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

[envy887]

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.

And how did you get that out of "new CRS-2 contract terms required a redesign"?

[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.

And how did you get that out of "new CRS-2 contract terms required a redesign"?

If Spacex wanted to eligible for the contract, they had make the choice to redesign or not.    NASA did not dictate changes after awarding the contract.

[envy887]

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.

And how did you get that out of "new CRS-2 contract terms required a redesign"?

If Spacex wanted to eligible for the contract, they had make the choice to redesign or not.    NASA did not dictate changes after awarding the contract.

Indeed. And SpaceX did not raise the prices after accepting the contract award.

The requirement changes, and the price increases, are both relative to CRS-1.

[DistantTemple]

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.

The way most of us have been talking about this is "simplistic, opinionated, and often inaccurate"

Wow ... just read most of that "AUDIT OF COMMERCIAL RESUPPLY SERVICES" (original caps).
NASA did change CRS 2 from CRSS 1, and did deliberately force volume and mass increases. There is explanation in the document.

There is clear justification in there for the modifications. Dragon 1 and 2 are both the smallest CRS craft by volume. According to the audit report, volume was (always?) the limiting factor restricting loading of Dragon. Therefoe in CRS2 a extra condition was added about density and minimum volume. This lead to the internal redesign.

As a general SX enthusiast, I had thought Dragon was the best and cheapest! Now I see there are definite downsides to Dragon 1 and 2 in terms of mass and volume restrictions. Cygnus has about 1.5x and Dream Chaser 2x the (internal) mass and volume capacities of Dragon. (D's external 800Kg, and its essential downmass capability that have been enormously beneficial counter this.) are These also lead to the calculations showing SX to be the most expensive! Also as well as the permission costs SX has received "integration" payments for developing and changing capabilities.

So much of what I and others have said about SX's costs and NASA's developing requirements, for CRS 2 has had an unfair fraction of opinionated hot air! As well as an inappropriate amount of complaint, denunciation and castigation. I advise anyone with strong feelings or bias about CRS 2 to either read the dammed document, or minimise their judgements! And I take back my comments suggesting NASA have dragged their feet, and (unnecessarily) messed SX about. The process did cause some "unfortunate" delays and costs for example

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.

and working through the whole CRS 1 and 2 has seemed slow... but it has been a massive beneficial financial support, and learning experience for Spacex.
Edit CRS corrected from COTS! i

[Jim]

NASA did change CRS 2 from CRSS 1, and did deliberately force volume and mass increases. There is explanation in the document.

Wrong, there was no forcing

[gongora]

NASA did change CRS 2 from CRSS 1, and did deliberately force volume and mass increases. There is explanation in the document.

Wrong, there was no forcing

This particular line of conversation is not going anywhere and is not particularly meaningful.

[DistantTemple]

NASA did change CRS 2 from CRSS 1, and did deliberately force volume and mass increases. There is explanation in the document.

Wrong, there was no forcing

I agree SX had a choice. But what choice exactly? The audit reads as if volume and mass figures were written into CRS 2, and SX responded. (I don't know if it was a "requirement" or a metric that would be scored in some way). NASA "forced" as "put conditions in place". (Oxford English dictionary "(of a plant) having its development or maturity artificially hastened.") Because they definitely wanted larger deliveries, for several reasons including using astronaut time more effectively. If you know conclusively that SX could have ignored this change and still been awarded CRS 2 without penalty, then ....... whatever
I value your contributions, and didn't intend to argue... I hope I didn't imply error, I was just feeding back from reading the Audit report.

[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?

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.

Why should a NASA analyst not have access? Anyway, I googled and cannot find numbers regarding NNK16MA03T, do you have a link?

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. 

In my view SpaceX succeeds when it manages to lower the price to the point where NASA can afford human missions to the Moon and Mars.

[deruch]

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.

Why should a NASA analyst not have access?

The analysit didn't have access because those figures are firewalled as part of protecting the commercial partner's proprietary data.  The point was that they used only publicly available information--which doesn't include the actual prices charged in the contracts.  If they had used the actual figures, it would be simple to just back calculate what the prices were in the first place, thus making their withholding a useless gesture.

[woods170]

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.

Yes, in fact NASA did.
SpaceX offered both Dragon 1 and Dragon 2 for the CRS-2 contract. NASA declined the Dragon 1 offer and picked Dragon 2. However, like Dragon 1, Dragon 2 was volume limited. NASA ordered a substantial re-design of both the Dragon 2 interior, as well as the Dragon 2 service module (not the trunk) to get Dragon 2 to come closer to meeting its theoretical up-mass limit.
SpaceX said: "Sure, but it will cost ya". NASA said: "No problem".

What Jim is overlooking is that in-between the initial RFP for CRS-2, and the awarding of the contract, there was a substantial period where NASA and its would-be contractors worked out a lot of details and NASA got to throw-in additional wishes, courtesy of new insights.

This is perfectly normal in government contracting in the aerospace industry.

[rockets4life97]

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.

Yes, in fact NASA did.
SpaceX offered both Dragon 1 and Dragon 2 for the CRS-2 contract. NASA declined the Dragon 1 offer and picked Dragon 2. However, like Dragon 1, Dragon 2 was volume limited. NASA ordered a substantial re-design of both the Dragon 2 interior, as well as the Dragon 2 service module (not the trunk) to get Dragon 2 to come closer to meeting its theoretical up-mass limit.
SpaceX said: "Sure, but it will cost ya". NASA said: "No problem".

What Jim is overlooking is that in-between the initial RFP for CRS-2, and the awarding of the contract, there was a substantial period where NASA and its would-be contractors worked out a lot of details and NASA got to throw-in additional wishes, courtesy of new insights.

This is perfectly normal in government contracting in the aerospace industry.

Thanks for the insight. Do these redesigns mean that Dragon 2-Crew and Dragon 2-Cargo are substantially different vehicles?

[gongora]

Anyway, I googled and cannot find numbers regarding NNK16MA03T, do you have a link?

https://govtribe.com/contract/award/nnk14ma74c-nnk16ma03t

[Prettz]

the Dragon 2 service module (not the trunk)

What is this?

[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.

Yes, in fact NASA did.

No, again, NASA did not "make" them design it.

[whitelancer64]

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.

Yes, in fact NASA did.
SpaceX offered both Dragon 1 and Dragon 2 for the CRS-2 contract. NASA declined the Dragon 1 offer and picked Dragon 2. However, like Dragon 1, Dragon 2 was volume limited. NASA ordered a substantial re-design of both the Dragon 2 interior, as well as the Dragon 2 service module (not the trunk) to get Dragon 2 to come closer to meeting its theoretical up-mass limit.
SpaceX said: "Sure, but it will cost ya". NASA said: "No problem".

What Jim is overlooking is that in-between the initial RFP for CRS-2, and the awarding of the contract, there was a substantial period where NASA and its would-be contractors worked out a lot of details and NASA got to throw-in additional wishes, courtesy of new insights.

This is perfectly normal in government contracting in the aerospace industry.

Thanks for the insight. Do these redesigns mean that Dragon 2-Crew and Dragon 2-Cargo are substantially different vehicles?

As I understand it, the cargo Dragon v2 is meant to be the same as the crew Dragon v2 but with the seats removed.

[gongora]

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.

Yes, in fact NASA did.

No, again, NASA did not "make" them design it.

Any further posts on this topic (from Jim or anyone else) will be deleted.

[whitelancer64]

the Dragon 2 service module (not the trunk)

What is this?

Some of the Dragon v2 consumables are now in the trunk, making it a service module as well as an unpressurized cargo stowage area. A recent render from Spaceflight Insider also has thrusters mounted to the trunk.

[Joffan]

Thinking about the requirement for 3 to 6 hour access to (some) returning cargo, how much of a shift is this from current SpaceX performance? Do we have any knowledge of the current quick access performance and what would be needed to shorten that?

... but it has been a massive beneficial financial support...

It has been a win for both - NASA getting excellent value by supporting innovation, SpaceX increasing capability to deliver value.

Here I think the increased price reflects several things, for example: that genuine increased value sought by NASA, the implied reduced sales volume from having three suppliers, and the higher cost of requiring a new block-5 booster each time (in due course making room for the financial case for reused boosters). I could believe that a correction to the undervalued downmass capability is also part of it. And that's still not really valued, according to the OIG report. (p#34)

[kevinof]

Do we know what was the driver behind putting thrusters in the trunk?  Seems a big change given that the existing dragon and trunk work fine.

the Dragon 2 service module (not the trunk)

What is this?

Some of the Dragon v2 consumables are now in the trunk, making it a service module as well as an unpressurized cargo stowage area. A recent render from Spaceflight Insider also has thrusters mounted to the trunk.

[DistantTemple]

Do we know what was the driver behind putting thrusters in the trunk?  Seems a big change given that the existing dragon and trunk work fine.

the Dragon 2 service module (not the trunk)

What is this?

Some of the Dragon v2 consumables are now in the trunk, making it a service module as well as an unpressurized cargo stowage area. A recent render from Spaceflight Insider also has thrusters mounted to the trunk.

Guesses: If the thrusters in the trunk still function once it is detached from Dragon, then it could be detached earlier before the deorbit burn, and it would be able to deorbit itself, and so place this important separation as a seperate item before the rest of the deorbit process. This may be deemed safer for crew.
Guess2: Creating more room in Dragon2