Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[abaddon]

This is a problem for Boeing imo. The fact that the per seat cost will be higher than what we currently pay to Russia in spite of the fact that Boeing was paid a lot more money to develop their capability is a problem, at least in terms of optics. Commercial crew was supposed to return launches to US soil and provide a better price than the Russian option which has been increasing steadily over the last few years.

It's only a problem for Boeing if someone makes it a problem for Boeing.  That "someone" is certainly not NASA, and it is unlikely any of the politicos will worry much about this with all the bigger fish flying around.

(I mean "problem" as something more substantial than the minor PR kerfuffle that it is right now).

Regardless of the merits (whatever anyone's opinion of those is), does anyone here really expect anything significant to come of this?

[RonM]

Commercial crew was supposed to return launches to US soil and provide a better price than the Russian option which has been increasing steadily over the last few years.

You're half right. Commercial crew is supposed to return US crewed launch. That's an important national capability regardless of cost. Heck, Orion/SLS was considered a backup to CC and that would be expensive. Realistically, there's no way they can beat the per seat cost of a Soyuz.

[edkyle99]

Boeing was not starting from scratch. Starliner is based on the Grumman/Boeing's proposal for CEV. Tens of millions of tax-payer's dollars had already been poured into the design-work for CEV and that work was directly applied in the design of Starliner, including early tech development work.

Starliner's abort engines are not a "from-scratch" development either. It goes back to NASA's Bantam program for the late 1990's. So NASA basically handed Boeing a completely developed abort engine for Starliner.

Boeing "starting from scratch" on Starliner? As the British say: My foot!

CEV was a decade earlier, when Boeing/Grumman lost to Lockheed Martin, so they would have all but shut it down after that.  Meanwhile, in the intervening years, SpaceX won Commercial Cargo and actually developed, built, and flew (and reflew) its spacecraft numerous times.  And for that excellent effort it has been paid, what, more than $2 billion all told?  That's money that Boeing did not receive.

 - Ed Kyle

[Lars-J]

I thought we knew about all of this, three or so years ago, when Boeing dug in its heels.  That was public news then.  I don't think it is a surprise that Boeing's costs were higher.  SpaceX, after all, had a head start on its spacecraft thanks to already-by-then-well-proven commercial cargo Dragon while Boeing was starting from scratch. 

 - Ed Kyle

My understanding is the concern is not about development costs, but about costs per seat AFTER development is over. Particularly interesting given Boeing says its capsule is more reusable than SpaceX's capsule given the non-water landing.

Isn't the per-seat cost on a program like this, with its limited number of missions, going to be tied tightly to the development cost?

 - Ed Kyle

Well at the most basic level, even if the spacecraft was "free", the launch vehicle cost produces an absolute minimum for the per-seat costs. And in that aspect, a ULA launch is also more costly than an F9 launch. (maybe more than twice* what a F9 costs) So some of this is outside the control of Boeing.

* - and by "maybe more than twice", before you object, keep in mind that Starliner does not launch on a vanilla/plain Atlas V. It adds two SRBs and a 2nd engine to Centaur. (but does to be fair not have a fairing)

[woods170]

Boeing was not starting from scratch. Starliner is based on the Grumman/Boeing's proposal for CEV. Tens of millions of tax-payer's dollars had already been poured into the design-work for CEV and that work was directly applied in the design of Starliner, including early tech development work.

Starliner's abort engines are not a "from-scratch" development either. It goes back to NASA's Bantam program for the late 1990's. So NASA basically handed Boeing a completely developed abort engine for Starliner.

Boeing "starting from scratch" on Starliner? As the British say: My foot!

CEV was a decade earlier, when Boeing/Grumman lost to Lockheed Martin, so they would have all but shut it down after that.  Meanwhile, in the intervening years, SpaceX won Commercial Cargo and actually developed, built, and flew (and reflew) its spacecraft numerous times.  And for that excellent effort it has been paid, what, more than $2 billion all told?  That's money that Boeing did not receive.

 - Ed Kyle

Have you been paying attention? SpaceX managers themselves have mentioned several times in recent years that there is in fact very little commonality between cargo Dragon and Crew Dragon. Most of the systems on-board Crew Dragon have been completely re-designed or are not even present on cargo Dragon. Even the main heatshield has been completely re-done to satisfy NASA requirements.

Very little of that $2 billion paid for cargo Dragon services applies to Crew Dragon. The so-called headstart SpaceX had over Boeing is much smaller than you imagine.

I'll give you an example: the very first phase of CCP was CCDev1, in which Boeing received $18 million to construct a prototype pressure hull for Starliner. The reason that highly-inefficient Boeing was capable of doing so for a mere $18 million is because they only had to build the pressure hull. The design for this prototype was ported directly from the design efforts for the Grumman/Boeing CEV proposal. That is why the NASA-provided $28 million, that Grumman and Boeing had gotten for initial CEV design work, came in exceptionally well for Boeing in the first CCP phase.

It meant that by the time CCDev1 contracts were awarded Boeing was in fact much further along in Starliner development cycle than most people realize. Courtesy of a prior program.

Additionally: it is incorrect to suggest that the $2 billion which SpaceX received for CRS services somehow were spent on SpaceX's efforts for CCP. That money was in fact mostly spent on keeping cargo Dragon flying. The profits from the CRS contract are used for different purposes, such as Starlink and Starship. SpaceX holds a separate contracts for their CCP efforts, with separate funding coming from NASA.

[ncb1397]

Boeing was not starting from scratch. Starliner is based on the Grumman/Boeing's proposal for CEV. Tens of millions of tax-payer's dollars had already been poured into the design-work for CEV and that work was directly applied in the design of Starliner, including early tech development work.

Starliner's abort engines are not a "from-scratch" development either. It goes back to NASA's Bantam program for the late 1990's. So NASA basically handed Boeing a completely developed abort engine for Starliner.

Boeing "starting from scratch" on Starliner? As the British say: My foot!

CEV was a decade earlier, when Boeing/Grumman lost to Lockheed Martin, so they would have all but shut it down after that.  Meanwhile, in the intervening years, SpaceX won Commercial Cargo and actually developed, built, and flew (and reflew) its spacecraft numerous times.  And for that excellent effort it has been paid, what, more than $2 billion all told?  That's money that Boeing did not receive.

 - Ed Kyle

It is more than $2 billion. $2 billion was just COTS + CRS1-12. 18 CRS flights have been completed with presumably partial payment for CRS19+. It is more like $3+ billion although the government has been less forthcoming with details on that lately.

[gongora]

The money SpaceX has received to fly CRS missions isn't all that relevant to the Commercial Crew program.

[ncb1397]

Benji Reed: So, the SpaceX Crew Dragon is a space capsule. It's, let's see, it's about 13 feet in diameter. It's about 27 feet tall. And it's kind of the product of a lot of great history and heritage that we have on our own Dragon, Dragon One. The Cargo Dragon that we've been flying for a number of years now. In fact, coming into our 19th cargo mission for that Dragon.

https://www.nasa.gov/johnson/HWHAP/the-spacex-dragon

Edit: BTW, since the Advanced Mission Cost Model got some play recently. I ran it twice with two sets of parameters.

CST-100
Qty: 6
Dry Weight:20000
Type: Manned Re-entry
Block Number: 1
Difficulty: Low
Projected Cost: 5,606 million
Actual: 4,780 million
Difference: 85% of projected cost

Dragon
Qty: 6
Dry Weight:20000
Type: Manned Re-entry
Block Number: 2
Difficulty: Low
Projected Cost: 4,244 million
Actual: 3,125 million
difference: 74% of predicted cost

We are talking about a ~10 percent difference.

[Coastal Ron]

Benji Reed: So, the SpaceX Crew Dragon is a space capsule. It's, let's see, it's about 13 feet in diameter. It's about 27 feet tall. And it's kind of the product of a lot of great history and heritage that we have on our own Dragon, Dragon One. The Cargo Dragon that we've been flying for a number of years now. In fact, coming into our 19th cargo mission for that Dragon.

https://www.nasa.gov/johnson/HWHAP/the-spacex-dragon

The phrase "a lot of great history and heritage" is hardly proof that the crew version of Dragon is the same as the cargo version.

How much commonality do you think exists between the two, and what is it?

[gongora]

Edit: BTW, since the Advanced Mission Cost Model got some play recently. I ran it twice with two sets of parameters.

Boeing is building fewer than 6 capsules to get to those 6 missions.  SpaceX is building more than 6 (it would have been 8 if one wasn't lost in testing).  Your choice of "low" difficulty is rather arbitrary and just changing it to "average" raises the prices more than 50%.  Crew Dragon is not just a block upgrade of Dragon 1.

[ncb1397]

Edit: BTW, since the Advanced Mission Cost Model got some play recently. I ran it twice with two sets of parameters.

Boeing is building fewer than 6 capsules to get to those 6 missions.  SpaceX is building more than 6 (it would have been 8 if one wasn't lost in testing).  Your choice of "low" difficulty is rather arbitrary and just changing it to "average" raises the prices more than 50%.  Crew Dragon is not just a block upgrade of Dragon 1.

This is what globalsecurity writes about the difficulty level:

The difficulty factor represents the level of programmatic and technical difficulty anticipated for the new system. This difficulty should be assessed relative to other similar systems that have been developed in the past. For example, if the new system is significantly more complex than previous similar systems, then a difficulty of high or very high should be selected.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/reference/calc/AMCM.htm

The 3 most recent past programs for human crew transportation in the united states was the Apollo CSM, CEV/MPCV/Orion and the space shuttle.

[gongora]

Commercial Crew has more stringent LOC requirements than the previously completed programs.

[edkyle99]

The money SpaceX has received to fly CRS missions isn't all that relevant to the Commercial Crew program.

It seem to me that it is clearly relevant to this specific discussion, in that with Cargo Dragon SpaceX used the funds to build infrastructure and - probably more importantly - a development team that have been involved in development of Crew Dragon.  While these folks were working, Boeing was posting job openings for CST-100 and laying plans to gut one of the former OPF's to create its spaceship factory, etc..

 - Ed Kyle

[gongora]

The fact they have recent experience building and flying an uncrewed spacecraft might be relevant.  Stating the amount of money they received to build hardware for and fly 18+ operational missions is less so.  That money wasn't for developing Crew Dragon.

[ncb1397]

Here is a relevant job listing example:

The vehicle engineering team tackles space exploration’s toughest problems through the development of our reusable launch vehicles (Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Starship) and spacecraft (Crew Dragon). Currently responsible for delivering satellites into orbit and cargo to the ISS, these vehicles will be instrumental in extending humanity’s reach to the moon, Mars and beyond.

https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4438066002?gh_jid=4438066002

[TripleSeven]

The money SpaceX has received to fly CRS missions isn't all that relevant to the Commercial Crew program.

It seem to me that it is clearly relevant to this specific discussion, in that with Cargo Dragon SpaceX used the funds to build infrastructure and - probably more importantly - a development team that have been involved in development of Crew Dragon.  While these folks were working, Boeing was posting job openings for CST-100 and laying plans to gut one of the former OPF's to create its spaceship factory, etc..

 - Ed Kyle

it is interesting to me, that they have had the same problems or similar ones anyway

[Tywin]

After the Dream Chaser, complete the next 6 missions of cargo the ISS, maybe is possible that NASA open the contract for make the crew version of this space plane?

[Tywin]

Obviously the Commercial Crew program is more expensive than just buying Soyuz seats when you include the development costs, but getting seat prices lower really wasn't the main reason for doing the program.  (If you just include the CCtCap development costs, SpaceX actually isn't that much higher per seat than what Russia is charging the US now for Soyuz seats.)

You have the number of the cost, per seat, if you include the CCtCap?

[TripleSeven]

After the Dream Chaser, complete the next 6 missions of cargo the ISS, maybe is possible that NASA open the contract for make the crew version of this space plane?

that would not surprise me.  the main weakness in the other two programs (Dragon2 and CST) is the method of landing.  I "assume" but dont know that eventually Dragon2 will move recovery closer to the east coast, ie off the Atlantic but it will always be a water landing.  CST has the advantage of land recoveries but its always going to be out west.

Dream Chaser will have a major advantage in terms of recovery by the runway landing and simple "walk off".  also from just an operational standpoint the vehicle seems to be the most versatile of the three.  it could for instance do a Hubble revisit with just minor alterations (once you get the crew version)...and I have seen versions with an airlock

it will be interesting to see...but SNC is working on in my view a superb vehicle

[Tywin]

After the Dream Chaser, complete the next 6 missions of cargo the ISS, maybe is possible that NASA open the contract for make the crew version of this space plane?

that would not surprise me.  the main weakness in the other two programs (Dragon2 and CST) is the method of landing.  I "assume" but dont know that eventually Dragon2 will move recovery closer to the east coast, ie off the Atlantic but it will always be a water landing.  CST has the advantage of land recoveries but its always going to be out west.

Dream Chaser will have a major advantage in terms of recovery by the runway landing and simple "walk off".  also from just an operational standpoint the vehicle seems to be the most versatile of the three.  it could for instance do a Hubble revisit with just minor alterations (once you get the crew version)...and I have seen versions with an airlock

it will be interesting to see...but SNC is working on in my view a superb vehicle

Totally agree, I think so, the DC, is perfect for the future private spaces stations in LEO, like Axiom, Bigelow, etc...