One of the main reasons for this increase, the report says, is a 50-percent increase in prices from SpaceX,
the inspector general’s report notes the following about SpaceX’s reasoning: “They also indicated that their CRS-2 pricing reflected a better understanding of the costs involved after several years of experience with cargo resupply missions.” This suggests the company either under-bid on the first round of supply contracts or failed to achieve some of the cost savings it had hoped to achieve.
... especially when they are the only ones that can bring back payload.
Quote from: high road on 04/27/2018 06:05 am... especially when they are the only ones that can bring back payload.Dreamchaser can bring down 1750kg.
It's the lower flight rate caused by using 3 providers instead of 2. The report pdf page 41 to 42 shows the impact on flight rate by having 3 instead 2 providers, SpaceX's flight rate is reduced from 3 per year to 2 per year. Plug in their $150M per flight for CRS-1, total per year is $450M, divided by 2 gives $225M per flight, which fits 50% increase perfectly. Also remember in CRS-1 contract SpaceX was awarded 12 flights, this time they're only awarded 6.Moral of the story: Flight rate is important, if NASA wants a 3rd provider they have to pay a price for reduced flight rate.
SpaceX officials said its increased prices are due to new CRS-2 contract terms that required a redesign of the spacecraft’s interior to increase the useable cargo volume by 30 percent, longer duration missions, accelerated cargo loading and unloading time frames, and quicker access to time-critical research cargo after the Dragon 2 returns to Earth. They also indicated that their CRS-2 pricing reflected a better understanding of the costs involved after several years of experience with cargo resupply missions. Further, they said their proposed prices took into account the uncertainty at the time of providing fixed per-mission pricing without knowing whether NASA wanted them to fly the Dragon 1 or Dragon 2, which would require keeping open two production lines. Other factors, such as the new requirement for contractors to carry up to $100 million worth of insurance per flight and reduced discounts due to fewer missions flown contributed to SpaceX’s increased CRS-2 pricing.
We shouldn’t be surprised. Musk has no obligation to keep the prices down and a commercial company would be expected to maximise profit. If they are cheaper and successfully wipe out the competition (eventually) then it would seem natural that they could then increase pricing in a monopolised market. Smart move and not unexpected
While both CRS-1 and CRS-2 contracts require a new Falcon 9 for all missions, both contracts provide NASA with the option to use a previously flown booster for a specific mission if the Agency determines the launch presents an acceptable level of risk for cargo resupply missions. For SpX-13, the Agency received contractor in-kind contributions – such as accommodations for external payloads and manifest changes – to reconcile the cost difference between a new and previously flown booster. For CRS-2, NASA could receive a marginal discount on per-mission pricing if the Agency opts to use a previously flown booster for a mission.
Just finished my read-through of the OIG report and made the exact same observations. What the hell, SpaceX?
Is it too early to say 'Jim Was Right!' ?
