NASA Outsources ISS Resupply To SpaceX, Orbital

DynaSoar writes "NASA has signed two contracts with US commercial space ventures totaling $3.5 billion for resupply of the International Space Station. SpaceX will receive $1.6 billion for 12 flights of SpaceX's planned Dragon spacecraft and their Falcon 9 boosters. $1.9 billion goes to Orbital for eight flights of its Cygnus spacecraft riding its Taurus 2 boosters. Neither of the specified craft has ever flown. However, the proposed vehicles are under construction and based on proven technology, whereas NASA has often contracted with big aerospace companies for services using vehicles not yet even designed."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Hell of a deal

[tripmine]

$1.6 billion for 12 flights of SpaceX's planned Dragon spacecraft and their Falcon 9 boosters. $1.9 billion

Compared to the shuttle, it's a pretty damn good deal.

Re:What's special about this?

[FleaPlus]

It doesn't sound any different than Lockheed or NGC getting $3 billion.

As I've noted in another comment, the difference is that Lockheed/NGC have cost-plus contracts, while this is a fixed-price contract. Lockheed et al get more money if they go overbudget. SpaceX has to pay the cost if they go overbudget.

The concept drawings from any of these companies are equally far from the real thing. Maybe the CEO of SpaceX is worth a little more than the Lockheed CEO.

Concept drawings? SpaceX's Falcon 9 has already been transported to Cape Canaveral [spacex.com], and will be fully assembled and vertical within the next week.

Re:Hell of a deal

[FleaPlus]

Compared to the shuttle, it's a pretty damn good deal.

Just to elaborate on that... a Space Shuttle [wikipedia.org] has a payload to orbit of 24,400kg. The shuttle costs $500-$1,500 million per flight (depending on how you tabulate it). SpaceX's Falcon 9 Heavy [wikipedia.org] has a payload to orbit of 27,500kg. The commercial price per flight is $90 million; under the current contract SpaceX is charging a fixed price of $133 million per flight, which presumably is higher due to the cost of the Dragon capsule [wikipedia.org] and development fees.

That makes SpaceX's price for delivery to the space station 4x-11x cheaper than the Shuttle's. With this sharp cost reduction, NASA will be hopefully be able to get much more exploration and research done on their limited budget.

Re:Hell of a deal

[TooMuchToDo]

Not bad considering it costs $450 million per shuttle launch.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html [nasa.gov]

Q. How much does it cost to launch a Space Shuttle?

A. The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission.

More details

[FleaPlus]

For anyone looking for more info, here's some handy links:

* RLV News's link round-up on the announcement [hobbyspace.com]

* Notes from the question-and-answer teleconference after the announcement [hobbyspace.com]

Some pasted notes from the teleconference which were missing from the article linked in the summary:

• This is a true, standard procurement contract. COTS deals with R&D.
• No relationship to decision on COTS-D manned option. [this is the commercial contract many are hoping for which would involve fixed-price payments to transport astronauts to the ISS]
• Dec. 2010 first SpaceX flight, Oct 2011 - first Orbital flight
• Extensive set of reviews will insure that vehicles are ready to deliver cargo
• Bid decision involved technical evaluation of vehicles, evaluation of readiness for 2010-2011, evaluation of the companies, etc. Our evaluation is that these systems will be ready in time.
• Commercial services will carry 40%-70% per year of US cargo to the ISS (larger percentage as time goes on)
• Schedule payment is based on milestones. Final payment upon delivery of cargo for a given mission.
• Shuttle extension would not affect this contract. Use any excess shuttle capability for other items, e.g. experiments.
• Truly committed this time to commercial cargo delivery.
• Both use common berthing mechanism as with Japanese HTV
• Orbital to launch from Wallops, SpaceX from the Cape

Re:The big deal here: launch costs getting cut in

[FleaPlus]

Their costs will go up to meet the inevitable requirement creep, and so will the final bill.

I think you may be missing something here... as I mentioned in my comment, this is a fixed-price contract, not a cost-plus contract. The requirements (deliver a certain quantity of tonnage to orbit) are already set, and the final price is already set. SpaceX and Orbital get money as they reach contracted development milestones and make actual cargo deliveries. If their costs go up, they either eat the cost and make less of a profit, or they don't make any more money at all.

But let's not delude ourselves that the new kids will be that much better/cheaper, while retaining the same performance & safety factors.

This is an interesting belief. Do you have any support for it? Do you disagree with NASA's readiness evaluation that SpaceX and Orbital are capable of doing this? Also, why does performance inherently matter, rather than cost/kg? And how much of a factor is safety on a cargo ship?

Space ops is expensive.

Actually, current space ops is really absurdly expensive. Companies like SpaceX are trying to make the cost simply expensive.

Re:Problems

[ppanon]

The development of the aircraft carrier had made those battleships obsolete. The aircraft carriers were much more effective in force projection. I believe that modern navies don't have anything bigger than a cruiser because they're just too much of an indefensible target for modern missiles, and that became true with the advent of the torpedo bomber. You're better off with the same tonnage in a lot more smaller ships. Some say there's a good reason why the US aircraft carriers were out on manoeuvres and the battleships weren't.

Re:The big deal here: launch costs getting cut in

[OrbitalDude]

Agree! Those costs don't include NASA's incredible infrastructure costs. Orbital and SpaceX have to create and pay for their own infrastructure (launch site and data communications). All they get is some real estate on a launch campus. In general, seems most folks in this thread have never worked on rockets or spacecraft. It really IS rocket science and it really IS hard... and it really IS very expensive. The hardest part about CRS is the business model... matching the loft capabilities of a brand new rocket (Orbital's Taurus-II and SpaceX's Falcon-9) to the unknown mass (weight) of a brand new SET of spacecraft while leaving room for the stuff that you get paid for (the cargo). Keep in mind the design teams have to develop a spacecraft that can accommodate unpressurized and pressurized cargo... with capabilities to accommodate a return vehicle as well. Also, in contrast to comments above, the government is not supplying anything other than specifications for operations near the ISS. Orbital and SpaceX have developed both rocket and spacecraft designs in-house with no help from NASA. I can't speak for SpaceX, but Orbital has some of the best rocket designers in the world. From http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/ [orbital.com]: "Combined, our space launch vehicles have launched over 115 satellites into orbit in the last 18 years." This does not include the interceptor or target systems developed by orbital (in-house). Watch out ULA (United Launch Alliance - Lockheed and Boeing's rocket business) there's some new kids on the block ;-)

Re:Hell of a deal

[CrimsonAvenger]

under the current contract SpaceX is charging a fixed price of $133 million per flight,

Under the current contract, SpaceX is selling about 10% of their payload for 12 flights for $133 million. Remember, they're only promising to deliver 20 tons over 12 flights, NOT the 240 tons they'll be pushing into space in those 12 flights.