Boeing Apparently Disagrees With NASA OIG Commercial Crew Report
NASA OIG: NASA’s Management of Crew Transportation to the International Space Station, NASA OIG
“… the CCP’s flight assumptions were flawed because they failed to take into consideration a normal flight cadence and the five Soyuz seats NASA planned to purchase from Boeing. … “NASA’s crew access analysis also did not include the five Soyuz seats the Agency was planning to purchase from Boeing for flights in 2017 through 2019. ” … “According to several NASA officials, a significant consideration for paying Boeing such a premium was to ensure the contractor continued as a second crew transportation provider. CCP officials cited NASA’s guidance to maintain two U.S. commercial crew providers to ensure redundancy in crew transportation as part of the rationale for approving the purchase of all four missions at higher prices. “Additionally, senior CCP officials believed that due to financial considerations, Boeing could not continue as a commercial crew provider unless the contractor received the higher prices.”
Boeing Statement Regarding OIG Report on NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, Boeing
“We strongly disagree with the report’s conclusions about CST-100 Starliner pricing and readiness, and we owe it to the space community and the American public to share the facts the Inspector General [IG] missed,” said Jim Chilton, vice president and general manager of Boeing Space and Launch. “Each member of the Boeing team has a personal stake in the safety, quality and integrity of what we offer our customers, and since Day One, the Starliner team has approached this program with a commitment to design, develop and launch a vehicle that we and NASA can be proud of.”
… Through fair and open negotiations with NASA in a competitive environment, we offered single-mission pricing for post-certification missions (PCMs) 3-6, thus enabling additional flexibility and schedule resiliency to enhance future mission readiness. This single-mission pricing for PCM 3-6 was included in the pricing table in the original contract. That original pricing table remains unchanged. Contrary to the conclusion in the IG report, Boeing contends that the benefits in shorter lead time and flexibility in adjusting launch dates are well worth the higher price in the table.
… Boeing rejects the average seat price assessment in the IG report. Boeing will fly the equivalent of a fifth passenger in cargo for NASA, so the per-seat pricing should be considered based on five seats rather than four. For proprietary, competitive reasons Boeing does not disclose specific pricing information, but we are confident our average seat pricing to NASA is below the figure cited.”
“We don’t disclose proprietary pricing information, but we are definitely sure that our pricing is lower than that”. Right.
The better explanation was the one they gave about having to play catch-up on development, claiming that SpaceX got less because they were repurposing a human-rated cargo capsule and were essentially ahead in development already.
Was it required that they go with a capsule? Boeing built the X-37B for the Air Force, and they reportedly proposed building a 50% larger X-37C that could carry up astronauts and cargo in a pressurized cargo hold. I wonder if they could have gone with that instead and saved money and time.
I recall one of the reasons they were selected over Sierra Nevada is because they were ahead of them in development. I also seem to recall that it was implied that they were ahead of SpaceX.
It’s a capsule because Boeing is using the design work from their Orion proposal (which lost to LM in the competition), they didn’t start from a blank sheet either.
And before that they had proposed it as part of NASA’s OSP in 2004, even to launching it on an Atlas V. So yes, it has a long paper history.
So Boeing is only charging NASA $72 million a seat versus $90 million, assuming the launch with five astronauts. That still comes out to $360 a flight. By contrast SpaceX is charging $55 million a seat or about $220 million a flight for Dragon2. At those prices its difficult to see any commercial market for the “commercial crew” program.
https://www.space.com/space…
Here’s How Much NASA Is Paying Per Seat on SpaceX’s Crew Dragon & Boeing’s Starliner
By Mike Wall
November 16, 2019
I think it’s too early to say.
Once they start flying with crew and have certification, we may see interest become more concrete.
That price range is not out of reach for certain Gulf States, for example.
and about 1000 hedge fund manager/extreme sports nuts.
Let’s see, you have a choice.
You could pay $60-70 million and fly into space in a can of spam jammed in with professional astronauts that likely are unhappy you are taking up a seat a real astronaut could be flying in, and then look forward to a parachute landing either in a remote desert or in the ocean followed by a long return home on some cargo aircraft.
OR
You AND your significant other could, for $500 Thousand, book a day long flight on a Starship with your own cabin and spend time with a couple dozen other tourists of similar background while you are waited on in “Pan Am Style” by flight attendants before returning to the spaceport you launched from where your Gulf Stream waits.
Gee…
What a hard choice.??
In fact if you want to spend some money you could book the whole flight for $4-5 million and have a party in orbit.
You simply must stop raining on the parade, Dr. M.
“There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.” -Arthur Conan Doyle
Then you and your significant other extremely rich person could also donate $500 thousand to the Gates Foundation to help advance some other great tech development for a good cause. I probably have a few more ideas as well.
Ah, the old, “why waste money on space when there are so many poor folks on Earth argument”, in a new form…
The Gates Foundation is already taking in more than it could spend with assets going from $36 billion in 2010 to $50 billion in 2017. A mere $500,000 wouldn’t even be noticed.
Nah I definitely don’t support that argument. I didn’t say for them to not buy that Starship flight 🙂 Your comment just got me wondering what it would be like to have that kind of money. You described it in a way that somehow made it feel like something common and within reach but also super rich and luxurious. It’s hard to imagine that being real but it may become so for some people.
Ok didn’t know that about the Gates Foundation. Plenty of other good things out there too. What would I do if I were super rich, hmmmm…
“wondering what it would be like to have that kind of money”
Oh, that’s easy, and here’s a good starting place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
I love traveling, but I hate traveling, if you know what I mean. I’m thinking that critter could make it less unbearable!
Hah, yeah that would probably be a lot more like just hopping in the car and going somewhere. Must be nice! 🙂
Or a quarter of a million for a two-hour flight which spends a few minutes in space? Let’s not start selling tickets before the first test flight.
Correct. Not 90, or 72, or 55, or even 20. I wonder if you can build an industry on $1 million per seat.
It has to come WAY down.
I like Bigelow too, bit their pricing will need to improve a whole lot also.
Well guess the author of the IG report will be leaving NASA soon….
And Crew Dragon can carry 5 passengers and the equivalent of two passengers in cargo, all while doing so at a lower price.
Uh, last I checked, so will Crew Dragon.
I admit I laughed out loud at the bullet point about Atlas V. “By people with actual experience in the domain.”
What they probably mean by that is that they have SLS peaple working on Starliner…which would be no surprise. They probably also have former NASA employees and even former astronauts and Space Shuttle people on the team.
That’s not really a track record they’d want people to examine too closely. Commercial Crew is supposed to deliver something with under a 1 in 270 risk of fatal accidents. The Shuttle only managed 1 in 67.5. Experience with something whose performance was a factor of four below the current contract requirements isn’t what you want to brag about.
Putting “actual” in there does make that sound a bit rude and juvenile. Just one interpretation.
“since Day One, the Starliner team has approached this program with a commitment to design, develop and launch a vehicle that we and NASA can be proud of”
From Space News:
“NASA paid Boeing nearly $300 million more than originally planned in its commercial crew contract in part because of agency concerns that the company might drop out of the program, a new report claims.”
https://spacenews.com/nasa-…
Boeing is committed alright .. they are committed to squeezing every last dime possible from the taxpayers or they leave. Would that be considered extortion or blackmail … lol
NASA should strongly consider funding development of a crewed version of SNCs new spacecraft by contracting for launches starting in 2023.
That would put pressure on Boeing to preform.
I’ve been thinking that’s where it is headed. SNC will develop and provide cargo services for a cycle and develop a CC vehicle in the next contract round.
FYI — the bulk of the Sierra Nevada Dreamchaser spacecraft ( fuselage, wings, pressurized compartment ) is built by another aerospace megacorporation with their dirty hands in the public’s cookie jar : Lockheed. The spaceplane will initially be launched atop a Lockheed Atlas V. REcall that Boeing and Lockheed are competitors on Earth and in the atmosphere, but partners in space with their ULA joint venture . Going the Dreamchaser route would have little to no effect on Boeing’s business model.
I also never pass up an opportunity to remind folks that it was Boeing that totally screwed the taxpayer out of many billions with its failed Future Imagery Architecture that was intended to integrate all military space intelligence…. optical, radar, SigInt. Cancelled in 2005 after being called the most spectacular and expensive failure in the 50-year history of American spy satellite projects , the root cause of the severe cost overrun was mismanagement up front and Boeing promising far more than it could possibly deliver from inception. Boeing Boondoggle. But somehow they still get paid to fail.
I’d have to disagree. Your points are correct, but they don’t add up to no difference. Sierra Nevada owns the project. Yes, it would likely be quite difficult to switch suppliers on the big structural items in the future, but it’s not completely out of the question. And of course there is a lot of work done besides the structural components. Sierra Nevada does plan to launch it on a ULA Vulcan, but they also have repeatedly stated that Dream Chaser is launcher-agnostic. They mentioned that they considered Atlas 5, Vulcan, Ariane 6, H3, SpaceX, Blue Origin. I’m sure Dream Chaser will be considered for crew in the future (again). Having this option is not the same as not having the option.
In some ways launcher agnostics – I mean last day changes – is the Next Big Thing.
It requires some maturity, but standardization can really increase efficiency. Ability to change launcher can be huge.
They aren’t quite at the last-day level, but Rocket Lab is getting close. On their last Electron launch (“As the Crow Flies”) they swapped payloads on something like two-week notice. The originally manifested wasn’t ready in time and Astro Digital’s Corvus small sat was.
I think it’s also becoming a moderately common practice for CubeSats. The standards are designed so the primary customer doesn’t have to know or care what’s in the secondary payload deployer. If (since) there is a backlog, there’s always someone in line for a ride if they originally manifested CubeSat has a delay or problem. Although I admit I don’t know what the lead time on that sort of swap is, but it’s a significant savings. More conventional project are planned with a sizable schedule margin, and that’s expensive. Being able to say, “Well, if I’m late, just give my place in the line to someone else.” is an attractive option.
That said, being able to launch on any rocket does have disadvantages. For example, acceleration and vibration are different, and designing for multiple launch environments complicates the mechanical design.
From the beginning Boeing has always blatantly been given preference over Space X. NASA Administrator Bridenstine has always found unjust reasons to put down Space X while giving Boeing a pass. Musk is right to point this out and to pursue legal remedies if necessary. Though Keith Cowing has said NASA administrator Bridenstine is a man of honor, I think this price differential very much brings that into question.
“Though Keith Cowing has said NASA administrator Bridenstine is a man of honor, I think this price differential very much brings that into question.”
That the price differential is not far greater is the measure of the Administrator. Boeing passes most of that money through to its employees in Northern Alabama, who then vote for the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Richard Shelby. If NASA wants its budget to pass through Congress at all, it will please Shelby and his voters, till he is no longer Chair of SAC, and pushing up daisies.
Bridenstine walked into a problem that has been growing since Shelby joined the Senate in 1987, IIRC. That he has not solved it in one year, is not his fault. The announcement this week of several more NASA selections of private Moon Landers, when Senator Shelby has refused funding priority for NASA development of Moon Landers, gives us an idea of a longer-range strategy.
You make no sense. Bridenstine has been open and honest – like I said, a man of honor. Why don’t you come up to DC and sit down with the books and do the math for yourself.
I had thought I was saying the same basic thing as you. Bridenstine is as open and honest as any survivor of the Beltway can be. With a less honest man the price differential could rival that between Falcon Heavy/SLS, given Shelby’s proclivities.
The basic problem is *not* inside NASA, but in the institution that shapes it, the US Congress. Or, I should say, in using political allocation of resources in the first place.
“When a society moves from allocating resources by custom and tradition (moderns read here, by politics) to allocating resources by markets, they may be said to have undergone an industrial revolution” Arnold Toynbee-1884
Jim Bridenstine is trying to move NASA HSF to industrial levels of development speed and efficiency while bound to a pre-industrial resource allocation system, in politics. I wish that man all the luck in the world, and would never be able to carry his load.
That’s a bit unfair, the extra price paid to Boeing happened in December 2016, Bridenstine didn’t become administrator until mid 2018, so he has nothing to do with this.
One point that’s missing. Boeing is under contract to provide a set number of crewed missions + test flights for the original contract price. If they want to drop out after that, they can and others will fill the void. But demanding more money or you’ll just drop out of commercial crew is not supported by federal contract law.
I’m pretty sure dropping out would be legal. Contracts generally have termination clauses. If Congress doesn’t give them the money, NASA would have to drop out and the contract allows for that. If Boeing would go bankrupt to complete the contract, they aren’t going to do that. And their lawyers are smart enough to include clauses to that effect. There would be termination fees, but that’s a detail. As for a contractor dropping out of a fixed price contract, just because it turns out it wouldn’t be profitable? That’s possible. It just depends on how the termination clauses are written, and I don’t think either of us have a copy of the contract.
no, read how the c-17 almost bankrupted McDonnel Douglas. The government held them to the aircraft promised in the original fixed price contract. NASA can make Boeing fly, and they can leave after that.
The C-17 was a different matter. The development and production/procurement phases were separate. McDonnell Douglas got strong-armed into eating a bit over $1 billion worth of cost over runs in the development phase, because the Department of Defense made some threats about the number of aircraft they’d but during the later production phase of the contract.
I’ll admit some companies have signed contracts they shouldn’t have. I know of one who signed a space-related national security contract which gave the government agency in question the option on a second order if they were happy with the first. The company missed the clauses about the option including a schedule completely under the control of the customer, even if it meant dropping everything else they were working on. Oops.
But all contracts of this sort have termination clauses. How well or poorly they are written is a different matter. In any case, Boeing’s statement is that they were never thinking of backing out, and the extra money was for extra services (schedule flexibility and shorter lead time on orders) which NASA requested. You can believe as much of that as you want, and the OIG report certainly expressed doubts. But if that’s how it was handled, it’s a completely legal contract renegotiation. A stupid one on NASA’s part, but still legal.