Unanswered Commercial Crew Questions
Boeing, SpaceX to team with NASA on space taxis, CBS
“It also is not yet known whether Congress will appropriate enough money to fund the development of two spacecraft or whether NASA will be forced to down select to a single provider at some point down the road. But Bolden said he was confident Congress will provide the funding necessary to keep SpaceX and Boeing on track for maiden flights in the 2017 timeframe. Congress has appropriated about $2 billion for the commercial crew program since 2011, about a billion dollars less than NASA requested. The agency hopes to get around $800 million for the program in its fiscal 2015 budget.”
Boeing and SpaceX Win $6.8 Billion for Apollo-Style Space Taxis, NBC
“NASA officials declined to discuss in detail why they selected Boeing and SpaceX while passing on the Dream Chaser, but said it was a close call. “This wasn’t an easy choice, but it’s the best choice for NASA and the nation,” Bolden said. Lueders said the different amounts set aside for the two companies were based on the amounts proposed by the companies themselves. “Both Boeing and SpaceX proposed to the same set of requirements,” she said. “NASA awarded the contracts based on their proposals. It’s two contracts to the same requirements.”
Keith’s note: In summary: NASA does not know if it will have enough money to fund both Boeing and SpaceX, won’t tell anyone why or how they made the selections, and gave Boeing $1.6 billion more than they gave to SpaceX to do the same work assigned to SpaceX. Just the sort of questions Congress will be asking.
I think Bolden said the way to pay for it is use their request. I don’t think even that would be enough. Maybe NASA will do what they usually do and start with the CR, then say they will get more later. I want to see what GAO says. Gerst. usually shows up for launches. Maybe he will answer some questions this Friday. Fire Boeing!They always come out with document later to say why someone was rejected and why someone was selected. It may be awhile.
Yes, the selection criteria and evaluation has not been released, so what? I’m not familiar with any other governmnent program when the selection criteria and evaluation was released within days of the announcement, if at all.
I don’t see how the funding situation is any of this is different from most NASA procurements. This is a “feature” of our government’s budgetary process. Even the smallest of science satellites face cancellation if Congress decides not to fund them. Conversely even when NASA or another agency decided to cancel a program Congress can revive it (see A10 and U2). Is there a reason commercial crew should be special? Keith, were you expecting NASA to say “we have full funding comitment” for the next 8 years? There may be a legal mechanism to do this, but not that I know of.
As for the award value discrepancy, I don’t see an issueif what NASA says is accurate. The procurement had each company provide a bid for what they thought they could charge. NASA, from the looks of it, had the option to pick two bids and paid what the companies thought the market would bear. We don’t know what SNC was offering. Maybe it was more expensive than Boeing. Maybe there are “extra” services Boeing could provide that SNC could not. If SpaceX only asked for $2.6 B should NASA have given them more? Now, if things are not this straight forward I’m sure we’ll hear SpaceX file a complain.
So, CC isn’t out of the hot water with regard to Congressional intervention just yet; the politicians could yet refuse to fully fund or ring-fence funds for only one vehicle.
NASA will have a commercial crew capability. Whether is is one company or two we will see. Progress is being made and that is the message that everyone that supports NASA can hold on to.
“won’t tell anyone why or how they made the selections.” Is unfair criticism. NASA is following the Federal Aqcuisition Regulations and the NASA supplement. Any information on the Evaluation Grades is only shared between the Government and the Company in debriefing for proprietary reasons. Let us let the Post Award debriefs/protests take place before people complain. As far as the evaluation criteria goes, that is public knowledge https://www.fbo.gov/index?s… OR http://commercialcrew.nasa…..
Soyuz seats to ISS are $70 million each. This $6.8 billion would buy 97 of ’em. Just sayin’.
However with two new Spacecrafts we can send more people to the ISS. And increase crew size.
The $6.8 billion isn’t just buying seats. It’s buying new capabilities, systems, and assured access.
What is the per seat cost from SpaceX and Boeing? Now when these two contracts are completed, and it comes time to buy more seats, will you be back here to eat crow if those seats turn out cheaper than Soyuz?
I don’t know what the seat cost is for SpaceX and Boeing, but I think that’s a real good question you should ask them. I do know that the Space Shuttle program spent $209 billion over 30 years to launch 833 seats for a per-seat cost of $250 million per astronaut. Along with 3.5 million pounds of cargo at around $60K per pound.
Maybe we should tell everybody screaming about $4 per pound ground beef at Wal-Mart that America used to be a great nation that spent $30,000 per half-pounder patty to feed its ISS astronauts, and that Boing and SpaceX is going to drop that price to…..
The final cost for the Space Shuttle was $250 million per seat, plus cargo at $60K per pound. I’m stumped, so please tell me, just what IS the Boeing / SpaceX estimate for cost per seat / pound?
I believe the per seat costs for SpaceX and Boeing are between $20-35 million or so. Someone posted as much in a related thread. In both cases the cost is much less than Space Shuttle related costs.
rjr56 I was hoping you would tell me since you were the one making intonations about this. You didn’t actually have a point (“just sayin'” ?) so I can’t directly agree or disagree, but your implication might be that we would have been better off buying Soyuz seats than doing this commercial crew deal. Do you think NASA made a bad decision? What are you trying to say?
http://bigelowaerospace.com/
26.25 million a seat for SpaceX that includes 2 months room and board. 36.75 million for Boeing.
Robert Bigelow said it costs 3 million a month for R&B.
4.2 billion to Boeing, 2.6 billion to SpaceX. assuming each launches 6 crew missions to the ISS with 7 people on each, that works out to
700 million per launch and thus 100 million per seat for Boeing, and
433 million per launch and thus 62 million per seat for SpaceX.
now, that’s total program cost divided by person launched to the ISS, not just the actual cost of each launch. the program costs also cover the construction and testing of the crew capsules, and the test flights that must be done before the operational crew missions to the ISS are flown. Each capsule needs a pad abort test and an in-flight launch abort test, as well as an unmanned orbital test flight and a manned orbital test flight. once those 4 things are done, then NASA will start the ISS crew missions.
You are all talking of cost per seat well maybe a better question is how much juice is there in each contract and what will each company do with that extra profit. I can’t see it costing Spacex nearly 3 billion to finish a capsule, lots of that money will go to testing raptor and making f9 fully reusable. What will Boeing do with all their extra cash??
I think there is millions and millions of juice in both these awards. Am I right or wrong? Anyone with a real clue let me know please?
As far as I know, Boeing hasn’t actually built any flight test hardware yet. most of that “extra profit” will probably go to actually constructing their flight test vehicles.
whereas SpaceX has already built at least two Dragon V2 capsules (for the pad abort and in-flight abort tests).
i think the discrepancy in award value is primarily due to SpaceX being further along in their crew capsule development process.
That said,
while the 2.6 billion is essentially SpaceX’s cash and can be spent however they want, most of it really will be spent on refining the design and maturing the Dragon V2, as well as building them. there will be a new set of milestones for this program that they need to work towards, as well.
it won’t be just to “finish a capsule,” since the NASA contract specifies a new vehicle for each flight, just as for the Cargo Dragon, so SpaceX will need to build at least 6 and as many as 10 Dragon V2 capsules for NASA (pad abort test vehicle, in-flight abort test vehicle, unmanned orbital test vehicle, manned orbital test vehicle, and 2-6 flight vehicles for ISS crew exchanges). there will be a battery of data analysis and implementation of any changes found to be necessary after those test flights. also I’m sure that some of the money will go to the DragonFly test program also, to develop their propulsive landing techniques.
I thought Kathy said, during the award, that there were milestones they had to complete?
SpaceX? the only milestones they have left are their pad-abort test and their in-flight abort test, and the analysis and review after those tests.
Boeing has completed all its milestones, but a lot of those were just design reviews.
i imagine this next round of the Crew development milestones will include actual hardware development and testing, as well as pad-abort and launch-abort tests for Boeing, which SpaceX will already have done for the previous round.
@Hug Doug you are thinking of the CCiCap SAA milestones. NASA’s lawyers appear to have worked out a way of attaching milestones to FAR contracts since CCtCap has its own milestones.
Hopefully a list of the new milestones will be published soon.
yes, it will be interesting to see what the new milestones are, and to see if Boeing has any that SpaceX has already done!
Goto the Bigelow Aerospace website and look what they are planning on charging utilizing Boeing and SpaceX.
http://bigelowaerospace.com/
I would imagine that NASA will pay more than commercial rates.
At 10.5 million difference per seat I don’t think Boeing will get much commercial crew business.
Let’s fly Boeing. They have that cool sky lighting system 🙂
I believe they will from other governments that want to buy Boeing airplanes et cetera…. could be a loss leader for them.
KC…I believe the way to reconcile the budget numbers, once each is flying at least, is to remember the AtlasV would be about a $250M or so a launch cost, even to a parent of ULA (doubt any internal deal would be too advantageous). Then that Falcon’s are the similar internal cost to SpaceX, at $57M a pop. Throw in the very small gov’t office to date and you get the rough CommCrew yearly budget. Each spacecraft unit is about the same $ amount those years regardless of who it was gotten from. One flight each in years 4 through 8 (5 years).
Now on the matter of the first three years, until a first flight, and until development is over…keep asking your question!
NASA will have three capsule options – seems Orion has been forgotten in the debate. It would have been nice to see the Dream Chaser included in the awards to add some variety to the options – one that could land on runways around the world (albeit that SpaceX is looking at a land landing capability). Landing spacecraft in the Ocean just adds to mission cost. Hopefully the Dream Chaser program can be adopted by an international consortium of countries.
Only Orion is designed to land in the water.
I hope they use an aircraft carrier to pick astronauts like in the old days. The frogmen and the helicopters saving the crew before the capsule sinks is so cool. Better than the survival show!!!
Water landings are safer right?
Water landings landings are cheaper right ?
Water landings a re more reusable right?
Why does Orion land in water again?
Even more elaborate process planned (altho it failed last month due to rough water – a crane was used):
Uss Anchorage
Water landings are simpler. they require less hardware on the space craft. with that in mind, yes, they are safer and cheaper, as there is reduced possibilities of failure and fewer failure modes, and fewer parts that need to be fabricated and installed, thus saving costs on hardware. also, the reduced upmass of the spacecraft allows for a smaller launch vehicle to be used, resulting in cost savings there as well.
Whether or not the cost of recovery of the vessel outweighs the cost savings in the spacecraft and launch vehicle is another issue.
Reuse is possible. everything protected within the pressure vessel or otherwise isolated from water damage should be reusable. the equipment on the exterior of the pressure vessel is at risk, anything that could be contaminated, corroded, or otherwise damaged by salt water would have to be refurbished, repaired, or replaced.
Orion lands in water for the reasons outlined in the first paragraph.
CST-100 lands using air-bags (probably will happen at Edwards AFB). Dragon v.2 is designed to precision-land anywhere there’s a helipad, although Edwards, the shuttle landing strip at KSC or the skid strip at Vandenberg AFB seem more likely landing spots as NASA wants parachute descent followed by thruster-assisted soft-landing.
“Just the sort of questions Congress will be asking.” Oh Keith you are so funny. I love your ironic commentary. No one in Congress will be asking because before those hearings are held Boeing will splain to those congressmen why Boeing got the extra money in the form of campaign contributions. Nice thought. Congressional oversight is kinda like a unicorn. Nice to imagine, but not actually real.
Or Congress will say “We wanted ONE taxi, who is this commie pinko democrat-loving musk and his cheapo cut-rate electric solar green climate treehugger fake rocket-thingies. Boeing know how to spend money right, gol darn it!
What are the SNC people saying
I really am shocked at the decision
Thought Dreamchaser was a shoo in
So someone tell me why we need 3 capsules. Including Orion
I fear it will be 2050 and we will still be using capsules.
Not the future I was promised.
Or even thought we would have
When the task is moving people to and from Earth orbit, the capsule is the simplest, most efficient approach. Wings don’t magically make spacecraft better or more futuristic.
I would ask a Astronaut first before determining your opinion is correct mattmcc80
The AO has long had a complex about ‘flying’ as opposed to ‘riding’. However, that’s just due to the fact that NASA drew the majority of its command pilots from the ranks of high-performance fighter pilots and test pilots.
The simple fact is that technology has moved on to the point where NASA is seriously considering eliminating the ‘Command Pilot’ role as most spacecraft can entirely fly themselves except in a very narrow set of aborts. Even a flight engineer or mission specialist can be trained to handle those. In nominal flight modes, the most the crew have to do is use an alphanumeric keypad to enter in rotation angles or delta-v changes and let the ship fly itself.
In terms of landing safety and accuracy, wings add nothing except a longer re-entry and approach, longer spent at high altitudes and huge, MMOD-vulnerable criticality-zero vehicle components that results in a spacecraft that is not easily adaptable for BLEO missions.
Indeed. And as it should be. Simple, safe.
Why an astronaut? Wouldn’t that be like asking a commuter about the best way to design an exhaust manifold?
Well let’s see…Commander Steven Lindsey 5 Shuttle Missions 3 as commander of Discovery ” A Capsule is like throwing a rock back to Earth”,
Ask Steven Lindsey if he had a choice of staying on the ground, or going to LEO and returning in a capsule what would his choice be? Since HE is not paying a dime for it…
I would say “YOU Think you know …But YOU just don’t know”..HL
CST-100 is designed only for LEO missions, not beyond LEO.
Only SpaceX always seems to be thinking about the future, not just maximizing profits on a limited scope contract.
there is nothing wrong with capsules. they are much more weight-efficient than a winged spacecraft. wings give you a bit more gentle reentry and some cross-range ability, plus you can glide to land on a runway, but that’s about it. wings are essentially just dead weight during launch and in space. they mean that much less equipment and cargo you can bring up with you.
example: the Shuttle itself weighed 165,000 pounds empty. the heaviest cargo it ever carried was 50,000 pounds (the Chandra space telescope). less than a third of the weight of the spacecraft that carried it!
While your point is generally true, it is important to note that the shuttle was not just payload (like dreamchaser or dragon) but was the main stage with a massive set of engines. Also much of its mass was wing, chassis and doors for the massive cargo bay, sort of the trailer part of a tractor-trailer.
Fair enough, the Shuttles’ weight wasn’t just in the wings – the 3 SSMEs and the pressurized crew compartment did contribute a lot of weight. the Shuttle couldn’t help being what it was, designed as it was, a compromise built on a set of compromises. it did well as a Jack-of-all-Trades spacecraft, particularly in assembling the ISS in orbit. I do not mean to belittle the Shuttle or any other winged spacecraft, it’s just helpful to keep in mind the tradeoffs invovled when you put wings on something that is going into space.
it kind of pains me to think that we could have launched massive payloads on an in-line Shuttle stack without the orbiter on the side. after all, the orbiter itself was nearly the same mass as Skylab.
Well, actually I do belittle the shuttle (a black-hole for money, crew lives, and time), but that wasn’t my point. As I said, I do generally agree with your pref for capsules. Dream Chaser is almost triple the mass of Dragon 2. But, I think it does make a good alternative ship with crossrange, low-g reentry, and serious coolness. I would have preferred Dragon/DC getting the split that CST/Dragon got.
yeah, i think most people would have preferred to see DC and DragonV2 selected.
oh well. i guess that happens when you decide to change the fuel your rocket engines will use a month before NASA had to downselect…
Nothing wrong with capsules, it is true, from a scientific/aeronautic point of view.
They have neither poetry nor much aesthetic appeal, however.
The Shuttle was a thing of beauty- an aesthetic and engineering triumph, and carrier of US engineering dominance. Capsules? Not so much.
https://twitter.com/TheLuri…
Rumor-
1: talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source
2: a statement or report current without known authority for its truth
Sounds interesting, but tell me something that’s not a rumor, then ask your question (@Charles). The damn news is becoming a rumor :/
Congress was pushing for a down select to one player in CCDev, and has been underfunding CCDev. Justifying 3 capsule programs at the same time seems politically risky. I wonder if the plan was to have Dragon there as a bargaining chip. We’ll drop it if you fund CST-100?
A fair question. Here’s another: exactly why did congress want a down-select? Isn’t this the right-wing, ‘competition rules’ congress?
From SpaceNews:
“However, a Sept. 18 report by the NASA Office of Inspector General on the ISS program noted that the agency has assumed a per-seat price for commercial crew missions of $70.7 million, the same as it will pay for a Soyuz seat in 2016. Twelve flights with four astronauts per flight results in a total transportation cost of nearly $3.4 billion. That, coupled with the commercial crew development costs in the budget proposal, would be consistent with the $6.8 billion combined value of the CCtCap contracts.
“We believe we can fund these contracts. We hope to get the president’s budget request for ’15,” Phil McAlister, director of commercial spaceflight at NASA headquarters, said in a talk at the Federal Aviation Administration’s Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) meeting here Sept. 17. Appropriations bills in Congress would provide between $785 million and $805 million for commercial crew in 2015, short of the requested $848 million.”
http://www.spacenews.com/ar…
Looks like we can see the baseline price NASA used.