Quote from: Coastal Ron on 09/12/2018 02:22 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 09/12/2018 01:47 pmthe entire "pull" of Commercial crew is that the folks who are providing it can sale excess seats...this is what makes it "special"NASA contracts for the entire flight to the ISS, so you are mistaken that Boeing and SpaceX have rights to sell unused seats - which actually there never will be, since NASA intends to fill all four seats on every flight as part of their ISS expansion plans (i.e. ISS crew going from 6 to 7 to increase science output).The commercial crew contract does allow selling extra seats on NASA flights (the 5th seat for example), but there're some pre-conditions, for example the company will need to provide consumables for the tourist (oxygen, water, food, etc), not sure how feasible this is. Also if the tourist doesn't want to stay for 6 months, then he/she will need to launch on one company's ship and return on the other company's ship, so the deal needs both companies to work.I'm guessing the tourist deal Gwynne mentioned would much more likely be non-NASA flights.
Quote from: TripleSeven on 09/12/2018 01:47 pmthe entire "pull" of Commercial crew is that the folks who are providing it can sale excess seats...this is what makes it "special"NASA contracts for the entire flight to the ISS, so you are mistaken that Boeing and SpaceX have rights to sell unused seats - which actually there never will be, since NASA intends to fill all four seats on every flight as part of their ISS expansion plans (i.e. ISS crew going from 6 to 7 to increase science output).
the entire "pull" of Commercial crew is that the folks who are providing it can sale excess seats...this is what makes it "special"
Quote from: su27k on 09/12/2018 05:15 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 09/12/2018 02:22 pmQuote from: TripleSeven on 09/12/2018 01:47 pmthe entire "pull" of Commercial crew is that the folks who are providing it can sale excess seats...this is what makes it "special"NASA contracts for the entire flight to the ISS, so you are mistaken that Boeing and SpaceX have rights to sell unused seats - which actually there never will be, since NASA intends to fill all four seats on every flight as part of their ISS expansion plans (i.e. ISS crew going from 6 to 7 to increase science output).The commercial crew contract does allow selling extra seats on NASA flights (the 5th seat for example), but there're some pre-conditions, for example the company will need to provide consumables for the tourist (oxygen, water, food, etc), not sure how feasible this is. Also if the tourist doesn't want to stay for 6 months, then he/she will need to launch on one company's ship and return on the other company's ship, so the deal needs both companies to work.I'm guessing the tourist deal Gwynne mentioned would much more likely be non-NASA flights.yes, this is "now" but over the life of the contract things will likely change with at least one maybe two "add on modules" to the station ...which will take care of the "pre conditions"strangely enough the "big race" over the next 3 to 4 years at ISS might well be in "how to sell the spare seats". The Russians will clearly start selling seats as soon as the US stops buying/occupying them and the Axiom (at least maybe even Bigelow) module looks a little more solidthe rumor flying around Houston is that a major "aerospace corporation" is thinking about becoming involved in it. I have no idea what she is talking about . Jeff Foust who is well connected seems to think that the line was more humor than anything else...although it would be "a big deaL" to see some dedicated "tourist flights" the cost for that are enormous. but lots of people have serious money and want to spend itin large measure i suspect changes in federal policy are coming.
...No guess on internal cost, but their paying customer cost can't really undercut what they're charging satellite customers for flight proven boosters. It would look bad. Maybe they could get away with no adding costs for the D2.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 09/12/2018 02:22 pmNASA contracts for the entire flight to the ISS, so you are mistaken that Boeing and SpaceX have rights to sell unused seats - which actually there never will be, since NASA intends to fill all four seats on every flight as part of their ISS expansion plans (i.e. ISS crew going from 6 to 7 to increase science output).The reason Boeing and SpaceX put their own money into Commercial Crew is that they thought there would be customers who would want to fly on non-NASA flights, such as what Bob Bigelow wants to do with his Bigelow Stations. And that is what Shotwell is referencing.if NASA takes four seats at least in the Boeing version there are places for 7.
NASA contracts for the entire flight to the ISS, so you are mistaken that Boeing and SpaceX have rights to sell unused seats - which actually there never will be, since NASA intends to fill all four seats on every flight as part of their ISS expansion plans (i.e. ISS crew going from 6 to 7 to increase science output).The reason Boeing and SpaceX put their own money into Commercial Crew is that they thought there would be customers who would want to fly on non-NASA flights, such as what Bob Bigelow wants to do with his Bigelow Stations. And that is what Shotwell is referencing.
Boeing will sale that excess capability I dont know about SpaceX but Boeing will
to me that Tweet of her's is a joke, having some fun...there is nothing substantive in it
Both Boeing and SpaceX are only installing 4 seats. The extra room is used for NASA cargo.
You might want to acquaint yourself with the public version of the Commercial Crew contracts so that you can better understand what services Boeing and SpaceX are being asked to provide.
She was jesting about the market size (i.e. 7 billion people), but not about offering flights to space to non-NASA customers.
Quote from: John Alan on 09/12/2018 06:41 pmQuestion... If SpaceX (a year or so from now) was to...... take a refurb'd D2 (with landing legs added back on) = $?... and a refurb'd F9 B5 S1 = $?... with a New S2 to be expended = $?... with a New Trunk section for D2 = $?Launch it on their own dime... 7 test dummies on board... = $?Put cameras inside and out and put up a live feed on U-tube...Leave it up a week or so... Then reenter and land it ON LAND at one of their landing pads...What would you guess is their internal cost to fly this mission?... What would be your guess to repeat it with the same hardware a month later?... What would be you guess on internal cost if they repeated it every month with 6 paying customers and a SpaceX employee aboard... What sort of per seat *6 could SpaceX charge for this to cover costs and make some profit... No guess on internal cost, but their paying customer cost can't really undercut what they're charging satellite customers for flight proven boosters. It would look bad. Maybe they could get away with no adding costs for the D2.
Question... If SpaceX (a year or so from now) was to...... take a refurb'd D2 (with landing legs added back on) = $?... and a refurb'd F9 B5 S1 = $?... with a New S2 to be expended = $?... with a New Trunk section for D2 = $?Launch it on their own dime... 7 test dummies on board... = $?Put cameras inside and out and put up a live feed on U-tube...Leave it up a week or so... Then reenter and land it ON LAND at one of their landing pads...What would you guess is their internal cost to fly this mission?... What would be your guess to repeat it with the same hardware a month later?... What would be you guess on internal cost if they repeated it every month with 6 paying customers and a SpaceX employee aboard... What sort of per seat *6 could SpaceX charge for this to cover costs and make some profit...
Well for sat customers, they would have fairing costs, custom payload adapter, project management costs and so on. So may be some room for a (slightly) lower pricing.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 09/12/2018 08:26 pmBoth Boeing and SpaceX are only installing 4 seats. The extra room is used for NASA cargo.seats are fungible...ie they come out they go back in. NASA has plenty of upmass capability.
QuoteYou might want to acquaint yourself with the public version of the Commercial Crew contracts so that you can better understand what services Boeing and SpaceX are being asked to provide.I have actually and the side memos and have a good grasp on where Boeing is going I feel comfortable with my statement. Boeing will fly a "visitor" to the station early next decade. thats a prediction. I feel quite comfortable in that. I dont really have any serious grasp on what or where SpaceX is going.
H.23 NON-NASA PASSENGERS, CARGO AND PAYLOADSThis clause is applicable to CLIN 002 Post Certification Mission (PCM) task orders. The requirements of a specific PCM will be established by NASA in the task order in accordance with clause H.8, Post Certification Mission Task Ordering Procedures (Applicable to CLIN 002). If NASA determines, in its sole discretion, that its requirements can be met without using the full capacity of the CTS, NASA may notify the Contractor of the opportunity to propose to manifest a Passenger or non-NASA Cargo or Payload on a flight conducted under this contract as part of the task proposal process....(b) NASA Unilateral Determination; NASA Right to Revoke; Costs.
QuoteShe was jesting about the market size (i.e. 7 billion people), but not about offering flights to space to non-NASA customers.They are both going to do offer seats to non NASA passengers.
...they will fly in my view long before BFR/BFS does anything in space.
the future is coming...and when the political situation in the US is over...it will come fast.
it will be longer before anyone flies in just a Dragon Crew or a CST and just goes into "space" and back. but that will probably happen before the midpoint of next decade as well.
...Also, at least in America...
...... Mature BFR P2P could be loosely described as 'everyone' (neglecting many people can't hope to afford $1K)....
I have no idea what she is talking about . Jeff Foust who is well connected seems to think that the line was more humor than anything else...although it would be "a big deaL" to see some dedicated "tourist flights" the cost for that are enormous. but lots of people have serious money and want to spend it
in large measure i suspect changes in federal policy are coming.
I guess what I am thinking is MAYBE SpaceX may use high dollar early PRIVATE rides to orbit to pay for FINISHING out the land landing capability for NON NASA usage... Satisfying FAA regs on doing so... As they will be the ONLY government entity needing to OK and License this type private for profit launch operation...D2 land landings could drastically reduce costs in reusing D2... making later private flights a more profitable venture...
And while NASA does have dedicated cargo vehicles, NASA also requires cargo to fly on Commercial Crew vehicles - when you have an active National Laboratory, especially one that is getting an extra employee (i.e. purpose of the Commercial Crew flights), then time sensitive cargo makes sense to send up and bring back on crew flights.
One of the primary goals NASA had for the Commercial Crew program was to increase the ISS crew size so that they would double the science output. Don't hold your breath thinking about NASA wasting that opportunity, especially when Trump wants to end the ISS program earlier than anyone wants
I think the more accurate way to say it is that both Boeing and SpaceX will be marketing their crew vehicles to non-NASA customers - which has been the plan since Day 1, and it was something they told Congress they planned to do. Nothing new here, move along...
What source of demand are you seeing?
I focus on sources of demand, since that is what is holding back our expansion out into space - a source of demand that has financial reasons for sending humans into space.Based on some professional knowledge I have I see no real market for space tourism. There could be a market for what Bigelow is proposing, which is a rentable science outpost, but even then we haven't seen any updates on that market for quite a long time, which leads me to believe that there isn't yet a market for his station yet. But when demand does arise, I know SpaceX will have vehicles ready to meet the demand.
If Dragon 2 starts catering to the non-NASA market, will there be an incentive to go back to propulsive landings? Seems it might be cheaper and easier for tourists than fishing them out of the ocean every flight.
It's no joke. Gwynne Shotwell mentioned in 2 separate occasions (once during Washington Post interview a few weeks ago, another during Q&A with Spanish students yesterday) that a tourism deal/announcement is incoming. I agree the cost for a dedicated tourist flight would be substantial, hard to close the business case if it's just going to LEO. That's why I'm wondering if they'll bring back the Dragon lunar flyby deal, the business case for that one should be easy.
Quote from: llanitedave on 09/13/2018 03:02 pmIf Dragon 2 starts catering to the non-NASA market, will there be an incentive to go back to propulsive landings? Seems it might be cheaper and easier for tourists than fishing them out of the ocean every flight.It depends on the ETA of the BFR, the longer that takes the more likely there could be further development of the Dragon 2.
Quote from: llanitedave on 09/13/2018 03:02 pmIf Dragon 2 starts catering to the non-NASA market, will there be an incentive to go back to propulsive landings? Seems it might be cheaper and easier for tourists than fishing them out of the ocean every flight.It seems like the answer to that question is dependent on how quickly SpaceX achieves crew capability on BFS, and whether NASA is prepared to fly crews on flight-proven D2s. If BFR flies orbital in 2020 and starts carrying crew by 2021 or 2022, eclipsing Falcon/D2's crew capabilities, that's not much of a window for D2 propulsive landing development. If SpaceX spent 2020 proving out D2 for propulsive landings, it would be ready in 2021. Even tacking 2 years on to SpaceX's BFR schedule, that would only give a propulsive D2 about a 2 year useful life before BFS is available for crewed flights.Moreover, SpaceX would probably like to have a stock of surplus used D2s available for landing tests. That won't happen if NASA's fine with flight-proven D2s for crew flights, and NASA's already fine with flight-proven D1s for cargo flights, so there probably wouldn't be any surplus cargo D2s available. In other words, it's likely that if SpaceX wanted to prove out D2 propulsive landing, they'd have to use an internally-funded D2, making the program more expensive.
It's hard to see where the free option for an unmanned test would come from. In it's absence, you'd be looking at $millions for an unmanned test flight vs $10,000's* each time for a sea recovery. I can't see that they'd have enough flights to offset the test.
Quote from: daveklingler on 09/13/2018 04:16 pmQuote from: llanitedave on 09/13/2018 03:02 pmIf Dragon 2 starts catering to the non-NASA market, will there be an incentive to go back to propulsive landings? Seems it might be cheaper and easier for tourists than fishing them out of the ocean every flight.It seems like the answer to that question is dependent on how quickly SpaceX achieves crew capability on BFS, and whether NASA is prepared to fly crews on flight-proven D2s. If BFR flies orbital in 2020 and starts carrying crew by 2021 or 2022, eclipsing Falcon/D2's crew capabilities, that's not much of a window for D2 propulsive landing development. If SpaceX spent 2020 proving out D2 for propulsive landings, it would be ready in 2021. Even tacking 2 years on to SpaceX's BFR schedule, that would only give a propulsive D2 about a 2 year useful life before BFS is available for crewed flights.Moreover, SpaceX would probably like to have a stock of surplus used D2s available for landing tests. That won't happen if NASA's fine with flight-proven D2s for crew flights, and NASA's already fine with flight-proven D1s for cargo flights, so there probably wouldn't be any surplus cargo D2s available. In other words, it's likely that if SpaceX wanted to prove out D2 propulsive landing, they'd have to use an internally-funded D2, making the program more expensive.If I have read SpaceX stuff correctly, and it changes, there will be no D2's reused for crewed flight...they will all transition to cargo dragon part 2.
