NASA Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services: RFI for Round 2

[yg1968]

Still is the problem that its 10s if not hundreds of millions of dollars that Sierra Space needs to come up with.

Sierra Space has already raised funding for crewed DC (but I am not sure if that's all of the required funding):
https://spacenews.com/sierra-space-raises-1-4-billion/

[ulm_atms]

It seems that there will be no other round for commercial crew. NASA will sole-source commercial crew transportation services to SpaceX. NASA said that it considered responses to the October 20th (CCTS) RFI when deciding upon this sole-source acquisition approach.

https://twitter.com/NASAProcurement/status/1532067026147364865

See also this post:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49156.msg2373563#msg2373563

See article:  https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/nasa-just-bought-all-the-seats-needed-for-space-station-crews-into-2030/

[Robotbeat]

With reduced flights, what does Starliner’s overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragon’s already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.

But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

I’m not talking about it from Boeing’s perspective. I’m talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayer’s perspective, when all is said and done.

Boeing charges NASA approximately $90M per seat for Starliner. NASA is strongly encouraging Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers to use two different commercial crew transportation systems. The CLD and Commercial Crew Programs are working on models for certifying new crew transportation systems. I would expect Boeing and the new LV to be certified as part of the CLD Program. Blue has already said that they will be using the Starliner (and crewed Dream Chaser) for their Orbital Reef station.

How wil that work in practice? Orbital Reef will rely on paying tourists, right? Why would a tourist pay $90M for a seat on Starliner if they can pay $60M for the same trip on Crew Dragon?

That’s a recipe to go out of business before you even get started.

Orbital Reef has two options: crewed Dream Chaser or Starliner. Crewed Dragon isn't an option. …

Yes, it is. Dragon and Starliner use the same docking port. Some of the partners may not like it, but some of them might be just fine with it. A space station you can’t use because transport is too expensive is useless. So it’s at least theoretically an option.

[yg1968]

With reduced flights, what does Starliner’s overall cost per flight end up being (including the ~$4B development cost)?

That development cost is now spread over fewer flights, while Crew Dragon’s already lower development cost  gets spread over more flights.

Widening the already significant cost gap between the two vehicles even more.

But sunk costs are sunk. Going forward, Boeing must complete the CFT to get the remaining development milestone payment, at which point they will account for the loss for the development phase of the project. After that, their operating profit or loss is the difference between the price and the per-mission operating cost. This is affected by the current launch rate, not by the past history. It is the operating profit or loss that determines whether or not they should terminate Starliner. It also determines whether or not they should invest in the development and certification effort for launching on a new launcher.

I’m not talking about it from Boeing’s perspective. I’m talking about total program cost per flight from the taxpayer’s perspective, when all is said and done.

Boeing charges NASA approximately $90M per seat for Starliner. NASA is strongly encouraging Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers to use two different commercial crew transportation systems. The CLD and Commercial Crew Programs are working on models for certifying new crew transportation systems. I would expect Boeing and the new LV to be certified as part of the CLD Program. Blue has already said that they will be using the Starliner (and crewed Dream Chaser) for their Orbital Reef station.

How wil that work in practice? Orbital Reef will rely on paying tourists, right? Why would a tourist pay $90M for a seat on Starliner if they can pay $60M for the same trip on Crew Dragon?

That’s a recipe to go out of business before you even get started.

Orbital Reef has two options: crewed Dream Chaser or Starliner. Crewed Dragon isn't an option. …

Yes, it is. Dragon and Starliner use the same docking port. Some of the partners may not like it, but some of them might be just fine with it. A space station you can’t use because transport is too expensive is useless. So it’s at least theoretically an option.

I meant that Blue refuses to use SpaceX for transportation, so it's not an option that is being offered by Blue. But I agree that it is theoretically possible.

[MGoDuPage]

I meant that Blue refuses to use SpaceX for transportation, so it's not an option that is being offered by Blue. But I agree that it is theoretically possible.

I'm not so sure about that.

In a recent podcast episode of "Main Engine Cut Off", Senior VP Brent Sherwood of Blue Origin was talking about Orbital Reef & went on at length about how they were designing Orbital Reef to be an "open system" service architecture.

 https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/216

In other words, Orbital Reef plans to have the **capability** to be a "one stop shop" full service firm if clients want them to do everything from soup to nuts including designing/building their own modules from scratch, providing ongoing operational support, providing transportation to/from the station, etc. But that they aren't going to require clients to bunde the products/services. Instead, they're apparently going to allow clients to select services from Orbital Reef ala carte & therefore allow clients to act as their own general contractors (as long as everything meets basic design paramaters for safety & integration reasons).

Now, it's possible my memory is off or I somehow misunderstood his point. Or perhaps he simply misspoke. But if not, then from the sound of it, Orbital Reef's current intention seems to be to allow all clients access to Orbital Reef in whatever way the clients wish to use, so long as it meets a few technical specifications.

By which I took to mean things like, "must use compatible docking ports", as opposed to, "cannot be called 'Dragon'."

That said, it's important to distinguish between "Blue Origin" which very much could refuse to use SpaceX services/hardware  vs. "Orbital Reef" which --although BO is a major partner-- is technically a different entity, with serveral additional non-B.O. partners involved in the project.

[baldusi]

There's the pesky "some integration, validation and certifications charges may apply" thing...

[yg1968]

I meant that Blue refuses to use SpaceX for transportation, so it's not an option that is being offered by Blue. But I agree that it is theoretically possible.

I'm not so sure about that.

In a recent podcast episode of "Main Engine Cut Off", Senior VP Brent Sherwood of Blue Origin was talking about Orbital Reef & went on at length about how they were designing Orbital Reef to be an "open system" service architecture.

 https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/216

In other words, Orbital Reef plans to have the **capability** to be a "one stop shop" full service firm if clients want them to do everything from soup to nuts including designing/building their own modules from scratch, providing ongoing operational support, providing transportation to/from the station, etc. But that they aren't going to require clients to bunde the products/services. Instead, they're apparently going to allow clients to select services from Orbital Reef ala carte & therefore allow clients to act as their own general contractors (as long as everything meets basic design paramaters for safety & integration reasons).

Now, it's possible my memory is off or I somehow misunderstood his point. Or perhaps he simply misspoke. But if not, then from the sound of it, Orbital Reef's current intention seems to be to allow all clients access to Orbital Reef in whatever way the clients wish to use, so long as it meets a few technical specifications.

By which I took to mean things like, "must use compatible docking ports", as opposed to, "cannot be called 'Dragon'."

That said, it's important to distinguish between "Blue Origin" which very much could refuse to use SpaceX services/hardware  vs. "Orbital Reef" which --although BO is a major partner-- is technically a different entity, with serveral additional non-B.O. partners involved in the project.

For the Commercial LEO Destinations, NASA is asking for a services where transportation of cargo and crew is included, so NASA wouldn't decide which transportation system is used, Blue would.

In terms of Orbital Reef being a separate entity from Blue, as far as I know Blue is the main contractor, the other companies are subcontractors. The bid for the Commercial LEO Destinations was by Blue Origin, LLC per the selection statement. It wasn't a joint venture that made the bid.