Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[snotis]

NASA isn't getting 2 more seats, it's getting a longer duration flight.

The ISS has 2 astronauts that are going to be working for 119 days instead of 7~14 days.  14 days = ~7% of a normal crew rotation.  119 days = ~57%.  So I guess it would be more accurate to say they are getting 1 more seat in equivalent astronaut work time on the ISS.

[king1999]

C. You assume that Crew Dragon will take as long to refurb as Cargo Dragon, which has been retired.

You are right, it will likely take longer. First cargo dragon reuse launch interval was 915 days. Average was ~738 days. And that was without crew rating requirements. DM-2 and USCV-1 won't help with a flight in the ~March 2021 timeframe. They either have a new capsule configured for crew in the pipeline or they don't. If they don't, then Starliner has to hold the ~april 2021 crewed flight date or we have to buy another Soyuz seat.

This assumption has no merits. First of all, cargo dragon reuse intervals are not a good indication of the refurbishing time. SpaceX has other priorities other than refurbishing the dragons. But if it is higher priority to refurbish the crew dragon, they can certainly speed things up. Second and more importantly, crew dragon was designed to be reuse from the get-go, from a lot of lessons learned from cargo dragon. For example, water intrusion was a main problem with earlier cargo dragons, and the design of crew dragon has paid attention to this issue.

[Steven Pietrobon]

This feels like a good deal for SpaceX but an even better deal for NASA (and us taxpayers).

Huh? NASA was paying for seven new Falcon 9 first stages and seven new Dragon's. Now it is paying for at least one new Falcon 9 first stage (with the remaining being used) and at least two new Dragon's (with the remaining being used) for operating Dragon in orbit for an extra 1 to 3 months and some training. That's a saving for SpaceX I guess of up to 6x$20 + 5x$100 = $620M. That's a huge win for SpaceX and by my calculation a loss for the US taxpayer.

[edzieba]

This feels like a good deal for SpaceX but an even better deal for NASA (and us taxpayers).

Huh? NASA was paying for seven new Falcon 9 first stages and seven new Dragon's. Now it is paying for at least one new Falcon 9 first stage (with the remaining being used) and at least two new Dragon's (with the remaining being used) for operating Dragon in orbit for an extra 1 to 3 months and some training. That's a saving for SpaceX I guess of up to 6x$20 + 5x$100 = $620M. That's a huge win for SpaceX and by my calculation a loss for the US taxpayer.

It's a big win for SpaceX, but at absolute worst a net zero for the US taxpayer: before-reuse / after-reuse, they're paying the same for getting the same number of crew seats to the ISS (in reality a small gain from the DM2 test crew becoming a brevet crew rotation).

[Arb]

This feels like a good deal for SpaceX but an even better deal for NASA (and us taxpayers).

Huh? NASA was paying for seven new Falcon 9 first stages and seven new Dragon's. Now it is paying for at least one new Falcon 9 first stage (with the remaining being used) and at least two new Dragon's (with the remaining being used) for operating Dragon in orbit for an extra 1 to 3 months and some training. That's a saving for SpaceX I guess of up to 6x$20 + 5x$100 = $620M. That's a huge win for SpaceX and by my calculation a loss for the US taxpayer.

Don't forget the recovery training for Space Force. Depending on exactly what it involves it could easily run into double digit millions. Ships, training capsule(s), perhaps helicopters, repeatedly...

[IntoTheVoid]

This feels like a good deal for SpaceX but an even better deal for NASA (and us taxpayers).

Huh? NASA was paying for seven new Falcon 9 first stages and seven new Dragon's. Now it is paying for at least one new Falcon 9 first stage (with the remaining being used) and at least two new Dragon's (with the remaining being used) for operating Dragon in orbit for an extra 1 to 3 months and some training. That's a saving for SpaceX I guess of up to 6x$20 + 5x$100 = $620M. That's a huge win for SpaceX and by my calculation a loss for the US taxpayer.

As a US taxpayer, I don't see it as zero sum. I agree it's a great deal for SpaceX, and less so for NASA, but NASA isn't losing anything. As is often discussed, NASA is paying for a service, not buying hardware, and they will still receive the agreed service. NASA gains the 1 - 3 months on on orbit ops, and the training, at the cost of additional certification work.

SpaceX is required to build less hardware, but the on orbit ops still have a real cost, as does the training, as well as the refurb costs and certification costs. Agreed that these new costs are less than the hardware, but not necessarily by so much. Speculation: There is also the possibility that moving PCM-2 up, as contingency to Boeing, would have incurred additional facilitization costs, that reuse obviates. As alternative contingency, we can reasonably presume that 4 soyuz seats for spring 2021, would have cost upward of $90M x 4 = $360M, if even available, which is not assured, and would look bad.

NASA gets something they need/want for something they knew they were probably going to do eventually anyway. Could they have gotten more? Very possibly, but they got the deal they took.

(IMHO IANARS)

[woods170]

This feels like a good deal for SpaceX but an even better deal for NASA (and us taxpayers).

Huh? NASA was paying for seven new Falcon 9 first stages and seven new Dragon's. Now it is paying for at least one new Falcon 9 first stage (with the remaining being used) and at least two new Dragon's (with the remaining being used) for operating Dragon in orbit for an extra 1 to 3 months and some training. That's a saving for SpaceX I guess of up to 6x$20 + 5x$100 = $620M. That's a huge win for SpaceX and by my calculation a loss for the US taxpayer.

As a US taxpayer, I don't see it as zero sum. I agree it's a great deal for SpaceX, and less so for NASA, but NASA isn't losing anything. As is often discussed, NASA is paying for a service, not buying hardware, and they will still receive the agreed service. NASA gains the 1 - 3 months on on orbit ops, and the training, at the cost of additional certification work.

Emphasis mine.

This. NASA is indeed buying a service. The service comes down to this: transport a given number of astronauts to the ISS and back home again, and do so while meeting NASA's safety standards.

Initially SpaceX and NASA agreed that all-new boosters and all-new spacecraft would be the way to meet NASA's safety standards.

But, the work done on reuse of boosters and capsules for the original CRS contract have shown NASA that it is also possible to meet the safety standards with reused boosters and reused spacecraft.

So, when NASA wished the agreed-upon service contract to be amended (turn DM-2 from a 7 day mission to a 119-day mission) it knew that SpaceX would want something in return. After all, the additionally required service was outside the scope of the original CCtCAP contract.

Compensation can be done in multiple ways. One was reimbursing SpaceX directly for the additional costs incurred for turning the DM-2 Crew Dragon into a 119-day-capable spacecraft, as well as providing mission control services and many other services for a much longer time (119 days versus 7 days).

Another way to do compensation is to barter. And that is exactly what SpaceX and NASA did. NASA agreed to let SpaceX reuse boosters and spacecraft for CCtCAP. This drops cost for SpaceX by having to build fewer new boosters and fewer new Crew Dragons. Those cost savings offset the additional costs incurred for turning DM-2 into a long-duration flight.

Personally I feel that the barter results in a greater net gain for SpaceX than does direct reimbursment. But hey, nobody ever said that SpaceX is not allowed to make a profit.

[envy887]

This feels like a good deal for SpaceX but an even better deal for NASA (and us taxpayers).

Huh? NASA was paying for seven new Falcon 9 first stages and seven new Dragon's. Now it is paying for at least one new Falcon 9 first stage (with the remaining being used) and at least two new Dragon's (with the remaining being used) for operating Dragon in orbit for an extra 1 to 3 months and some training. That's a saving for SpaceX I guess of up to 6x$20 + 5x$100 = $620M. That's a huge win for SpaceX and by my calculation a loss for the US taxpayer.

What is the taxpayer losing, exactly?

I see it quite the opposite, NASA is actually getting MORE services, while not paying any more money. That's a net gain.

[abaddon]

On the subject of new capsules...

This feels like a good deal for SpaceX but an even better deal for NASA (and us taxpayers).

Huh? NASA was paying for seven new Falcon 9 first stages and seven new Dragon's. Now it is paying for at least one new Falcon 9 first stage (with the remaining being used) and at least two new Dragon's (with the remaining being used) for operating Dragon in orbit for an extra 1 to 3 months and some training. That's a saving for SpaceX I guess of up to 6x$20 + 5x$100 = $620M. That's a huge win for SpaceX and by my calculation a loss for the US taxpayer.

Initially SpaceX and NASA agreed that all-new boosters and all-new spacecraft would be the way to meet NASA's safety standards.

...while Boeing was allowed to reuse capsules right off the bat due to their proven heritage and dependability.  Yeah.

Fact is, SpaceX severely underbid Boeing while also committing to building new capsules for every mission, where Boeing did not.  Before anyone chimes in with "SpaceX bid that, it's not NASA's fault", we now know that Boeing was almost sole-selected despite being vastly overpriced (and as has been proven since, underdelivering).  The fact of the matter is SpaceX had to underbid and had to bid new capsules.  If there was more risk added to their category assessment, they might not have been selected at all.  The re-balancing of the scales after the fact is now being viewed as a 'great deal for SpaceX' but is in fact just giving SpaceX the credit that NASA already gave Boeing, despite SpaceX having all of the recent experience in flying and re-flying capsules, and Boeing having none.  (Boosters are clearly a separate thing).

[su27k]

This feels like a good deal for SpaceX but an even better deal for NASA (and us taxpayers).

Huh? NASA was paying for seven new Falcon 9 first stages and seven new Dragon's. Now it is paying for at least one new Falcon 9 first stage (with the remaining being used) and at least two new Dragon's (with the remaining being used) for operating Dragon in orbit for an extra 1 to 3 months and some training. That's a saving for SpaceX I guess of up to 6x$20 + 5x$100 = $620M. That's a huge win for SpaceX and by my calculation a loss for the US taxpayer.

What is the taxpayer losing, exactly?

I see it quite the opposite, NASA is actually getting MORE services, while not paying any more money. That's a net gain.

NASA does have a duty to the taxpayers to get the best deal it can from such bartering. I don't think failure to do so would get someone fired, but it could be written up in a page or two in a GAO or OIG report.

Not that I think NASA made a bad deal here, since we don't know the details. It's not like SpaceX can just do the reuse without any work, there will likely be some paperwork involved to certify reuse, that doesn't even count the original design work to get Dragon 2 reusable in the first place.

[SteveU]

This feels like a good deal for SpaceX but an even better deal for NASA (and us taxpayers).

Huh? NASA was paying for seven new Falcon 9 first stages and seven new Dragon's. Now it is paying for at least one new Falcon 9 first stage (with the remaining being used) and at least two new Dragon's (with the remaining being used) for operating Dragon in orbit for an extra 1 to 3 months and some training. That's a saving for SpaceX I guess of up to 6x$20 + 5x$100 = $620M. That's a huge win for SpaceX and by my calculation a loss for the US taxpayer.

What is the taxpayer losing, exactly?

I see it quite the opposite, NASA is actually getting MORE services, while not paying any more money. That's a net gain.

My $0.02 - SpaceX did get the better end of the deal financially for this.  However, NASA and the taxpayer aren't exactly loosing out - simply because SpaceX pricing was significantly less than Boeing,

I see this as a reward, a giant "Atta-boy", for the serious way SpaceX has handled Commercial Crew - especially in the last eight months or so.  When JB implied SpaceX was ignoring Crew Dragon for SS, EM simply said we've got 90%+ of the company dedicated to Crew Dragon and dropped it.  SpaceX then put their heads down, cleared the Supper Draco review, closed out the parachute redesign testing, didn't say a word about Starliner's flaws, simply worked to get Demo-2 to the ISS when and for how long NASA wanted.

TL;DR - SpaceX proved that while they may not be "Old Space",  they have shown that they are truly a VERY qualified and mature space services company.

Edit to fix horrendous spelling and grammer

[king1999]

In one scenario, this actually could SAVE NASA big money IF Boeing can't deliver next year and SpaceX can speed up their services thru reuse, thus NASA doesn't need to buy seats or can buy fewer seats from Russia.

[Coastal Ron]

That's a huge win for SpaceX and by my calculation a loss for the US taxpayer.

Remember that the Commercial Crew program was created so that companies could provide NASA services, not to build hardware for NASA.

So as long as the service remains the same, who cares if SpaceX was smart enough to design their 1st stage and crew vehicle to be reusable, and NASA decides that they are OK with reusable hardware?

One could argue that SpaceX bid lower in anticipation of being able to fly reusable hardware, and though that was a risk they took knowingly, that it appears to have paid off.

But again, since NASA is still getting the same service, paying the same should not be a problem. Isn't that how you incentivize the private sector to partner with NASA?

[Cherokee43v6]

On a somewhat related note, had not SpaceX already indicated that it was planning to refly the CrewDragon capsules for the Cargo2 contracts once they had them available in the workflow? 

Considering that this was already something planned for, and somewhat proven with the original Cargo Dragon refurbishments, it would not have been too large of a step for NASA and SpaceX to put into place certifications and testing for those refurbs to go all the way to crew status.

The biggest risk profile is on the reuse of the Falcon 9 1st stages.  However, even here, reuse can be a positive as the vehicle is now a known commodity, whereas a new build could be hiding flaws of one sort or another.  I can actually see a day where new builds are perhaps flown first unmanned, sort of as a test or validation flight of the vehicle before making it available for use as a crew launch vehicle.

[DigitalMan]

On a somewhat related note, had not SpaceX already indicated that it was planning to refly the CrewDragon capsules for the Cargo2 contracts once they had them available in the workflow? 

SpaceX statements are the opposite of that. Cargo Services 2 is a different build. No Super Draco’s, for instance.

[pmhparis]

On a somewhat related note, had not SpaceX already indicated that it was planning to refly the CrewDragon capsules for the Cargo2 contracts once they had them available in the workflow? 

SpaceX statements are the opposite of that. Cargo Services 2 is a different build. No Super Draco’s, for instance.

No. The absence of SuperDracos does not make Cargo Dragon a substantially different build from Crew Dragon. Maybe if it was Boeing, they would have come up with two totally different designs with very little or even nothing in common between them for cargo and crew, but this is Space-X and Elon Musk we are talking about: Everything that CAN be reused/in common between D2 Cargo and D2 Crew WILL be because it is cheaper and faster to design it that way. Thus the absence of SuperDracos on D2 Cargo is merely the absence of an unneeded option and should Space-X need to convert a D2 Cargo to a D2 Crew, they will be able to do so with a minimum of fuss by adding the SuperDracos to the mounts that will already be present but unused on the Cargo D2.

[king1999]

On a somewhat related note, had not SpaceX already indicated that it was planning to refly the CrewDragon capsules for the Cargo2 contracts once they had them available in the workflow? 

SpaceX statements are the opposite of that. Cargo Services 2 is a different build. No Super Draco’s, for instance.

No. The absence of SuperDracos does not make Cargo Dragon a substantially different build from Crew Dragon. Maybe if it was Boeing, they would have come up with two totally different designs with very little or even nothing in common between them for cargo and crew, but this is Space-X and Elon Musk we are talking about: Everything that CAN be reused/in common between D2 Cargo and D2 Crew WILL be because it is cheaper and faster to design it that way. Thus the absence of SuperDracos on D2 Cargo is merely the absence of an unneeded option and should Space-X need to convert a D2 Cargo to a D2 Crew, they will be able to do so with a minimum of fuss by adding the SuperDracos to the mounts that will already be present but unused on the Cargo D2.

Got your points but that's the SpaceX philosophy everybody knows. I don't think he said "substantially" different. But they are indeed different.

[Rocket Science]

On a somewhat related note, had not SpaceX already indicated that it was planning to refly the CrewDragon capsules for the Cargo2 contracts once they had them available in the workflow? 

SpaceX statements are the opposite of that. Cargo Services 2 is a different build. No Super Draco’s, for instance.

No. The absence of SuperDracos does not make Cargo Dragon a substantially different build from Crew Dragon. Maybe if it was Boeing, they would have come up with two totally different designs with very little or even nothing in common between them for cargo and crew, but this is Space-X and Elon Musk we are talking about: Everything that CAN be reused/in common between D2 Cargo and D2 Crew WILL be because it is cheaper and faster to design it that way. Thus the absence of SuperDracos on D2 Cargo is merely the absence of an unneeded option and should Space-X need to convert a D2 Cargo to a D2 Crew, they will be able to do so with a minimum of fuss by adding the SuperDracos to the mounts that will already be present but unused on the Cargo D2.

Welcome to the forum!

[joek]

On a somewhat related note, had not SpaceX already indicated that it was planning to refly the CrewDragon capsules for the Cargo2 contracts once they had them available in the workflow? 

SpaceX statements are the opposite of that. Cargo Services 2 is a different build. No Super Draco’s, for instance.

IIRC at the Demo-2 post-launch brief, Musk stated that Crew Dragon would not be reused for Crew flights, but would? could? might? be reused for Cargo (sorry do not have reference handy).

As to the differences between Crew and Cargo Dragon 2, see snip below; from Audit of Commercial Resupply Services to the International Space Station, NASA OIG, IG-18-016, 26-Apr-2018.

[gongora]

On a somewhat related note, had not SpaceX already indicated that it was planning to refly the CrewDragon capsules for the Cargo2 contracts once they had them available in the workflow? 

SpaceX statements are the opposite of that. Cargo Services 2 is a different build. No Super Draco’s, for instance.

No. The absence of SuperDracos does not make Cargo Dragon a substantially different build from Crew Dragon. Maybe if it was Boeing, they would have come up with two totally different designs with very little or even nothing in common between them for cargo and crew, but this is Space-X and Elon Musk we are talking about: Everything that CAN be reused/in common between D2 Cargo and D2 Crew WILL be because it is cheaper and faster to design it that way. Thus the absence of SuperDracos on D2 Cargo is merely the absence of an unneeded option and should Space-X need to convert a D2 Cargo to a D2 Crew, they will be able to do so with a minimum of fuss by adding the SuperDracos to the mounts that will already be present but unused on the Cargo D2.

They aren't converting Crew Dragon to Cargo Dragon.  SuperDracos are not the only difference.  They might be able to reuse some parts, but the weldment is different.