“One interesting option that was mentioned the other day is for NASA to just select one commercial provider.”

I’m not in favor of replacing one monopoly (Shuttle) with another (Boeing or SpaceX). In such a situation you have to depend on a benevolent provider to expand the market, and while that could happen, how does the second provider gain a foothold? We need competition to keep costs in check, and to provide constant innovation.

“I don’t think that SpaceX could afford to operate at a loss.”

I think the only high dollar hurtle that they have to solve is the LAS. Once they have that, they will have a fleet of already-paid-for capsules that they can use on top of their in-house built (and cost efficient) Falcon 9 launchers. They are a disruptive presence to the crew and cargo transportation market, which normally is a good thing, but I don’t want them stifling a competitive marketplace. That is where NASA can be a force in spreading the ISS work evenly amongst the providers, ensuring that they have a dependable level of demand from which to build upon.

To give you an analogy, SpaceX could be to space transportation as Walmart was to the retail market. Walmart’s key competitive difference was in lowering the costs of their distribution system, which is hard to duplicate without lots of scale.

SpaceX started with no legacy cost structures, could use the latest manufacturing techniques and innovations, and discovered that they could build most of their product in-house, which brings cost, leadtime and quality improvements that their competitors can’t easily match.

“Boeing could, but I don’t think that their stockholders would approve that strategy because, at this point, there is no clear major revenue stream on the near-term horizon.”

The ISS is a funded revenue stream through 2020, and likely far beyond. And Boeing has been working with Bigelow too, which would provide a second stream of demand. If Boeing sees the space transportation market as growable, and they see that they can be one of the top two providers, I think they will move forward. But they need NASA to support the start of this marketplace.

By next year we should know, which is when I think Boeing will need to know in order to meet a late 2016 service date.

You are certainly right. My numbers are approximate guesses. I am very willing to look at others. One interesting option that was mentioned the other day is for NASA to just select one commercial provider.

I don’t think that SpaceX could afford to operate at a loss. Boeing could, but I don’t think that their stockholders would approve that strategy because, at this point, there is no clear major revenue stream on the near-term horizon.

“Any one else want to take a stab at the numbers?”

If NASA did nothing, and bought 5-years of transportation needs from Russia after 2016, then we would pay them about $1.5B for transporting 24 people to/from the ISS. I’m using figures from here:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/mar/HQ_C11-013_Soyuz_Contract.html

So in your example (which is using fictitious numbers) to match the pricing we get for Soyuz, the R&D would take $1B, leaving $500M for the actual service. Those 24 people would then cost $20.8M/seat.

There are too many unknowns in these equations, so this is just a simple math exercise. For instance, Soyuz will be transporting 2 ISS crew members on some flights (and one tourist), and likely 3 on others (no tourist). Dragon & CST-100 can transport 7 people in total, and so there exists an opportunity for either the ISS partners to add more people (likely temporarily), or potential for tourists (short stays between personnel changes).

Keep in mind too that Boeing and SpaceX may offer prices below their actual costs in order to grow the market. This is a typical tactic in the business world, so it would not be unusual for this new market either. And this is also what I think both Boeing and SpaceX will do, since both have stated they want to be in the business, and Boeing is already working with their second potential customer (Bigelow Aerospace), so there is market demand beyond the ISS once it is established.

My $0.02

If NASA pays each provider $50,000,000 per seat x 3 that comes to $150,000,000 per flight. Add to that the development cost, spread over 5 years, and the cost to nasa comes to about $83,000,000 per seat.

The launch provider gets $150,000,000 per year with which to pay for one Atlas V + (used) Boeing CTS-100, or one Falcon 9 and (used) Dragon.

If Musk can provide seats for $20,000,000 per flight then it woud bring the total cost per seat to NASA of about $53,000,000, and provide SpaceX with $60,000,000 for a Falcon 9 + used Dragon.

Dragon and CTS can hadle up to 7 seats, but I assume 3 belong to NASA with the rest used for cargo…

Any one else want to take a stab at the numbers?

“It sounds like we are in agreement on a number of points.”

I wanted to show you that we do have areas of agreement – we’re not always diametrically opposed…

“Perhaps recurring development funding beyond 2015 should be planned.”

We’ve lost the bubble on any Shuttle evolution, and I for one would not advocate pursing it right now, or at least not as a NASA led program.

The time for government-run transportation systems is winding down, and if the SLS is not finished, then hopefully we will be able to fully transition into a commercial cargo & crew marketplace for Earth to LEO, and likely beyond.

NASA can build their mission unique vehicles for exploration (the MPCV qualifies – barely), but the aerospace industry, which is where all the construction & service expertise really resides, is more than capable of taking over the routine transportation needs.

“We need a fully reusable first stage, and, eventually, upper stage. It looks like all the new capsules should be reusable several times.”

You’re thinking very much like Elon Musk. I think you’re beginning to take a shine to him…

It sounds like we are in agreement on a number of points.

What is interesting to me is Wayne Hale’s recent blog that NASA’s shuttle effort was crippled by the lack of a block B development effort 10 years after the first flights that would have leared from past mistakes.. Perhaps recurring development funding beyond 2015 should be planned.

But I think the biggest factor, aside from safety, would be ways to lower costs. An Atlas V is never going to be cheap. Neither is a displosable Falcon 9. We need a fully reusable first stage, and, eventually, upper stage. It looks like all the new capsules should be reusable several times.

“(2) Rotation of the station to produce a simulated 1/3 and 1/6 g, for testing the long-term human effects of exposure to the Moon and Mars.”

I don’t know why the exploration of rotational article gravity is not getting much attention. We only know how well we survive in 1-G and 0-G environments, but like you point out, not what we would experience on the Moon or Mars.

The next national or international space laboratory should have this as one of it’s major goals.

“However, its worth asking – why would that need to be the case? Why not have more Commercial Crew vehicles get developed than get used?”

I guess it depends on the types of systems we’re talking about. I think capsules will be basic transportation for the next 10-15 years, but I’m hoping they are just the first iteration of our future crew transportation needs.

In order evolve the market as fast as possible, you can’t have too many legacy systems that have not had a chance to be profitable, since otherwise you risk the chance of flooding the market with too many low cost systems, and not enough market demand for next generation systems (which likely cost more).

The other issue to consider is how much money the government can & will kick in to jumpstart this market? In my mind, two is the least amount of providers we can have and still have redundancy, and combined with the low amount of business there will be until Bigelow gets going, why have more?

I would rather put the money that would have gone to a third system towards the next evolution of crew transportation, whether that be Dream Chaser type vehicles, or if we’re ready to make that leap, fully reusable systems.

My $0.02

“Congress rejected Obama’s initial request for a total commercial development budget of $6 billion.”

You forget about the strategy of asking for more than you need, so the lesser amount you settle for is what you’re OK with.

You also forget that the highest priority was the cancellation of the over-schedule, over-budget Constellation program, and specifically the unneeded Ares I. So while you focus on what they didn’t get, you miss the huge amount that they DID get.

“If CCDev goes amazingly well (I am not holding my breath) I could see Congress giving it a bigger slice of funding after ISS crew operations have begun.”

I don’t know what you mean by this – ISS crew operations have been going for a decade.

“…and they need to make sure that they live up to everyone’s expectations.”

That should be the standard for everyone, including government programs. And since you’re pointing this out, then you must have agreed with the cancellation of the over-schedule, over-budget Constellation program?

You must also be applauding Elon Musk’s suggestions for NASA to adopt more milestone-type contracts in order to hold contractors more accountable, and reduce contract liabilities for the government?

Gee, maybe you’re a Musk fanboi and you didn’t even know it…