13 thoughts on “Commercial Crew Criticism”

    2. I made that mistake also. Didn’t realize what website it was until it was too late. Felt like the moderator in Billy Madison after I was done looking for any logical comments that pertained to Newt’s article.

  2. I want to see Rand testify if they do hold those hearings. I’d also like to see them take half the award away from Boeing and give it to SNC.

    1. Yeah, I’m really bummed that SNC lost out. Dream Chaser is a very pretty craft that has potential. I hope they can find a white knight or somebody who can provide some funding.

      Steve Jurvetson, do you have any money left after saving SpaceX?

  3. Rand, I think the math may be inescapable that commercial crew *will* cost more than Soyuz. Let’s say Soyuz remains at ~$70M/seat and assume we (the US) pay for six seats a year. (I don’t know the actual number we fly.) At that rate, we could have purchased 100 seats over 15 years from now for what has and will be spent on the commercial crew program, without carrying but one (or a tiny handful) of actual NASA crew to ISS.

    And then you’d have to add the price that SpaceX and Boeing will charge for an equivalent 100 seats. Assuming that SpaceX wins all those at ~$20M/seat that’s another $2B. We all know (now) it will be far more for CST-100. So we could fly another 30-100 (perhaps) NASA crew on Soyuz.

    Note this doesn’t speak to the political issue of sending the Russians money for crew, only the math.

    1. SpaceX will be paid $2.6 billion, and will deliver 6 crewed flights to ISS. Assuming they carry only four ISS astronauts (they can now increase the US ISS crew to 4, and intend to do so), that’s $108.3 million per seat. So in the near term, it’s more expensive than Soyuz (Boeing, for course, will be 60% more expensive than that, even in the unlikely event that they don’t overrun).

      Bear in mind, though, that this price includes NASA “certification” of the Dragon. The recurring cost of launch ought to be around $150 million, or $37.5 million a seat. If the station stays up long enough, we might break even on commercial crew – at least the SpaceX version. It certainly beats the $218 million a seat for the Shuttle.

      1. Yes, it’s a good deal for SpaceX but government should always pay more than others because it carries the additional risk of government breaking the deal that other contractual customers can’t without ending up in court. Imagine tooling up for a production run that gets canceled with no payment at all. Government can do that to you. Business would have to make a down payment.

        Also that $150m is price, not cost. 7 x 20 is $140m which includes profit.

        Bottom line, competition will get the price down to where it should be.

      2. A small nit pick …. they are also required to bring up cargo along with the four passengers. So you have to include that in the determination of per seat costs. They will also have to bring down cargo capability also, again more costs that have to be included. If they bring up 1000 pounds of cargo and bring back a half a ton .. how much does that lower the per seat cost?

    2. I have no problem with the notion that in life cycle over the next decade and a half, commercial crew will cost more than just paying the Russians (that, of course, unrealistically assumes that they wouldn’t continue to jack up the price if they retain their monopoly). I just question whether that would be the case on a recurring basis. But even if it is, I consider it worth it, assuming that NASA is going to continue to send astronauts into space at all.

      1. I agree, Rand that CC is worth it whether or not non-recurring costs are included. But even if the Soyuz per person prices include extra training etc. for NASA, no way do they include the far-past costs of developing the Soyuz and its launch system (not to mention numerous upgrades over decades). Coming up with a number for that would be a nightmare, given the way the Soviet system ‘worked’.

        So let’s stick to recurring costs, folks. Which is what I thought we were using for CC transport until this OIG report.

Comments are closed.