CCtCap: Is Boeing More Expensive or is SpaceX Just Cheaper?
NASA Selects SpaceX and Boeing to Ferry Astronauts to the Space Station, Marc Boucher
“NASA awarded a total of $6.8 billion in contracts with Boeing getting the larger share, $4.2 billion and SpaceX getting $2.6 billion for doing what appears the same work. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program Manager Kathy Lueders was asked several times by reporters why the difference in the funding allocation but only said it was based on the price submitted by the companies in their proposals.”
I asked if @Boeing is more expensive or if @SpaceX is cheaper. Kathy Lueders refused to answer the question. #CCtCap
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) September 16, 2014
I just hope SpaceX doesn’t get too reliant on the govt. teet like Boeing and other govt. jobs program companies.
Still, SpaceX would do a lot more with 4.2 billion than Boeing ever will.
too reliant? do you really think SpaceX could survive with only the occasional commercial satellite? Not only is it reliant on the government, is reliant on its tax breaks and subsidies
Which tax breaks are these and which subsidies?
Prove it
SpaceX has more than 40 non-Government non-ISS launches on its manifest already
Launch for launch, a Dragon 2 launch will be cheaper than a DollarChaser launch.
The capsules are due to fly in 2017. Do the milestones come with ontime/late dates?
My take is that this is part of the unique nature of the COTS/CCDev programs where NASA is basically investing in companies, with the hoped for return on that investment being the ability to eventually purchase flights from these companies on an ongoing basis .
Just like any investment, how much someone is willing to invest in a particular company depends on what they expect in return from that company, and just as importantly they factor in the likelihood of getting that return (i.e. the risk). And I don’t think the “what they expect in return” is necessarily related to number of flights, but other factors such as robustness of design, expected reliability, how it will integrate with NASA’s existing infrastructure, etc.
If this does in fact turn out to be the full explanation and not the cryptic response given by Kathy Lueders, then obviously we have a right to question their rationale for the different amounts. Here is what I expect – I’m sure everyone remembers when Bolden had to decide which Shuttles would go to which museums. However what everyone may not remember is that when pressed afterwards why he made the specific “awards” that he did, his answer was that actually his staff used a points system to come up with a score for each museum, and that he simply went with the score that his staff came up with. Afterwards they released the scores for everyone to see, which of course not everyone agreed with all of the scores but it was too late because the decision had already been made. So I won’t be surprised if in the coming days as NASA is pressed to explain the different dollar amounts for Boeing and SpaceX, that they will reveal that it was based on a scoring system, and if so then hopefully they will release the scores, although of course not everyone will agree with the scores but it’s too late because the decision has been made.
There is no doubt some sort of scoring rubric. It is usually described in the official source selection letter which will follow this verbal announcement. Of course the scoring system is constructed by the selection committee (within accepted guidelines; it has to at least look like it’s not arbitrary), so if they “needed” to give Boeing twice as much money, they could certainly come up with a system to justify it.
I think the gov is afraid of a single point failure. If Elon Musk slips on a banana, the SpaceX program will be gone. I doubt his constituents would continue to spend the vast amounts of money this program is costing his company. He needs to set up a trust of people that would continue to fund the SpaceX project that he has started. With or without the government.
When did the government get so caught up in redundancy? Amazing the interest in redundancy when the stated award criteria are being met by a new player. Oh, we’ll have the “redundancy”.
Yes, just like with ISS…we were so interested in redundancy back then too. Not.
Yes…just like the Shuttle…we were so interested in redundancy back then too. Not.
Yes…just like the Air Force with ULA. But that’s two vehicles. That we like-under ONE company. How about a little more redundancy for that Atlas/Russia risk? No…fight redundancy tooth and nail.
OK…so lets go back to redundancy on cargo to ISS. Makes sense-Esp. INITIALLY-two unproven spacecraft, two unproven launchers. (The primes never put in any responsive bid that would fit both flight rate and budget). OK-fully logical for now, redundancy. Great. Later once a next phase comes around…maybe…let them get on their feet… after…not so much. Flat-rate all the cargo awards and proceed-one provider if need be. Reward success. Whoever was going to commercialize well (non-gov’t launches) would have been clear by then.
And back to crew…redundancy at this phase? Two proven launchers for all candidates. Spacecraft of one with pedigree to a flying system (Dragon 1.0 to 2.0). Much less risk to just jump to one provider at this point. Added flight rate would benefit safety and reliability (through learning)-but now you hobbled each one.
So again, redundancy for providers of US crew to ISS, justified how?
When there is a launch failure of even a proven system there will often be a stand down while the problem is being investigated before flights resume. Stand downs can be as short as a few weeks, but can last months if modifications are needed, and in the case of failure of a crew launch, especially if there are fatalities, the stand down is guaranteed to be lengthy.
If we only have CST-100 (or Dragon) then NASA’s redundancy is the Soyuz, and that is what they are trying to get away from.
Not saying that pork doesn’t also add to the equation for having two providers.
Good point about hobbling both companies with fewer launch rates, but I think the expectation is that a lot of flights will be needed over the next several years, especially since the costs will be lower, so both companies should get plenty of flights.
This is also about the future. Both companies will use completely different technical methods to do the same thing, which in many ways practically doubles what is learned about effectively and efficiently moving out into space. That’s why it would have been nice if Dream Chaser was included also so that progress could continue on manned lifting body vehicles.
I think the gov is afraid of a single point failure. If Elon Musk slips on a banana, the SpaceX program dies. I think he ought to set up a trust of like minded people that will continue spending the VERY large amount of money he is spending on SpaceX. I do like what he is doing for the USA, but will it continue if he is gone?
Price was probably not the primary factor in the choice, and the scoring could have been biased. But the lower technological risk and higher payload of the CST vs DC probably outweighed the less well defined benefits of the lifting body design.
This decision is money well beyond investing, well beyond the development and get-there phase. It also appears to be funds for initial servicing. The question is, why choose two, especially when the 2nd contender is so much more than the first.
With the ISS cargo awards, bith development and later in service, one could see redundancy being justified, and paying a premium for that (again, the pricey 2nd mouse). Especially given 2 unproven spacecraft, urgency, and two unproven launchers.
For crew-what is the supporting logic of two paths at this point? I doubt anyone will articulate a logical answer here. Politics and Shelby will be all that remain-the real answer no one will ever admit.
Part of the logic of selecting two systems could be that if one system has a failure, the second system can provide continued access to space without down-time. Similarly, selecting two systems makes it less likely that the first flight will be delayed as the result of development issues in one system. Specifically, two systems better insures that we’ll be off of the Russian teat sooner than later.
Since this will all be paid in milestones (which I don’t think the details have been released yet) then I would guess that the certification flights will be milestones, and the additional 2-6 flights after that will be paid as additional milestones. If so then I agree that the additional flights would not be considered investments.
But since the 2-6 flights will only carry four crewmembers, and if we figure a market value of $20 per seat for SpaceX, that accounts for only half a billion of the 2.6 they are getting, or about 20%. And that’s for six flights, if there are less than six flights the percentage is even lower.
The percentages for Boeing could be even less. depending on what the market value of a seat on CST-100 turns out to be.
We’ll know more when they post the milestone amounts.
I believe this has the potential to put Boeing in a very difficult corner. If SpaceX keeps up it’s track record and then starts performing non-ISS missions say with Bieglow Aerospace in setting up Non-NASA infrastructure then NASA will eat Boeing alive with their seat costs.
Down the line if they can’t profit, I’m pretty sure Boeing will just quit offering the service. I don’t think they’ll be left holding a bag of development costs or something.
Keith, what are your thoughts on SNC getting cut?
Yes Keith, I would like to know your opinion. (Don’t be shy!) It really seems as if SNC and Space X offer the best future potential. Could congress give SNC another chance? Is launching Dreamcatcher on a Falcon 9 feasible? Is this decision totally stupid/corrupt and destined to keep us in LEO for the next century or am I missing something?
Keith, it was the finest question of the entire show. Speaking as one who did print journalism in a previous life, it made me smile!
My guess on this is twofold: (1) like they said the amount each company got was based on the amount each company bid; (2) no one on the stage knew anymore about how the amounts were arrived at then what they told you; they indicated that none of them, including Leaders,was on theSEB and while they probably got an out brief, it likely did not go into extensive detail on cost. More details on costs are likely to be definitized in the final contract negotiations, and they probably have not yet taken place.
The companies probably proposed different prices. That’s their right. SpaceX is private and really wanted to win for future growth and so probably offered a price that provided only minimal profit. Boeing has more lobby power so it was able to bid higher and still be confident of winning, and because its shareholders will get restless without profits they had little choice.
Tinker as suggested the both Spacex and Boeing got 1/3 of the money for development of the capsules and the other 1/3 is to man rate the atlas. Is that possible?
Well, Lockheed and ULA have been saying ‘yes’ and ‘show us the money’ for some time. The money has arrived so they need to put up or shut up.
Still-in your scenario there, your implying NASA just decided to spend over $2B on a handful of Air Force vehicle mods, on Atlas, which has flown nearly 50 times, when a recent vehicle & spacecraft program got two NEW launchers, Antares and Falcon (of the same scale as Atlas BTW), for less than that?
This makes sense how as a good way to spend money?
Boeing selection is justified much like a candy store owner has to pay those young men every week who came into the store one day and talked to him about risks, the bad neighborhood, you know, things happen. Protection from who? From what risk? Well…from them. To be able to still sell from his store.
NASA news audio was cutting out, so I did not get a lot of information. It looks like NASA is basing this on 6 years and and Obamas’ budget of 1 billion$ a year. Notice that proposed spending, Congress said 700m. for next year. X6=4.2billion$. The Boing bid is $4.2b. So they cut SpaceX. They can do that because NASA has always said subject to funding. They know that SpaceX said they will continue anyway. The way to save money is cut Boeing. This would show that CC is cheaper and that CC is not another NASA failed program. NASA can get started on a CR and have enough money to pay Boeing, starting in Oct. Do the right thing Congress and fire Boeing. It is strange that Musk said at the unveiling that total would be at most 1 billion total and half had already been paid to him. This has been a really bad day.
Two new capsules by Boeing and SpaceX – Then why is there a need for the (third) Orion capsule?
*Boeing Selection – Lots of good friends and lobbyist on Capital Hill
The Orion capsule is for beyond earth missions. CST and Dragon are for taxi services to and from the I.S.S.
Orion defenses with BEO rational make no sense. Orion will take crew to LEO. It may be used beyond that, but BEO missions will really need a habitat or other in-space quarters or such. Regardless, a $23B development (see GAO) by the time of Orion’s first flight with crew is wholly indefensible. Eventually any LEO commercial crew vehicle could be modded for the additional speeds of re-entry or duration of a BEO mission for far less than what Orion still has in future spend planning, and for less on a recurring yearly basis once operational as well. The BEO argument never stands up; a good distraction by the Lockheed-Martin and JSC folk, but never rational. Orion is pork, that’s all. Absolute pure pork.
Orion/MPCV and Dragon/CST-100 are being built for two separate missions according to NASA regardless of whether you like the price, pork, rationale or economics of it.
Do you really think there is any wisdom or cost savings by building a craft capable of BEO and only flying it to the ISS? You don’t just pop on and pop off service modules.
Well,if properly designed you SHOULD be able pop on and off different service modules. But NASAs rocket scientists seem to never grasp that concept.
This is from the Feb 2004 “Vision for Space Exploration” the space pollcy of President Bush Jr. It was immediatly tossed out by congress and President Obama tried to get some of it funded but congress refused. It really shows how America SHOULD be moving forward in space.
“In the days of the Apollo program, human exploration systems employed expendable, single-use vehicles requiring large ground crews and careful monitoring. For future, sustainable exploration programs, NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable and need only small ground crews. NASA plans to invest in a number of new approaches to exploration, such as robotic networks, modular systems, pre-positioned propellants, advanced power and propulsion, and in-space assembly, that could enable these kinds of vehicles.”
How can any sane mind read that.. and get out of it that President Bush wanted monster disposable rockets?
He wanted reusable, space based, modular designed, assembled in-space, flexible path for more than one destination and were ‘gas n’ go’ serviced by in-space fuel depots.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/555…
I agree with you MODULAR designs.
I totally agree! And its 7 tons escape tower (from the old Apollo days) makes Orion so much heavier that it needs a super expensive heavy lifter like the SLS. It does not make sense.
Not $23 Billion. More like $15 Billion through 2021. I agree that there was waste but lets not overinflate the number in order to make a point.
Elon has said that the Dragon can do the same as Orion and more.
It will need mods beyond what’s in v2 to go to BEO destinations, among them upgraded communications. I expect that will be v3 (or 2.5, for a quick loop around the moon for the PR of it).
You are right. But also the Orion needs a service modul, even made here i Europe, to take astronauts to the Moon and beyond – that is also a form of upgrade – if all goes well – in 2021!! And at that time Space X will have made many upgrades to their Dragon. I don’t see why NASA needs the Orion.
In 2021 Dragon V2 may have been flying for a few years but it is not a BEO vehicle. It doesn’t have the redundancies or capabilities that Orion has. Maybe in 12 or 15 years SpaceX will come out with some kind of Dragon V3 that will be capable of going beyond LEO. I would prefer to be flying BEO before then though.
Please give a reference for your 12-15 year claim.
Please give a reference for when SpaceX is going to build a Dragon V3.
I wasn’t saying that it would definitely take them 15 years. It was an observation based on the following facts:
They will have their hands full with CRS and CCtCap (and reusability testing and Raptor) the next couple of years. I highly doubt they will be able to mount an effort to produce a Dragon V3 (with no NASA funding for it) in the near future.
Also it will take about 7 years total (2010-2017) to design and build Dragon V2 (with the heritage of Dragon V1 and NASA funding). Nothing wrong with that at all. That just tells me though that designing and building a Dragon V3 would take more time and effort than what some are representing.
In 12 years, SpaceX has gone from nothing to the company it is today. Now you’re saying it’ll take them the same time to undertake a single upgrade to their Dragon crew vehicle? Yea right!
Elon wants to be on Mars by then.
Cheers.
Much more than a “single” upgrade will be required for a V3 to be a BEO vehicle. I applaud what SpaceX has done over the past 12 years. It has been remarkable. It is an American success story.
I want to be on Mars by then too but just because I want it to be so doesn’t mean it will happen. Elon wanted Dragon V2 flying by 2010 without NASA funding. Now with NASA funding it will take until 2017. Nothing wrong with that at all. I am just saying that designing and building a V3 while simultaneously doing a ton of other stuff is not going to happen on a short timescale.
Basically, Boeing isn’t as far along as SpaceX and, thus, needs more money to reach the same goal.
However, I suspect that Boeing is also needed to reassure the nice men in Congress that the Commercial Crew program is credible (a long-established Big Defence company being far more credible in their eyes than a brash, loud-mouthed newcomer like SpaceX or a relative unknown like SNC). NASA’s likely reasoning would have been that cutting out Boeing would greatly increase the chances of Congress canning the whole program because there is no real likelihood of it producing anything usable. Yes, I know that’s rubbish but something tells me that the nice men in Congress would refuse to believe otherwise.
That is nothing but a red herring. Congress knows that newspace has a ton of Ex NASA engineers. Shelby’s braying about “hobby rockets” is nothing but deflecting because he knows his pork is being threatened. The only reassurance they are interested in is that their pork train is not being threatened.
I’m no where near as far along as either SpaceX or Boeing.
I should get, I guess about $40 billion?
🙂
More NASA non-sense!!
Musk on the awards and competition: http://www.foxbusiness.com/…
How in the hell does Boeing get an American contract to build a capsule that relies on a Russian engine to get it to orbit????? Only in this country can such bureaucracy exist!!! Hey NASA.. guess what??? No engine.. no launch!
Boeing has contracted with Blue Origin to replace the RD-180 with a pair of American made engines.
WRT the engine development, note that it effectively means a new launch vehicle to replace the Atlas. Methane fuel will mean completely new tankage, and beyond that, one simply can’t swap out one engine with another quite different one without a lot of careful engineering.
In effect, if Boeing and Blue Origin succeed with this, we are looking at Atlas VI.
Ya know, i just had an epiphany…if you add the $1.2B+ Elon has already received from the government for CRS development of the Dragon, plus-ups, and (constantly upgraded) flights into his $2.6B CCtCap award, you pretty much come in around $4B…kind of looks to me like the silicon valley whiz kid is not much cheaper (apples to apples), and is getting about the same amount of funding to get to the same place, as the established target of all y’alls ire…