SpaceX to increase price of cargo delivery to space station by 50%

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX will price their services to maximize their profit and/or revenue. Novel, I know.

[gongora]

The company supposed to allow people to go to Mars for peanuts increasing their prices by 50pct? Pretty significant.

Yep. They're now charging ~$230m for a cargo and ~$400m for a crewed flight (excluding launch), BFR will cost several times that much, everything else is wishful thinking.

I don't think that's accurate excluding launch. Launch (on a new booster every time) is part of the package, separate costs are not detailed anywhere that I know of.

Crew Dragon only has 2 flights per year. If BFR only flies twice per year, it will cost at least that much, but that rate is not sustainable - it will either fly much more (and lower cost per flight), or not at all.

Crew Dragon only has 1 flight per year, and it's more in the $200-230M range including launch if you look at the amount on the task orders for the flights.  The cost of passenger flights to Mars on BFR is unknown and irrelevant right now, that's far in the future.

The recurring price for crewed Dragon (including ops, excluding launch) is $308m, not $400m. My mistake. The source (page 10): https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008893.pdf

The paper you linked is a bunch of estimates.  There is no such thing as a recurring price for crewed Dragon (or CST-100) excluding launch.  Those contracts are for launch and operation of the spacecraft.  That wording was in there because the chart also included other NASA vechicles where the spacecraft and launcher are procured separately.  Adding the cost of the launch to those numbers for Dragon and CST-100 would make them completely absurd. 

NASA has issued task orders for flights under the CCtCap program.  The task orders for the Boeing flights are $350M for each flight.  The task orders for SpaceX don't show a consistent price, starting at $200M for the first one and averaging about $220M for flights 3-6 (for both Boeing and SpaceX the first two flights were done separately, and flights 3-6 as a group.)

[HMXHMX]

...
I believe the overlooked issue with the CRS pricing increase is: what might the actual BFR "public" pricing really be in light of the ~$7m/flight claim that was made upon unveiling the current BFR?  For example, we might consider early SpaceX announcements of pricing for the initial F9 ($18m, circa 2005) with the current reality.
...

So double or quadruple it to $14-28M/flight.  Even at 10x $70M/flight would still be a significant change to the status quo, yes?

Sure.  All I'm saying is we need to be realistic about "aspirational" estimates of both schedule and price - especially from Elon.  (And I would add, flight rate.)  The future is coming, but maybe not from the vector everyone assumes nor on the schedule expected.

[speedevil]

SpaceX has specifically stated that the Starlink constellation is the funding source of BFR/BFS and the Mars plans.  In fact, BFR/BFS is supposed to replace those vehicles -- at some appropriate point. 

When did SpaceX say this?  Was it before or after IAC-2017?

2015, spacex presser

(of starlink) Well, it can't be free, because then we'd go out of business. No it can't be free to the user, I don't think so. I mean, this would cost a lot to build. I mean, ultimately over time, the full version of the system, we're talking about something that would be $10 or $15 billion to create, maybe more. Then, the user terminals will be at least $100 to $300 depending on which type of terminal. "This is intended to be a significant amount of revenue and help fund a city on Mars." "Looking in the long term, and saying what's needed to create a city on Mars? Well, one thing's for sure: a lot of money." So we need things that will generate a lot of money.

[AncientU]

Thanks!
I searched and searched for that quote, but no joy.

[Jim]

What does BFR and Starlink have to do with this topic?

[Jim]

Remember the CRS contract is innovative, by NASA standards. 

No, NASA has been doing the same type of contracts since the early 90s for launch services and cargo services. 

Spacehab was fixed price cargo for station logistics.   NASA was buying launch services fixed price for almost 25 years.

[gongora]

What does BFR and Starlink have to do with this topic?

Nothing.

[Dave G]

SpaceX has specifically stated that the Starlink constellation is the funding source of BFR/BFS and the Mars plans.  In fact, BFR/BFS is supposed to replace those vehicles -- at some appropriate point. 

When did SpaceX say this?  Was it before or after IAC-2017?

2015, spacex presser

(of starlink) Well, it can't be free, because then we'd go out of business. No it can't be free to the user, I don't think so. I mean, this would cost a lot to build. I mean, ultimately over time, the full version of the system, we're talking about something that would be $10 or $15 billion to create, maybe more. Then, the user terminals will be at least $100 to $300 depending on which type of terminal. "This is intended to be a significant amount of revenue and help fund a city on Mars." "Looking in the long term, and saying what's needed to create a city on Mars? Well, one thing's for sure: a lot of money." So we need things that will generate a lot of money.

So:

a) It was before IAC-2017, where SpaceX seemed to change direction on how BFR would be funded.

b) The statement from 2015 doesn't talk about funding the initial BFR launcher, but rather the long-term costs of creating a city on Mars.

[Klebiano]

SpaceX will price their services to maximize their profit and/or revenue. Novel, I know.

This. They are making NASA pay for Dragon V2, as NASA has made them redesign it and thus making the capsule redundant.

[Oli]

The recurring price for crewed Dragon (including ops, excluding launch) is $308m, not $400m. My mistake. The source (page 10): https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008893.pdf

The paper you linked is a bunch of estimates.  There is no such thing as a recurring price for crewed Dragon (or CST-100) excluding launch.  Those contracts are for launch and operation of the spacecraft.  That wording was in there because the chart also included other NASA vechicles where the spacecraft and launcher are procured separately.  Adding the cost of the launch to those numbers for Dragon and CST-100 would make them completely absurd. 

NASA has issued task orders for flights under the CCtCap program.  The task orders for the Boeing flights are $350M for each flight.  The task orders for SpaceX don't show a consistent price, starting at $200M for the first one and averaging about $220M for flights 3-6 (for both Boeing and SpaceX the first two flights were done separately, and flights 3-6 as a group.)

The paper is from a NASA analyst. Do you have a source for your numbers?

I said this before and I'll say it again: Even at $1B per flight to lunar surface with 20t payload, BFR would still be a huge bargain for NASA, considering in CRS-1 NASA is paying $1.6B for 20t to ISS.

Well I never said it wouldn't be a bargain regardless, but to my knowledge you forgot multiple LEO refueling flights.

[Dave G]

What does BFR and Starlink have to do with this topic?

Nothing.

I disagree.

As I said before, once Block 5 is proven, if it meets expectations on reuse, then a stock of perhaps a dozen Block 5 boosters will be able to support hundreds of F9 launches. At that point, SpaceX can stop building F9 boosters, and move those resources over to building BFR. 

Note that all of this aligns with Elon's comments at IAC-2017. SpaceX wants to stop building F9, and use those resources for BFR.

But that plan only works if everyone is happy using previously flown boosters.  If NASA CRS-2 insists on using a new booster for every mission, then SpaceX has to continue building F9 boosters, which may delay BFR.

So to encourage NASA to use previously flown boosters, SpaceX is charging NASA an extra 50% for new boosters.

In other words, I suspect NASA's negotiated price with a previously flown booster will be about the same as CRS-1.

[Jim]

SpaceX will price their services to maximize their profit and/or revenue. Novel, I know.

This. They are making NASA pay for Dragon V2, as NASA has made them redesign it and thus making the capsule redundant.

Again, NASA did not make them redesign it.

[gongora]

So to encourage NASA to use previously flown boosters, SpaceX is charging NASA an extra 50% for new boosters.

In other words, I suspect NASA's negotiated price with a previously flown booster will be about the same as CRS-1.

I don't think the discount for reuse will be anywhere close to that.

[aero]

How many missions for NASA is foreseen before the BFR is proven?

Stockpile that many new F9s and make each of their first missions a NASA mission, then use up their remaining life launching for "normal" customers.

[gongora]

The recurring price for crewed Dragon (including ops, excluding launch) is $308m, not $400m. My mistake. The source (page 10): https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008893.pdf

The paper you linked is a bunch of estimates.  There is no such thing as a recurring price for crewed Dragon (or CST-100) excluding launch.  Those contracts are for launch and operation of the spacecraft.  That wording was in there because the chart also included other NASA vechicles where the spacecraft and launcher are procured separately.  Adding the cost of the launch to those numbers for Dragon and CST-100 would make them completely absurd. 

NASA has issued task orders for flights under the CCtCap program.  The task orders for the Boeing flights are $350M for each flight.  The task orders for SpaceX don't show a consistent price, starting at $200M for the first one and averaging about $220M for flights 3-6 (for both Boeing and SpaceX the first two flights were done separately, and flights 3-6 as a group.)

The paper is from a NASA analyst. Do you have a source for your numbers?

The NASA analyst may not have had access to much of the Commercial Crew information, and it says in the paper he is estimating those prices.

NNK14MA75C is the overall Boeing CCtCap contract and NNK15MA50T is the task order under it for the first Boeing PCM.  NNK14MA74C is the overall SpaceX CCtCap contract and NNK16MA03T is the task order under it for the first SpaceX PCM.  They have dollar amounts.  You can look them up in online government contract databases.

[envy887]

SpaceX will price their services to maximize their profit and/or revenue. Novel, I know.

This. They are making NASA pay for Dragon V2, as NASA has made them redesign it and thus making the capsule redundant.

Again, NASA did not make them redesign it.

For various definitions of "make them redesign it"

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

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-18-016.pdf

You could rephrase that as "NASA wanted them to redesign it and is willing to pay for it". It doesn't change the fact that NASA requirements are driving the price changes.

[Jim]

You could rephrase that as "NASA wanted them to redesign it and is willing to pay for it". It doesn't change the fact that NASA requirements are driving the price changes.

Can't say that either.  Spacex could be doing it on their own. 

[docmordrid]

You could rephrase that as "NASA wanted them to redesign it and is willing to pay for it". It doesn't change the fact that NASA requirements are driving the price changes.

Can't say that either.  Spacex could be doing it on their own.

AIUI in SpaceX's bid NASA was given the choice of continuing to use Dragon 1, upgrading to Dragon 2, or using a mix. They choose  Dragon 2 then promptly requested changes to increase the electrical power and up the internal volume by 30%.

Sounds like NASA did the choosing, and paid the price. SpaceX just filled the order.

[Lar]

BFR will cost several times that much, everything else is wishful thinking.

{Citation Needed} .. .the end state pricing needs to be a LOT less or SpaceX failed.