One will get voted off the island...

[Sky_walker]

SpaceX lists on their own website under "About Us" -> "Capabilities and Services" a pricetag of $61.2M for the Falcon 9, full payload capacity.

That's a price for commercial clients. Basically: US government gives money to the Space X sponsoring random private space endeavours.

In this topic we're talking about pricing from a perspective of NASA/US government and that's ~$141million per launch.

SpaceX is also heavily subsidized (but then so are ULA and Arianespace)

Arianespace receives roughly 120 million euro per year in subsidies (it varies, used to be 100, but SpaceX price dumping forced them to ask for additional subsidies). SpaceX gets 80 million dollars per launch - in this year it'll be ~9 launches, in next: probably 18. Arianespace did a lot to reduce it's dependence on subsidies since 2005 (back then it used to be ~200 million euro per year - still over 2 times less than what SpaceX receives these days) and it seems like the next variant of Ariane 5, ME, will lower that funding even further (here).

Anyway - point of this whole pricing stuff, for those who missed it, is: SpaceX pricing isn't as attractive to NASA as you might think on a first glance. It's still a good price point, no doubt, but nowhere near as good as some SpaceX fans try to picture it.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Sky_walker
added second response

[Streetwind]

That's a price for commercial clients. Basically: US government gives money to the Space X sponsoring random private space endeavours.

In this topic we're talking about pricing from a perspective of NASA/US government and that's ~$141million per launch.

No it's not.

I googled a bit and found the actual origin of the $141 million here: http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11/IG-11-012.pdf

This is a February 2011 report on an audit conducted in 2010 about NASA's then-proposed acquisition plan for launch services for its Earth science missions. The $141 million figure is found on page VI, and means:

- The estimated cost of acquiring launch services on a Falcon 9...

- ...v1.0, which was still going through final testing back then

- Averaged over the entire NLS II period from 2010 to 2020

- Extrapolated from cost developments of launch services provided by other providers (mainly ULA) from 2000 to 2010

- Including, quote: "basic launch services, mission-unique services, integrated services (e.g., launch vehicle and payload processing, range safety, engineering and institutional support, and launch pad support), and telemetry."

So basically this is not what it actually costs NASA, this is what an independent auditor guessed four years ago it would cost NASA to acquire a rocket that was not yet available at the time and no longer flies nowadays, and it also includes price development projections up until 2020 as well as all possible mission-related services that NASA would also have to pay for. For reference: the report also quotes a similar guess for ULA's Atlas V at $264 million (same payload capacity), and Orbital Science's Minotaur at $63 million (1/6th payload capacity).

I'm fairly sure all three of these figures ended up being different in reality, right now in 2014. What the actual cost is, I can't say. It may be similar, it may be not. But the F9 rocket definitely is an entirely different beast today, and estimates based on the v1.0 are not useful anymore.

(The $61.2 quoted on SpaceX's website, meanwhile, is the pure price of the Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket. It does not include any of the additional services listed in the quote above.)

[Sky_walker]

I'm fairly sure all three of these figures ended up being different in reality, right now in 2014. What the actual cost is, I can't say. It may be similar, it may be not. But the F9 rocket definitely is an entirely different beast today, and estimates based on the v1.0 are not useful anymore.

Yes, but the price remained roughly the same. One one hand you got lower costs due to higher volume of sales, on the other hand you got higher expenses due to basically: throwing a rocket that would otherwise be reusable out of the window for each launch (just to remind you - not even a single commercially launched rocket has been reused so far). Costs perhaps will go down in some unspecified point in future, but we're not there just yet.

The $61.2 quoted on SpaceX's website, meanwhile, is the pure price of the Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket.

No it's not. It's a base price for their commercial customers. It quite clearly states: "standard payment plan (2016 launch)". Pure price of the rocket, excluding all of the additional costs like facilities, transpiration, operations, etc. remains unknown, but from NASA/government perspective: only thing that matters is what they pay.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Nibb31]

At any rate, a launch cost for a commercial sat is not the same as a manned flight to the ISS. A commercial launch doesn't include the spacecraft and only a few of hours of mission control. A manned mission requires a spacecraft, crew training, crew processing facilities, mission control for the duration of the flight up until recovery and reentry. If a commercial satellite launch costs $60 million, double that number for a manned flight seems in the ballpark, and even a bargain.

[Streetwind]

Yes, but the thing is - most of these costs are not related to the launch vehicle. You have to train your crew, provide mission control and so on regardless of what you launch on.

So the actual question is: what does a Falcon 9 with a Dragon V2 on top cost, compared to an Atlas V with a Dream Chaser or CST-100 on top? All three vehicles are 7-seaters and therefore are completely interchangable for your standard ISS crew taxi mission and lifeboat duty. For space toursim... well, all of them will be cheaper per seat than a Soyuz, and seats will be more readily available (NASA would launch crews of 4, leaving three seats worth of room that can be used for either cargo or visiting passengers). I highly doubt though that they'll find seven (or even five) people willing to charter the entire rocket for themselves anytime soon.

[montyben101]

Any news???

[Streetwind]

Announcement was pushed back to September in response to SpaceX's little testing mishap.

(Not because that mishap has any actual impact on the decision, but rather because no matter which way NASA decides, those politicians not happy with the outcome would burn them at the stake for not waiting for the conclusion of the investigation just to have something to complain about. Isn't it fun to try and get something done as a government organization?)

[montyben101]

WHAT?!?!?! I will have to wait to September to find out which one goes?!?!?! (I hope it's cst-100 that things crap)

[Streetwind]

Well, September starts three days from now

It's reasonable to assume that Wednesday the 3rd would be NASA saying "we have a decision" as per contractual advance warning to the partners, and then on Friday the 5th they announce what that decision is. Or if not, the same thing a week later.

[montyben101]

Oh..... Sorry I lost track of the dates and stuff since I'm on holiday XD

[Nicholander]

WHAT?!?!?! I will have to wait to September to find out which one goes?!?!?! (I hope it's cst-100 that things crap)

Well, I hope that the CST-100 is go, because then we get 3 manned spacecraft!

[R0cketC0der]

Well, I hope that the CST-100 is go, because then we get 3 manned spacecraft!

The CST-100 could, like its competitors, carry seven people, not three. Why would you prefer a capsule able to carry three people over one that could carry seven?

[shynung]

He meant that we'll get 3 different spacecrafts operational if the CST-100 is given the green light. DreamChaser and Dragon V2 are going to continue development regardless of NASA funding.

[montyben101]

If it dosent get NASA funding then it may still go under due to lack of funding, like buran

[shynung]

Both are under active development by their manufacturers (SNC and SpaceX), and they have stated earlier that they will continue development even if NASA ceases to provide funding through CCDev, unlike Boeing(read the OP).

Whether they have resources to actually finish the development and start selling space-bound tickets to the public is yet to be seen. However, given that both companies are experienced in spacecraft dynamics, I predict that they are likely to succeed anyway.

[Kryten]

Both are under active development by their manufacturers (SNC and SpaceX), and they have stated earlier that they will continue development even if NASA ceases to provide funding through CCDev, unlike Boeing(read the OP)

What Boeing said was that they doubt there would be a market to justify it; they'd be in a much better position to make that kind of decision than SNC, which previously hasn't done anything more than subcontracting.

[montyben101]

Where can i find out if they do decide to make a decision?

[Nibb31]

Don't worry, it will be plastered all over the usual space geek websites and forums (space.com, nasaspaceflight.com, and here too most probably). Apparently we are looking at mid-september for a decision.

[Streetwind]

Sadly so... come oooooon NASA, don't tease us!

[EndOfTheEarth]

I think that Dream Chaser will get booted out, and here's why:

WEIGHT

As wonderful as the spaceplane feel is, it is the heaviest of the three spacecraft (11,300kg) and this means that:

1) Once you load all the passengers, you can't load as much cargo as you would for a capsule.

2) Even with low cargo capacity, you are limited in altitude. Theoretically, you could refit CST or Dragon for high-apogee flights by removing some occupants and cargo, but most of the weight of the DC is in the airframe.

3) Even if it lands at a large commercial airport, it's big and bulky and still needs to be transported back to KSC (Kennedy this time, not Kerbal). Unless that airport is the KSC runway, DC will cost more per pound to recover, even from an optimal landing.

Aside from the weight issue, Sierra Nevada has been given progressively less and less of the Dev money from NASA as production has gone on, while Boeing and SpaceX have gotten the most. I think this suggests that NASA favors them more than SNC.

[Nibb31]

You keep saying this, but do you have any evidence that DC is fitted with an actual airlock? My Google-Fu was unable to come up with any source for that. NASA has no plans to use any of the CCDev vehicles for anything else than as a crew vehicle until the ISS is shut down. The ISS has its own two airlocks, so why add one to the crew vehicle? After that, Orion takes over as an exploration vehicle. Hubble is not getting any more repair missions.

There is an NDS IDS docking port at the back of DC, but NDS IDS is definitely not suitable for EVAs (the diameter is too small and it has all sorts of protusions that make it hazardous) and there is simply no need for an airlock on a crew taxi. Adding one only adds weight, cost, and complexity, so why the heck would they be stupid enough to overengineer it? If anything, it would actually be an argument against DreamChaser as a cheap dependable LEO taxi.

ETA: replaced NDS with IDS, thanks Sky_walker.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Nibb31

[Sky_walker]

Dream Chaser will have International Berthing Docking Mechanism designed by ESA, it is compatible with NDS, but it's not NDS.

Dream Chaser won't have an airlock capable of handling EVA but space taxi doesn't need it. What for? It's designed to carry people to and from the ISS and potentially - other space stations. Not to perform EVA repairs, or anything alike.

Besides - correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the CCDev spacecrafts got EVA capability.

[xenomorph555]

Dream Chaser won't have an airlock capable of handling EVA but space taxi doesn't need it. What for? It's designed to carry people to and from the ISS and potentially - other space stations. Not to perform EVA repairs, or anything alike.

They were probably thinking the same thing when soyuz 1 launched...

[Nibb31]

Huh? What did the Soyuz 1 accident have to do with EVA capability?

The original Soyuz did have EVA capability through the hatch on the side of the orbital module, which would act as an airlock. It was used on Soyuz 4-5 to swap crew members, and it was only way for a crewmember to transfer to and from the LK for the lunar missions. Nowadays, EVA capability is pretty limited: it doesn't usually carry Orlan suits and it lacks handrails and fixtures that are needed for an EVA. Some of the depress/repress equipment might not be fitted either.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Nibb31

[xenomorph555]

Huh? What did the Soyuz 1 accident have to do with EVA capability?

The original Soyuz did have EVA capability through the hatch on the side of the orbital module, which would act as an airlock. It was used on Soyuz 4-5 to swap crew members, and it was only way for a crewmember to transfer to and from the LK for the lunar missions. Nowadays, EVA capability is pretty limited: it doesn't usually carry Orlan suits and it lacks handrails and fixtures that are needed for an EVA. Some of the depress/repress equipment might not be fitted either.

When soyuz 1 launched one of the solar panels did not deploy, this led to many problems such as re-entry guidance systems shutting down, but he couldn't do anything because they didn't pack eva suits. The mission was cancelled and Komarov re-entered with a tragic ending.

My main point is, stuff happens, better to have backup in case.