moderator is usually a game no one wins. 

[su27k]

For what it's worth, this study estimates the loaded recurring cost at $405M for Dragon and $654M for Starliner. About one third to one half the difference would appear to be the launch vehicles.

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

Note though this estimate has a rather big discrepancy with what we know about the total contract value, for example SpaceX's total contract value is $2.6B for R&D plus 6 post certification flights, if each flight really cost $405M, the 6 flights itself would cost $2.4B, doesn't leave much for R&D (i.e. upfront cost). I haven't found a way to explain this discrepancy yet.

[AncientU]

For what it's worth, this study estimates the loaded recurring cost at $405M for Dragon and $654M for Starliner. About one third to one half the difference would appear to be the launch vehicles.

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

Note though this estimate has a rather big discrepancy with what we know about the total contract value, for example SpaceX's total contract value is $2.6B for R&D plus 6 post certification flights, if each flight really cost $405M, the 6 flights itself would cost $2.4B, doesn't leave much for R&D (i.e. upfront cost). I haven't found a way to explain this discrepancy yet.

Not that it solves the problem, but this document* pegged the Dragon 2/CST100 spacecraft (per unit) prices as $243/323M, and the pure development costs as $1,520/2,196M.  The latter leaves $1.2B/$2.0B for the six flights which still doesn't work.

Only way out is if the development costs cover the first two guaranteed crew rotation flights and the $1.2B/$2.0B remaining is for the remaining four flights.  That would put individual flights at $300/500M which is closer, but still low.

* attached, page 31, Figures LCC-2 and -3