Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1195058561203736585

First time I've seen seat prices explicitly stated in a government document. Boeing costs 60% more than SpaceX.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Here’s the OIG report.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Will no doubt reignite the whole new vs old space debate ...

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1195059816844189697

From the report on the rationale for paying Boeing the extra money, one that NASA’s inspector general didn’t agree with:

[rockets4life97]

Can SpaceX sue over this? Seems unfair...

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1195065780418822144

SpaceX statement on today's OIG report:

"There is nothing more important to our company than human spaceflight, and we look forward to safely flying NASA astronauts to and from the International Space Station starting early next year.”

twitter.com/tgmetsfan98/status/1195065956667711489

"NASA continues to accept deferrals or changes to components and capabilities originally planned to be demonstrated on each contractor’s uncrewed test flights. Taken together, these factors may elevate the risk of a significant system failure."

https://twitter.com/tgmetsfan98/status/1195066060216717312

"NASA will likely experience a reduction in the number of USOS crew aboard the ISS from three to one beginning in spring 2020 given schedule delays in the development of Boeing and SpaceX space flight systems coupled with a reduction in the frequency of Soyuz flights."

[woods170]

Will no doubt reignite the whole new vs old space debate ...

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1195059816844189697

Yes, it will do exactly that.

Crazy this. Boeing already is 55 percent more expensive than SpaceX for a similar service yet they had the nerve to threaten their customer to leave the stage if NASA didn’t come up with extra money.
Does Boeing even understand the concept of Firm Fixed Price? Apparently not...

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1195083288752402432

NASA letter in response to the latest OIG Commercial Crew report:

"NASA strongly disagrees with the OIG's characterization that NASA 'overpaid'" when granting Boeing $287.2 million in additional awards.

[woods170]

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1195083288752402432

NASA letter in response to the latest OIG Commercial Crew report:

"NASA strongly disagrees with the OIG's characterization that NASA 'overpaid'" when granting Boeing $287.2 million in additional awards.

Naturally NASA disagrees with the OIG. If they would admit that OIG might have a point NASA would be shooting itself in the foot.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

NASA disagrees less with OIG’s view on when CC will be certified?

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1195084489443225614

NASA's acting director of human spaceflight Kenneth Bowersox on Nov. 8:

NASA sent a letter to Roscosmos on Oct. 24 "requesting one seat on the fall 2020 Soyuz and one seat on the spring 2021 Soyuz."

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/nasawatch/status/1195084649552338945

This is NASA's response to the OIG commercial crew report. Let's just say they do not agree. There will inevitably be hearings about this. 1/2

https://twitter.com/nasawatch/status/1195084680288251904

2/2

[abaddon]

Hooo boy:

"NASA strongly disagrees with the OIG's characterization that NASA 'overpaid'" when granting Boeing $287.2 million in additional awards... "there is no evidence to support the conclusion that Boeing would have agreed to lower prices."

Apparently NASA's concept of "overpay" is "more than the contractor insists on being paid"?

[punder]

Didn't see this posted. Here is Eric Berger's article.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-report-finds-boeing-seat-prices-are-60-higher-than-spacex/

[abaddon]

Here’s the OIG report.

Looking at the report, and summarizing the Boeing-centric points:
NASA overpaid Boeing to prepare for multiple crewed missions
- NASA Paid Boeing More for Mission Flexibilities
- NASA’s Assumptions for a Gap in Flights were Flawed
- Boeing Was Already Required to Provide Up to Two Flights per Year
- NASA Failed to Exercise Multiple Alternatives to Achieve Mission Flexibility within Established Pricing Structure
- Ordering Four Missions at Once was an Excessive and Unnecessarily Costly Response to Perceived Access Gap
- Early Milestone Payments Negated Value of Shortened Lead Time
- Excluding SpaceX Limited NASA’s Options to Address Access Gap

Each item has a paragraph going into more detail, but I think the headers as summary work pretty well.

[Eric Hedman]

Didn't see this posted. Here is Eric Berger's article.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/nasa-report-finds-boeing-seat-prices-are-60-higher-than-spacex/

Does this mean that if Boeing's proposal for their lunar lander is 60 percent more expensive than Blue Origin's proposal that it will be considered a positive in the right congressional districts and they'll win?

[Hog]

It'd be nice to have an STS-136 and STS-137 available.


rocket4life1997  What's FAIR and LEGAL are two completely different things.  Who would SPacex sue?  Use it as ammo for future contracts? Absolutely.

[theonlyspace]

I wonder what was the cost per seat for the last Space Shuttle flights?  Mutiply 90 million per seat  $$ times crew of 7 would been 630 million $$per flight . Will the commercial crew flights  be that much cheaper than Space Shuttle considering also we lost almost 10 years of our own ability to launch astronauts plus the ability to launch massive payloads also???

[Ike17055]

Inspector General reports should always be examined seriously, however this is all bound to spark yet another round of ridiculousness in posts by folks who are more obsessed with their favorite rocket, than who understand the goal is to start a commercial crew flight capability, and to transition us through the old model to whatever the new model will look like.

Boeing was understandably seen during the onset of this process as the "reliable and proven" provider who could be assured of getting a vehicle up and running based on its experience. AT the same time, NASA was supporting this "new space" company that many saw as a virtual startup (or upstart) helmed by an unorthodox (some would say unpredictable, or even erratic) billionaire.  They wanted  a safe option, and paid for it accordingly even though it was steeped in the old model of launch economics.  SO it is not a fair comparison in the context of the time that decisions were undertaken.

Today, SpaceX has established itself as a viable provider that is not a fly-by-night operation or a passing whim of its founder.  Is Boeing more costly? Yes. They knew that. they budgeted accordingly. But part of this expense being outlined here now also appears to be that we are not comparing the spacecraft as much as we are the launch vehicle.  ULA is a traditional provider that is seeking to remain relevant, but Atlas V was an existing, old school workhorse, chosen predominantly due to reliability.  It is a retrofit, not an organic development like Falcon/Dragon.  NASA paid for what is thought was the safer option, predominantly to hedge its bets. Boeing in all fairness is also flying on Atlas V as a "test configuration," in that, unlike SpaceX, it is not a native launcher and required the integration (including man rating of the existing booster that was not a crew-ready launcher) with a new spacecraft.

SpaceX designed both Dragon and Falcon for eventually carrying crew from the beginning, and these contracts were let when Falcon was largely an existing, man-ready integrated system. Boeing had extra work to do  in finding and adapting a launcher.  Will Vulcan be its next launcher? Not determined yet. It may be more of a natural fit with Starliner (and be a more fair comparison)because Boeing was a potential customer for Vulcan from the start of its development. 

Also, nothing is preventing Boeing from ending up with Falcon as its launcher after the "test" phase is complete.  They have publicly stated they will be looking at a post-Atlas environment eventually as well , and designed Starliner to be launcher agnostic.  This comparison being alluded to in all this hubbub is too narrow in focus, and is really a somewhat predictable product of the conditions of the time.   

[mandrewa]

I wonder what was the cost per seat for the last Space Shuttle flights?  Mutiply 90 million per seat  $$ times crew of 7 would been 630 million $$per flight . Will the commercial crew flights  be that much cheaper than Space Shuttle considering also we lost almost 10 years of our own ability to launch astronauts plus the ability to launch massive payloads also???

These prices reflect the development cost.  Thus when SpaceX charges $55 million per seat that is, I suspect, to a significant extent about recovering the money they have spent achieving Commercial Crew.  Once that development has been paid for, and hopefully it will have been paid for by the end of six missions, the price per seat may be significantly lower.  Or to put it another way I suspect that SpaceX has spent more money on commercial crew so far than it has received from NASA.

I suspect the same is true for Boeing.

The Space Shuttle on the other hand was a much more mature program and the cost per seat at the end surely had nothing to do with paying for the original development.

[Ken the Bin]

Also, nothing is preventing Boeing from ending up with Falcon as its launcher after the "test" phase is complete.

That would leave Commercial Crew with nothing to fly if Falcon is the only then-approved launcher and it is grounded for some reason.

[abaddon]

I wonder what was the cost per seat for the last Space Shuttle flights?  Mutiply 90 million per seat  $$ times crew of 7 would been 630 million $$per flight . Will the commercial crew flights  be that much cheaper than Space Shuttle considering also we lost almost 10 years of our own ability to launch astronauts plus the ability to launch massive payloads also???

Not an apples to apples comparison.  Shuttle took up to seven crew, yes, but for a maximum mission duration of only fourteen days.  Commercial Crew capsules are rated for what, six months?  Obviously there are other things that would weigh in the Shuttle's favor instead, but it's a very complex equation that simply multiplying cost by seats does not capture.

[Ike17055]

except that Atlas may still be flying, and thus could continue to be available potentially in a backup role, since it will be man rated.

Also, nothing is preventing Boeing from ending up with Falcon as its launcher after the "test" phase is complete.

That would leave Commercial Crew with nothing to fly if Falcon is the only then-approved launcher and it is grounded for some reason.