Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[abaddon]

In fairness, this quote was from November '19 when things were a little different.  I suspect Boeing might not make the same claim now as they did then.

Regardless, it's a weasel argument and yet another indication how bad Boeing's PR was at this time.  Hopefully they've learned their lesson.

[Nomadd]

However, Boeing dispute these prices per seat namely because it doesn't take into account the potential 5th seat on Starliner (which can be replaced with cargo):

In regards to to the per-seat cost estimate, Boeing said that its craft "will fly the equivalent of a fifth passenger in cargo for NASA, so the per-seat pricing should be considered based on five seats rather than four."

https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boeing_Starliner_to_cost_90_Million_per_seat_999.html

What does this even mean... both Dragon and Starliner have theoretical capacity for 7 seats.
‘The equivalent of a fifth passenger in cargo’ sounds like nonsense to me, comparing apples to oranges. Is Dragon’s cargo capacity even lower than Starliner’s, never mind lower enough to justify a 35*4= 140 million $ difference in cost per mission?

They didn't say anything about Dragon. Just the $90 million figure. Give that 5th seat number ($72 million) to Boeing as long as you do the same for SpaceX and reduce their price to $44 million a seat.

[kdhilliard]

...
 They didn't say anything about Dragon. Just the $90 million figure. Give that 5th seat number ($72 million) to Boeing as long as you do the same for SpaceX and reduce their price to $44 million a seat.

Indeed.  It is more about comparisons with the cost to NASA of a Soyuz seat.

[DistantTemple]

...
 They didn't say anything about Dragon. Just the $90 million figure. Give that 5th seat number ($72 million) to Boeing as long as you do the same for SpaceX and reduce their price to $44 million a seat.

Indeed.  It is more about comparisons with the cost to NASA of a Soyuz seat.

I know there has been frequent moans about how expensive Roscosmos is, and "giving Russia $90M per seat", but on that basis alone SpaceX will cost much more if you include the development cost. Despite SX's aim to reduce spaceflight costs, the CC programme has only limited flights and high (necessarily so) safety and oversight standards. As well as limited re-use. SpaceX is competing against Boeing, not the Russians.

The arguments for SX vs the Russians, are things like, independent launch ability, developing US capabilities, and US space industry, having proper REDUNDANCY so a problem with the Soyuz doesn't halt launches... etc. Removing the indignity of having to rely on Soyuz! And having their own programme as part of expanding HSF from American soil, and so being able to claim leadership etc, as well as making strides in exploration.

[Nomadd]

...
 They didn't say anything about Dragon. Just the $90 million figure. Give that 5th seat number ($72 million) to Boeing as long as you do the same for SpaceX and reduce their price to $44 million a seat.

Indeed.  It is more about comparisons with the cost to NASA of a Soyuz seat.

I know there has been frequent moans about how expensive Roscosmos is, and "giving Russia $90M per seat", but on that basis alone SpaceX will cost much more if you include the development cost. Despite SX's aim to reduce spaceflight costs, the CC programme has only limited flights and high (necessarily so) safety and oversight standards. As well as limited re-use. SpaceX is competing against Boeing, not the Russians.

The arguments for SX vs the Russians, are things like, independent launch ability, developing US capabilities, and US space industry, having proper REDUNDANCY so a problem with the Soyuz doesn't halt launches... etc. Removing the indignity of having to rely on Soyuz! And having their own programme as part of expanding HSF from American soil, and so being able to claim leadership etc, as well as making strides in exploration.

I really don't understand people implying Roscosmos is doing something unethical with their pricing. Why should they sell a service for less than the customer is willing to pay? They've kept human spaceflight alive for the nine years the other guys have been fooling around with various projects. If the boss making dumb comments is a reason to belittle the company, we really don't have much room to say anything. I'm in awe at the way they've kept the dream alive through the incredible upheaval they've endured in the last 60 years, and anybody I meet who's been involved in the Russian space program won't be paying for drinks that night. Except for the guy who drilled that hole.

[abaddon]

I know there has been frequent moans about how expensive Roscosmos is, and "giving Russia $90M per seat", but on that basis alone SpaceX will cost much more if you include the development cost.

Based on the OIG report, $2.5 billion for 26 seats* is $96 million, so only a little more than the current per-seat price for a Roscosmos seat.  If you factor in the likelihood that the Russian seat price would increase over the duration of the SpaceX service, it probably comes out pretty much the same.

The arguments for SX vs the Russians, are things like, independent launch ability, developing US capabilities, and US space industry, having proper REDUNDANCY so a problem with the Soyuz doesn't halt launches... etc.

You forgot the most important one; having more than one US astronaut on the ISS at a time.

*26 because the two DM-2 astronauts have effectively been converted from a short-stay mission to a long-duration mission

[DistantTemple]

I know there has been frequent moans about how expensive Roscosmos is, and "giving Russia $90M per seat", but on that basis alone SpaceX will cost much more if you include the development cost.

Based on the OIG report, $2.5 billion for 26 seats* is $96 million, so only a little more than the current per-seat price for a Roscosmos seat.  If you factor in the likelihood that the Russian seat price would increase over the duration of the SpaceX service, it probably comes out pretty much the same.

The arguments for SX vs the Russians, are things like, independent launch ability, developing US capabilities, and US space industry, having proper REDUNDANCY so a problem with the Soyuz doesn't halt launches... etc.

You forgot the most important one; having more than one US astronaut on the ISS at a time.

*26 because the two DM-2 astronauts have effectively been converted from a short-stay mission to a long-duration mission

Yes I agree that is essential; I thought of that, but that was caused by a choice to stop buying more seats, because CC was due to come on line... shortly ....  And its pretty implicit in "independent launch ability" etc. And redundancy is perhaps even more important, as a time-consuming problem with Soyuz  as the only HSF vehicle could mean the de-manning of the ICC, and its possible resulting (through complications of this) of early end of mission.

[abaddon]

Yes I agree that is essential; I thought of that, but that was caused by a choice to stop buying more seats, because CC was due to come on line... shortly ....

Russia has scaled down the production of Soyuz and this does not allow for the two at a time that are required for six crew and therefore more than one US astronaut on station at a time.  ISTR this was a Russian decision independent of NASA seat purchases, but I could be wrong about that.

[lonestriker]

I really don't understand people implying Roscosmos is doing something unethical with their pricing. Why should they sell a service for less than the customer is willing to pay? They've kept human spaceflight alive for the nine years the other guys have been fooling around with various projects. If the boss making dumb comments is a reason to belittle the company, we really don't have much room to say anything. I'm in awe at the way they've kept the dream alive through the incredible upheaval they've endured in the last 60 years, and anybody I meet who's been involved in the Russian space program won't be paying for drinks that night. Except for the guy who drilled that hole.

Having worked with many many Russians over the years, you're playing a very dangerous game providing unlimited drinks to any Russian.  Even the Russian ladies can easily drink me under the table (and I outweighed them 2:1)...

[su27k]

The arguments for SX vs the Russians, are things like, independent launch ability, developing US capabilities, and US space industry, having proper REDUNDANCY so a problem with the Soyuz doesn't halt launches... etc.

You forgot the most important one; having more than one US astronaut on the ISS at a time.

I'm sure Russians won't scale down Soyuz production if NASA keeps paying them. However Commercial Crew does provide one more astronauts on the US side comparing to Soyuz (4 instead of 3), this is an important benefit in terms of ISS science output.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Based on the OIG report, $2.5 billion for 26 seats* is $96 million, so only a little more than the current per-seat price for a Roscosmos seat.  If you factor in the likelihood that the Russian seat price would increase over the duration of the SpaceX service, it probably comes out pretty much the same.

You also need to include Boeing costs and all the development costs prior to CCtCAP. I work out that to be $8362.4M for 53 seats (26 for SpaceX and 27 for Boeing). That gives an average seat cost of $158M over the life of the program.

CCDEV          CCDEV1 CCDEV2 CCDEV2+ CCiCap   CPC  CCiCap2 CCtCAP  Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing         $18.0  $92.3  $20.6  $460.0  $10.0  $20.0  $4200  $4820.9
SpaceX          $0.0  $75.0   $0.0  $440.0   $9.6  $20.0  $2600  $3144.6
SNC            $20.0  $80.0  $25.6  $212.5  $10.0  $15.0          $363.1
Blue Origin     $3.7  $22.0                                        $25.7
ULA             $6.7                                                $6.7
Paragon         $1.4                                                $1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total          $49.8  $269.3 $46.2 $1112.5  $29.6  $55.0  $6800  $8362.4

[envy887]

Based on the OIG report, $2.5 billion for 26 seats* is $96 million, so only a little more than the current per-seat price for a Roscosmos seat.  If you factor in the likelihood that the Russian seat price would increase over the duration of the SpaceX service, it probably comes out pretty much the same.

You also need to include Boeing costs and all the development costs prior to CCtCAP. I work out that to be $8362.4M for 53 seats (26 for SpaceX and 27 for Boeing). That gives an average seat cost of $158M over the life of the program.

CCDEV          CCDEV1 CCDEV2 CCDEV2+ CCiCap   CPC  CCiCap2 CCtCAP  Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing         $18.0  $92.3  $20.6  $460.0  $10.0  $20.0  $4200  $4820.9
SpaceX          $0.0  $75.0   $0.0  $440.0   $9.6  $20.0  $2600  $3144.6
SNC            $20.0  $80.0  $25.6  $212.5  $10.0  $15.0          $363.1
Blue Origin     $3.7  $22.0                                        $25.7
ULA             $6.7                                                $6.7
Paragon         $1.4                                                $1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total          $49.8  $269.3 $46.2 $1112.5  $29.6  $55.0  $6800  $8362.4

Over the duration of the current contract, not the life of the program. Unless ISS is deorbited in 2026, NASA will need more than 12 operational flights, so they will need to buy more flights. Which will probably reduce the overall program per-seat cost, as development costs are a large chunk of that price.

[DigitalMan]

Based on the OIG report, $2.5 billion for 26 seats* is $96 million, so only a little more than the current per-seat price for a Roscosmos seat.  If you factor in the likelihood that the Russian seat price would increase over the duration of the SpaceX service, it probably comes out pretty much the same.

You also need to include Boeing costs and all the development costs prior to CCtCAP. I work out that to be $8362.4M for 53 seats (26 for SpaceX and 27 for Boeing). That gives an average seat cost of $158M over the life of the program.

CCDEV          CCDEV1 CCDEV2 CCDEV2+ CCiCap   CPC  CCiCap2 CCtCAP  Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing         $18.0  $92.3  $20.6  $460.0  $10.0  $20.0  $4200  $4820.9
SpaceX          $0.0  $75.0   $0.0  $440.0   $9.6  $20.0  $2600  $3144.6
SNC            $20.0  $80.0  $25.6  $212.5  $10.0  $15.0          $363.1
Blue Origin     $3.7  $22.0                                        $25.7
ULA             $6.7                                                $6.7
Paragon         $1.4                                                $1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total          $49.8  $269.3 $46.2 $1112.5  $29.6  $55.0  $6800  $8362.4

Over the duration of the current contract, not the life of the program. Unless ISS is deorbited in 2026, NASA will need more than 12 operational flights, so they will need to buy more flights. Which will probably reduce the overall program per-seat cost, as development costs are a large chunk of that price.

What about figuring non-NASA flights into the equation?

[Redclaws]

Why?  Isn’t this discussion about cost to NASA, rather than benefit to SpaceX of the program?  Non-NASA flights benefit SpaceX by letting them leverage the NASA investment, but have no (direct, anyway) impact on NASA or its costs.

[DigitalMan]

Why?  Isn’t this discussion about cost to NASA, rather than benefit to SpaceX of the program?  Non-NASA flights benefit SpaceX by letting them leverage the NASA investment, but have no (direct, anyway) impact on NASA or its costs.

NASA seems to indicate that having other customers will reduce their costs. What evidence do you have that they are wrong in that statement?

edit: to save some time, also consider that SpaceX has fixed costs and development costs of its own that were contributed. The CRS contract is a potential indicator of what can happen to NASA costs as the cost environment changes.

[yg1968]

For CCtCap, the cost for NASA of each missions are fixed. But if there is another commercial crew round, I expect prices to drop. So having customers other than NASA could make a difference in the next round. New providers such as SNC could also enter this new round.

[Cherokee43v6]

I know there has been frequent moans about how expensive Roscosmos is, and "giving Russia $90M per seat", but on that basis alone SpaceX will cost much more if you include the development cost.

Based on the OIG report, $2.5 billion for 26 seats* is $96 million, so only a little more than the current per-seat price for a Roscosmos seat.  If you factor in the likelihood that the Russian seat price would increase over the duration of the SpaceX service, it probably comes out pretty much the same.

The arguments for SX vs the Russians, are things like, independent launch ability, developing US capabilities, and US space industry, having proper REDUNDANCY so a problem with the Soyuz doesn't halt launches... etc.

You forgot the most important one; having more than one US astronaut on the ISS at a time.

*26 because the two DM-2 astronauts have effectively been converted from a short-stay mission to a long-duration mission

Don't forget that the price per flight also includes a significant amount of cargo that can be hauled up (and down) in Crew Dragon on crew rotation flights.  Since Crew Dragon was designed for up to 7 astronauts and they're only flying 4, that leaves the entire lower tier as space for cargo, plus the trunk. 

While I'm not sure of the actual mass figures, it is almost certainly more than a comparable Soyuz crew rotation flight would carry.

[Redclaws]

Why?  Isn’t this discussion about cost to NASA, rather than benefit to SpaceX of the program?  Non-NASA flights benefit SpaceX by letting them leverage the NASA investment, but have no (direct, anyway) impact on NASA or its costs.

NASA seems to indicate that having other customers will reduce their costs. What evidence do you have that they are wrong in that statement?

edit: to save some time, also consider that SpaceX has fixed costs and development costs of its own that were contributed. The CRS contract is a potential indicator of what can happen to NASA costs as the cost environment changes.

I’m not suggesting they were (And I don’t think they are!) - I was just confused, the previous post seemed to be just a simple calculation of the cost to NASA.  Literally just addition and division, so I didn’t see how other customers factored in to that calculation.

[DigitalMan]

Why?  Isn’t this discussion about cost to NASA, rather than benefit to SpaceX of the program?  Non-NASA flights benefit SpaceX by letting them leverage the NASA investment, but have no (direct, anyway) impact on NASA or its costs.

NASA seems to indicate that having other customers will reduce their costs. What evidence do you have that they are wrong in that statement?

edit: to save some time, also consider that SpaceX has fixed costs and development costs of its own that were contributed. The CRS contract is a potential indicator of what can happen to NASA costs as the cost environment changes.

I’m not suggesting they were (And I don’t think they are!) - I was just confused, the previous post seemed to be just a simple calculation of the cost to NASA.  Literally just addition and division, so I didn’t see how other customers factored in to that calculation.

SpaceX has negotiated prices with NASA in regards to reuse during CRS. The statements from Jim Bridenstine on multiple occasions indicate they are expecting cost advantages in the future providing a competitive environment where NASA is one customer of many.

SpaceX has 2 other customers lined up. That's a start. I wouldn't expect prices to change during the current contract, but launches past the 6, yea, most likely they will. If reuse becomes a factor it could change sooner.

To simplify the point. I think it is nothing more than an estimate if you try to determine contract costs until the contract is completed. Boeings contract was increased, for example.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-inspector-general-criticizes-additional-boeing-commercial-crew-payments/

[DistantTemple]

DM-2 must complete it’s mission before certification and USCV-1.  There will be no direct handover.

This is also off-topic for this thread which should stay focused on Starliner.

It's not off topic. The purpose was to decide when Starliner needs to launch, in addition to when it can launch.

It would be in the interest of SpaceX, NASA, the ISS and even Boeing, and its safe progress with Starliner, for SpaceX to bring forward its manufacturing, and preparations for its SECOND CC mission, so if needed it can jump ahead of Starliner. It is not guaranteed that Boeing will have only minimal work between each of its repeat un-crewed flight, its crewed demo, and first operational flight.
Russia cannot easily/quickly offer any/many extra seats. That leaves SpaceX. They would have to work very hard to keep the grins out of sight, if they were ready to step into the breach, especially with limited notice! Crew training, and crew scheduling may be a big headache, but maybe NASA should make such preparations as flexible as they can!
Booster manufacture is easy as they have spare capacity. I bet SX have already started to game such a leapfrog, and put their ducks in line for accelerated Dragon2 build etc!
Edit: on topic: relevant to Starliner timeline, and timeline pressure/safety.