Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[abaddon]

I hope that NASA chooses a third commercial crew provider in the next round. Perhaps the third provider would do a better job of commercializing LEO than Boeing has so far.

A third provider would require a massive subsidy to bring up to parity with Crew Dragon and Starliner, so I think this is very unlikely, barring a billionaire funding the difference out of their own pocket.

[yg1968]

I hope that NASA chooses a third commercial crew provider in the next round. Perhaps the third provider would do a better job of commercializing LEO than Boeing has so far.

A third provider would require a massive subsidy to bring up to parity with Crew Dragon and Starliner, so I think this is very unlikely, barring a billionaire funding the difference out of their own pocket.

No funding for development is expected for the Crew Transportation Services Round but if NASA does another 4 to 6 missions block buy for each provider, the new provider might be able to spread out some of the extra development cost on to these 4 to 6 missions. Furthermore, such a provider might be expected to have at least 6 private missions on which to amortize the extra cost for developing crew. Cargo DC and crewed DC are 85% common. As far as Blue is concerned, Bezos' money would obviously help but given that Blue's launch tower is human rated, it's clear that Blue is still looking at developing commercial crew.

[joek]

No funding for development is expected but if NASA does another 4 to 6 missions block buy for each provider, the provider might be able to spread out some of the extra development cost on the 4 to 6 missions. Furthermore, such a provider might be expected to have at least 6 private missions on which to amortize the extra cost for developing crew. Cargo DC and crewed DC are 85% common. As far as Blue is concerned, Bezos money would help but given that Blue's launch tower is human rated, it's clear that Blue is still looking at developing commercial crew.

Don't see that happening unless the third party has a per-seat/per-mission price comparable to what NASA is paying for CCP--including DDT&E. Given that NASA has already funding significant $B for SpaceX and Boeing DDT&E,  that is going to be a significant challenge for a new entrant to privately fund. Unlikely Congress would be sympathetic for additional DDT&E funding for another provider ("You wanted two, you got two; stop asking us for more $.").

Any additional provider--if under the CCP umbrella--would also need to recover costs before ISS likely splashes.

In short, either there is a market beyond NASA CCP/ISS or there is not. If there is, maybe we will see other providers. If not, expect we will not see other providers enter the market for some time.

That said, if we fast forward to the future (post-ISS), we might move beyond NASA contracting separately for crew transportation, with providers of such a commercial destination including transportation. That is, NASA contracts with provider for NASA personnel for X days-weeks-months on destination (including transportation). Then it becomes a matter between commercial parties, with NASA out of the crew transport arrangements.

[frim]

No funding for development is expected for the Crew Transportation Services Round but if NASA does another 4 to 6 missions block buy for each provider, the new provider might be able to spread out some of the extra development cost on to these 4 to 6 missions.

There’s only 8 missions not accounted for, assuming ISS lifetime extension to 2030 and last mission in 2030 in spring. If a new entrant needs 6 of those to be cost-effective, that leaves just 2 for SpaceX (with Starliner flying their 6 missions somewhere in 2023-2030). That seems pretty risky.

IMO most likely outcome is Dragon gets an extra 2-6 missions for now, with the rest TBD at a later point. There’s no need to do another competitive round or to divide the remaining missions equally.

[yg1968]

No funding for development is expected but if NASA does another 4 to 6 missions block buy for each provider, the provider might be able to spread out some of the extra development cost on the 4 to 6 missions. Furthermore, such a provider might be expected to have at least 6 private missions on which to amortize the extra cost for developing crew. Cargo DC and crewed DC are 85% common. As far as Blue is concerned, Bezos money would help but given that Blue's launch tower is human rated, it's clear that Blue is still looking at developing commercial crew.

Don't see that happening unless the third party has a per-seat/per-mission price comparable to what NASA is paying for CCP--including DDT&E. Given that NASA has already funding significant $B for SpaceX and Boeing DDT&E,  that is going to be a significant challenge for a new entrant to privately fund. Unlikely Congress would be sympathetic for additional DDT&E funding for another provider ("You wanted two, you got two; stop asking us for more $.").

Any additional provider--if under the CCP umbrella--would also need to recover costs before ISS likely splashes.

In short, either there is a market beyond NASA CCP/ISS or there is not. If there is, maybe we will see other providers. If not, expect we will not see other providers enter the market for some time.

That said, if we fast forward to the future (post-ISS), we might move beyond NASA contracting separately for crew transportation, with providers of such a commercial destination including transportation. That is, NASA contracts with provider for NASA personnel for X days-weeks-months on destination (including transportation). Then it becomes a matter between commercial parties, with NASA out of the crew transport arrangements.

For the commercial LEO destinations habitats, NASA said that NASA Astronauts will only fly on NASA certified spacecrafts. It wasn't clear if NASA would arrange for its own transportation to the commercial habitats or that the LEO commercial destination provider would provide for the transportation but that it would be forced to use a NASA certified provider. I suspect that it is the latter.

[yg1968]

No funding for development is expected for the Crew Transportation Services Round but if NASA does another 4 to 6 missions block buy for each provider, the new provider might be able to spread out some of the extra development cost on to these 4 to 6 missions.

There’s only 8 missions not accounted for, assuming ISS lifetime extension to 2030 and last mission in 2030 in spring. If a new entrant needs 6 of those to be cost-effective, that leaves just 2 for SpaceX (with Starliner flying their 6 missions somewhere in 2023-2030). That seems pretty risky.

IMO most likely outcome is Dragon gets an extra 2-6 missions for now, with the rest TBD at a later point. There’s no need to do another competitive round or to divide the remaining missions equally.

CCtCap has a maximum of 6 post certification missions in the RFP, so a new round is likely. If there is a new round, it will be open for everyone.

[abaddon]

CCtCap has a maximum of 6 post certification missions in the RFP, so a new round is likely. If there is a new round, it will be open for everyone.

Nobody will be able to compete with SpaceX OR Boeing due to the fact those two providers have already been subsidized billions of dollars to build and certify their vehicles, so it doesn't really matter.

[joek]

For the commercial LEO destinations habitats, NASA said that NASA Astronauts will only fly on NASA certified spacecrafts. It wasn't clear if NASA would arrange for its own transportation to the commercial habitats or that the LEO commercial destination provider would provide for the transportation but that it would be forced to use a NASA certified provider. I suspect that it is the later.

Agree; latter is more likely. Destination provider negotiates with NASA certified provider instead of NASA negotiating with each independently.

[yg1968]

CCtCap has a maximum of 6 post certification missions in the RFP, so a new round is likely. If there is a new round, it will be open for everyone.

Nobody will be able to compete with SpaceX OR Boeing due to the fact those two providers have already been subsidized billions of dollars to build and certify their vehicles, so it doesn't really matter.

Neither SNC or Blue have given up on their commercial crewed spacecrafts, so I expect them to bid on this next round. SNC has also received billions for cargo and crewed DC.

Incidentally, I am not sure that subsidized is the right word, NASA paid for a capability that it wanted.

[yg1968]

No funding for development is expected for the Crew Transportation Services Round but if NASA does another 4 to 6 missions block buy for each provider, the new provider might be able to spread out some of the extra development cost on to these 4 to 6 missions.

There’s only 8 missions not accounted for, assuming ISS lifetime extension to 2030 and last mission in 2030 in spring. If a new entrant needs 6 of those to be cost-effective, that leaves just 2 for SpaceX (with Starliner flying their 6 missions somewhere in 2023-2030). That seems pretty risky.

IMO most likely outcome is Dragon gets an extra 2-6 missions for now, with the rest TBD at a later point. There’s no need to do another competitive round or to divide the remaining missions equally.

CCtCap has a maximum of 6 post certification missions in the RFP, so a new round is likely. If there is a new round, it will be open for everyone.

I should qualify what I said, if the Boeing delays continue, NASA might be forced to sole-source one mission to SpaceX through a new solicitation and contract. I hope that doesn't happen but it is another possibility.

[joek]

...
If there is a new round, it will be open for everyone.

Not necessarily. Per Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) - NASA...

H.16 NEW ENTRANT
(a) The purpose of this clause is to notify the Contractor that NASA may conduct a subsequent competition due to the loss of an existing CTS provider or if there are additional future NASA requirements for certified crew transportation. NASA will determine if these conditions are met prior to synopsizing and conducting a New Entrant competition. New entrants may compete for all task orders under this contract.
(b) The Government reserves the right to issue a solicitation in the future to seek an additional source(s) for the same or similar efforts/services.

edit NB: May and Government reserves the right.

[yg1968]

...
If there is a new round, it will be open for everyone.

Not necessarily. Per Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) - NASA...

H.16 NEW ENTRANT
(a) The purpose of this clause is to notify the Contractor that NASA may conduct a subsequent competition due to the loss of an existing CTS provider or if there are additional future NASA requirements for certified crew transportation. NASA will determine if these conditions are met prior to synopsizing and conducting a New Entrant competition. New entrants may compete for all task orders under this contract.
(b) The Government reserves the right to issue a solicitation in the future to seek an additional source(s) for the same or similar efforts/services.

Right but that on-ramp clause in CCtCap is unlikely to be exercised at this point. It is standard procedure to include these clauses in case that one entrant falters but that seems unlikely at this point.

[joek]

Right but that clause in CCtCap is unlikely to be exercised at this point. It is standard procedure to include these clauses in case that one entrant falters but that seems unlikely at this point.

So "open to everyone" is simply pro-forma and means anyone can play? Disagree; NASA's stipulations clearly state otherwise (at NASA's discretion). The operative question is whether there is any chance another provider has a chance under CCP? IMO doubtful.

[Redclaws]

Right but that clause in CCtCap is unlikely to be exercised at this point. It is standard procedure to include these clauses in case that one entrant falters but that seems unlikely at this point.

So "open to everyone" is simply pro-forma and means anyone can play? Disagree; NASA's stipulations clearly state otherwise (at NASA's discretion). The operative question is whether there is any chance another provider has a chance under CCP? IMO doubtful.

Why do you think the on-ramp clause would be exercised and for whom?  NASA seems happy with two providers and unless Starliner were cancelled or something, anyone else would take longer - probably much longer.  It’s not that it’s meaningless, but it is unneeded.  And I think that’s what you’re saying.

I feel like you guys are maybe agreeing over everything but the details of language?

[yg1968]

Right but that clause in CCtCap is unlikely to be exercised at this point. It is standard procedure to include these clauses in case that one entrant falters but that seems unlikely at this point.

So "open to everyone" is simply pro-forma and means anyone can play? Disagree; NASA's stipulations clearly state otherwise (at NASA's discretion). The operative question is whether there is any chance another provider has a chance under CCP? IMO doubtful.

No you misunderstood what I meant. What you quoted is the on-ramp clause. The chances of NASA exercising the on-ramp clause in CCtCap at this point is almost zero. If NASA did exercise the on-ramp clause, it could add a third provider within CCtCap such as SNC or Blue. SpaceX and Boeing are not new entrants, they are existing entrants. A new entrant would also be limited to 6 post-certifications missions and a couple of demo missions. But you are right that NASA has the discretion as to whether it wants to add a new entrant for CCtCap but I am almost sure that NASA will decide against it.

The most likely scenario is that a new round would be created. When CCtCap was awarded, NASA had talked about a new round called the Crew Transportation Services Round after CCtCap. It is possible that the new round will be restricted to certified providers but for CRS2 NASA did not require prior certification in order to compete (i.e., certification could be done as part of CRS2). I am assuming that the same will be true for the crew transportation services round but I don't know that for sure.

[DistantTemple]

CCtCap has a maximum of 6 post certification missions in the RFP, so a new round is likely. If there is a new round, it will be open for everyone.

Nobody will be able to compete with SpaceX OR Boeing due to the fact those two providers have already been subsidized billions of dollars to build and certify their vehicles, so it doesn't really matter.

Neither SNC or Blue have given up on their commercial crewed spacecrafts, so I expect them to bid on this next round. SNC has also received billions for cargo and crewed DC.

Incidentally, I am not sure that subsidized is the right word, NASA paid for a capability that it wanted.

SNC were always committed to a crewed DC. As space opens up, the ability to return crew to a runway looks like great option. Not every launch will be suitable for Starship, even if it is fairly low priced (SX will keep the profit and not sell it at cost). And SS requires extensive legal and physical infrastructure to land, especially if it is to be reused!!! ISTM that DC has a good potential commercial market once there are a couple of new destinations in orbit. It appears DC would be a good "lifeboat" as well.
Also SNC is a military supplier. A military DC for all sorts of tests and missions could help pay off the development, as will a commercial future. SNC may accept continuing to self fund development, in the expectation of such later sales.

[woods170]

SpaceX had said that they will fly F9 as long as customers will want to... <snip>

I will point out that SpaceX said the exact same thing about F1. And then axed it after flight 5, moving multiple customers to the next thing: F9.

IMO, once F9 and FH become financially obsolete (courtesy of having operational Starship) SpaceX will axe F9 and FH the minute Starship is certified for NASA and DoD launches. Payloads still listed for F9 and FH will be moved to Starship.

Don't forget SpaceX's sunk costs in F9 support infrastructure at three different launch sites as well as that of whatever F9 fleet exists at the time of Starship's certification for such flights.  Also, certification to fly human crew for NASA to and from Earth orbit will not necessarily be concurrent with non-crewed flight.  That 'financial obsolescence' is probably a little further out than your statement would tend to indicate.

Careful observers of SpaceX know that the "sunk cost" argument does not fly with SpaceX.
Elon's company has no problem with eliminating stuff, regardless of how much they've invested in it. Almost every time it was because that stuff had outlived its usefulness within the dynamic world that is SpaceX.

Examples:
- Falcon 1 production line
- Falcon 1 launch pad at VABF
- Falcon 1 launch pad in the Pacific Ocean
- Merlin 1C production line
- Major parts of the Falcon 9 v1.0 production line.
- Dragon 1 production line.
- BFR carbon fibre production tooling
- The original JRTI (Marmac 300)
- Half a dozen recovered F9 boosters, that could have flown a second time, were scrapped in favour of Block 5.
- Fairing catching infrastructure (masts, nets, etc.)
- SN12, SN13, SN14, SN17, SN18, SN19, BN1
- etc, etc.

[Cherokee43v6]

SpaceX had said that they will fly F9 as long as customers will want to... <snip>

I will point out that SpaceX said the exact same thing about F1. And then axed it after flight 5, moving multiple customers to the next thing: F9.

IMO, once F9 and FH become financially obsolete (courtesy of having operational Starship) SpaceX will axe F9 and FH the minute Starship is certified for NASA and DoD launches. Payloads still listed for F9 and FH will be moved to Starship.

Don't forget SpaceX's sunk costs in F9 support infrastructure at three different launch sites as well as that of whatever F9 fleet exists at the time of Starship's certification for such flights.  Also, certification to fly human crew for NASA to and from Earth orbit will not necessarily be concurrent with non-crewed flight.  That 'financial obsolescence' is probably a little further out than your statement would tend to indicate.

Careful observers of SpaceX know that the "sunk cost" argument does not fly with SpaceX.
Elon's company has no problem with eliminating stuff, regardless of how much they've invested in it. Almost every time it was because that stuff had outlived its usefulness within the dynamic world that is SpaceX.

Examples:
- Falcon 1 production line
- Falcon 1 launch pad at VABF
- Falcon 1 launch pad in the Pacific Ocean
- Merlin 1C production line
- Major parts of the Falcon 9 v1.0 production line.
- Dragon 1 production line.
- BFR carbon fibre production tooling
- The original JRTI (Marmac 300)
- Half a dozen recovered F9 boosters, that could have flown a second time, were scrapped in favour of Block 5.
- Fairing catching infrastructure (masts, nets, etc.)
- SN12, SN13, SN14, SN17, SN18, SN19, BN1
- etc, etc.

I would not consider anything related to Starship as relevant in the 'sunk costs' category, since it is an R&D program running on a development model where such expenditures are already expected.

Similarly, the production line situations mentioned are more evolutionary than revolutionary.

The VAFB Falcon 1 site, as I recall, was nixed due to the Air Force having issues with flight profiles for an untested rocket and proximity of such to one of their other launch sites.  Something I remember SpaceX was not happy about after spending the money to build the site.

The Omelek Falcon 1 site had serious disadvantages due to distance from anywhere and high expense of delivering required consumables, as well as the rockets and payloads.

I will agree that they were more than willing to abandon the Falcon 1 after it proved they could build and fly a commercial payload successfully.  Something I remember a lot of people questioning the wisdom of at the time.

What I would say is the difference here is that SpaceX has established a relatively efficient operation at at least two of the three locations (VSFB doesn't seem to get used very often, so I wonder about the economies of scale for operations there).  As such, I would see them flying out the life-cycle on their F-9s.

I'm not saying they would keep producing them once it became clear that Starship was ready to start carrying loads, merely that they would use out the ones they have while converting launch sites.  (for example, since VSFB gets used the least, it might be converted to launch or support offshore launch of Starship first, while the Canaveral sites continue F-9 launches... then possibly 39A, while the other keeps up with F-9 flights) 

It is my belief that it will not be a 'hard cut' but an overlapping transition.

[abaddon]

We're veering a bit off of the Commercial Crew topic here.  We can expect launching crew on Starship as well as DoD accepting it for NSL are going to be the longest of the long poles in a transition from Starship to Falcon 9, so the Starship replacing Falcon 9 timeline is probably best left to other threads.

[joek]

...
The most likely scenario is that a new round would be created. When CCtCap was awarded, NASA had talked about a new round called the Crew Transportation Services Round after CCtCap. It is possible that the new round will be restricted to certified providers but for CRS2 NASA did not require prior certification in order to compete (i.e., certification could be done as part of CRS2). I am assuming that the same will be true for the crew transportation services round but I don't know that for sure.

Generally agree that there are a couple paths. However it is done, providers will ultimately need to be certified. That is going to cost non-trivial $$$ whether separated into DDT&E vs. operational, or rolled up into the price of operational missions. IMO going to be tough for NASA to justify engaging additional provider if NASA has to pay a significant portion of the bill for certification.