No NASA Discount For Soyuz Seats

It's going to be fun to see what happens when SpaceX is sending people up. Will SpaceX lower the price of seats to what they consider profitable (but reasonable) or will they stick with the same price that Soyuz is offering? I suspect the former, but I could be wrong. NASA is paying about 3 times the cost of a Falcon 9 for resupply to the ISS, to SpaceX. If they can send up 6 people for $200 million, though, that's still loads cheaper than Soyuz is offering. And well under half what Shuttle was costing.

THIS IS SHAMEFUL! JFK SPINS IN HIS GRAVE!

I can't say I'm surprised in any way. We'd better be prepared to pay anything they ask and like it. We're the idiots who decided to retire our manned space launch system before creating a working replacement. We've done that before obviously but it's far worse this time since access to the station is in play.

That fixed price point for unmanned cargo is before NASA adds $312 M to CRS for 'additional incentives.' Additional Incentives == newspeak for overrun?

Thank goodness the contracts are not Cost Plus, only Fixed Price with Additional Incentives! I wonder what the additional incentive price for keeping someone safe will be?

Gee... If MIKE GRIFFIN hadn't come to power and replaced the OSP program with an unaffordable and unsustainable Constellation Program built in his honor, we'd be flying the Shuttle replacement today.

Thanks MIKE GRIFFIN! Yours is a legacy that just keeps on giving!

bassplayinben, being very conservative, the Space Shuttle is $80 million a seat... if JFK is spinning in his grave he's been doing it for awhile.

This is still cheaper than Shuttle, but not as cheap as it can be. I believe that US pays for every Soyuz shot that they're using.

Pathetic. I am ashamed for my adopted country.

davemurrow, if you're referring to Coppinger's claims about "overruns" he is explicitly overlooking the fact that 1) COTS/CRS is milestone based (they get nothing if they fail) and 2) that the new budget intends to speed up commercial space development. "Additional incentives" are just that. Additional incentives. The irony is that Coppinger quotes the intention to speed up development, but he still tries to spin it as if it is "cost overrun."

There is nothing to suggest here that they are having cost overruns. Nothing.

"It's going to be fun to see what happens when SpaceX is sending people up."

I have my bowl of popcorn ready and am watching the TV for when they send a crew up. I'm predicting that will be... maybe never. First of all the "commercial" budget line in the new budget says that the commercial crew contract will be competitively bid. There is no guarantee SpaceX will win a contract. What everyone fails to realize is that there is no "market" for human spaceflight. Profit margins are just not there.

I have seen this happen before and it will happen again. Remember Rotary Rocket, Kistler Aerospace, AMROC, Pioneer Rocketplane, etc. They all thought there was a market and where are they now... They are either shut down, failed to find financing or are a second tier parts supplier. They all thought there was a "price point" for spaceflight and there is not.

SpaceX is looking for a government contract just like everyone else and they will not fly crew to space unless they get one. Ask ULA how much DoD money they got to get to where they are and they are still not a profit making venture given the flight rates that exist. If SpaceX thinks there is a profit in crewed missions, why are they not flying now? The flight rates are not there and the profit margin is only there if they get a development contract and a guaranteed flight manifest.

So I have my popcorn and I am waiting. Wait until NASA has spent $28 billion in the next five years on Exploration initiatives (its in the budget proposal) and we still have nothing to show for it and we are still buying rides to ISS from Soyuz. I wonder how everyone will feel then.

The only way to get safe, US crew access to space in the next 5 years is Orion and the government is making a mistake and in 3 years you will realize that.

Hey "InTheKnow" you can vilify Mike Griffin if you want but first you need to get your history straight.

The OSP was an operational dead end. It's sole mission was to provide a crew of 4 access to and return from the ISS. It had no use beyond LEO nor beyond the end of the ISS. That was the rationale for switching to a CEV. Orion (CEV), or any of the other variants, would have been able to do the OSP's mission and then some by being capable of going to the moon and Mars and make the high speed re-entry necessary at missions end.

OSP was cancelled 30 days after the Vision for Space Exploration was announced in 2004. I know because I sat in the room listening to the PM explain it. Sean O'Keefe was the administrator. Mike Griffin was not named Administrator until mid 2005. That was ~15 to 16 months later.

jcspace, SpaceX will be sending humans up with or without NASAs blessing. Dragonlab will likely test manned capability for SpaceX crews, in order to 1) man rate the vehicle and 2) prove that they can do it.

SpaceX was the only one of all bidders to pass every phase of the COTS process. This is precisely why they got the bid for 12 (+3 demo) flights on Falcon 9 with Dragon. (Orbital got 8 or 9, can't remember.)

When Falcon 9 flies in 27 days and actually achieves orbit, and actually achieves space maneuverability, and actually achieves reentry with Dragon, then we can state, unequivocally, that SpaceX was ahead of NASA with regards to getting a manned capable ship back in to space. 35km (Ares I-X) vs orbit, which technology would you say is more capable?

Again, if Orion/Ares I was viable then ATK can go ahead and build one to compete with SpaceX and Orbital.

joshcryer cargo and crew are two different things.

Show me one abort system test SpaceX has peformed. Show me any proof that SpaceX has an environmental control system that supports 7 crew.
Show me any proof that SpaceX has the software capabilities to sense and detect a booster failure in time to save a crew.

The COTS contract is success oriented and if SpaceX fails they get no money.

SpaceX right now is flying with a 40% success rate.

I'm sitting and waiting.

What I am trying to show is everyone is buying into this "commercial" space myth and feel that a contractor with a 40% success rate somehow has more value than the contractors supporting Constellation.

Also remember that SpaceX and Orbital have no contract yet to provide crew access to space. Its not guaranteed.

well it seems they've gotten the hang of that supply and demand thing, huh?)

I'm sorry but you display your naivety on the subject with your statements about SpaceX's launch history. No one in the industry is surprised (or alarmed) by the failures and successes so far. New rockets fail. It's as simple as that. Unlike Orbital, SpaceX has developed their own vehicle, avionics and engines. That makes an even higher mountain for them to climb in flight testing. They were foolish to push through to operational payloads so quickly but they're learning and will continue to do so as they gain experience. You might want to go back and look at the early history of the Redstone and Atlas programs. I think you'll find it enlightening.

Above and beyond that, you continue to ignore the fact that SpaceX isn't the only game in town. Your hallowed "contractors supporting Constellation" will almost certainly be in the game with EELV derived vehicles.

I stand corrected on my incorrect reference to OSP. The alphabet soup of failed NASA programs sometimes staggers the mind and fogs the memory.

Perhaps the more accurate assessment is that Griffin abandoned the "Spiral Development" approach characterized by such programs as OSP and championed by Steidle (whom Griffin fired upon his arrival as Administrator). Instead, Griffin created the unaffordable, unsustainable Constellation Program. We are now suffering the consequences of this fundamental change.

Now, 4 years later, we're back to fixing the crew to LEO problem that we desperately need in order to become a space-faring nation. Steidle clearly understood that this is a critical first step to be solved. After wasting 4 years, we are stuck paying the Russians for a capability that we were pursuing before Griffin's tenure.

jcspace, everyone loves to bash SpaceX for their early failures with Falcon 1. Every company that's starting in the rocket business has such failures.

As far as rocket launching is concerned SpaceX, if Falcon 9 succeeds, will be shown to be several years beyond Ares I, you can't deny that.

Yes they have a ways to go with a man rated module, but Dragonlab will be where they test that, and it will be real world tests on a rocket that goes in to space.

Mike, naivety is in the eye of the beholder. I know for a fact that any competent aerospace contractor can separate 2 stages without damage on their first attempt.

"That makes an even higher mountain for them to climb in flight testing." The point I'm making is that everyone on this site seems to think that SpaceX (with the "rockets fail" philosphy and high mountains to climb) is viable but Constellation is not.

If SpaceX wants to launch 100 rockets and have 50 of them fail, I am all for it if they do it on their dollar not mine. And, I don't appreciate putting my taxpayer dollars to re-learn the lessons of ballistic missiles in the 1960s with this proposed budget.

And if you think those in the human space flight industry are not alarmed by a 40% success rate then I am not sure naivety lies on my court. But ignoring human spaceflight, you are right. Those of us in the industry weren't surprised, we just laughed.

No one said Cx wasn't viable, just that Cx wasn't going to happen in the timeframe that they had and the funding that they had, at the cost of technology development.

Cx wanted us to take chemical rockets back to the moon, it was not going to do it until the mid 2020s if not early 2030s.

The new direction wants to get commercial rockets to take us to LEO and wants to use advanced propulsion to get back to the moon and beyond.

I know which plan I'm behind.

ISS is a lot simpler a mission then Moon/Mars. And ATK does have a COTS vehicle and bid for the COTS contract, but lost to PayPal boy and 40 year old Russian engines. Yeah, that's innovation!

"Dragonlab will likely test manned capability for SpaceX crews, in order to 1) man rate the vehicle and 2) prove that they can do it."

Just for the record, NASA does not man rate their vehicles by putting human guinea pigs on them - that statement is ridiculous. To do this would be the ultimate in arrogance and naivete. Failure would destroy your company, case closed. On Constellation, there was to be a series of Pad Abort Tests, Ascent Abort Tests, and Ares tests before Orion ever flew and the first Orion flight would be unmanned. The man rating comes from the systems, the software, the hazards analysis, the testing, testing, testing, the launch abort system, not to mention the Environmental Control and LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS and tons of analysis. But maybe we should all go for the "hellll yeah lets throw a person up in ere and git her done!" approach. I do not think SpaceX's plan is to man rate their vehicle by sticking humans in it. I actually have tons of respect for everything SpaceX has done. I just think you are dreaming when it comes to their program maturiy.

"SpaceX was the only one of all bidders to pass every phase of the COTS process. This is precisely why they got the bid for 12 (+3 demo) flights on Falcon 9 with Dragon."

Speaking of Falcon 9 maturity, again, where do you come up with this stuff. They won the COTS demonstration contract over 2 years before they successfully launched a Falcon 1. What SpaceX has to pass as part of the COTS process are 3 DEMO flights (Orbital has to do the same). They were supposed to be done with those 3 demo flights already. They have not launched a single one yet. The only milestones they passed so far for COTS are paper milestones (SDR, PDR, CDR) and they did receive some money for that. You know why, because launching rockets aint easy. To actually win the real money, they are to complete all three Demo flight between 2008 and 2010. They are well over a year behind schedule and the rumors I am hearing is that their more recent milestones (November 2009 launch date), which slipped to February 2010, which became March 2010, isnt happening anytime soon. But hold your breath on that 27 days. But noone ever talks about how far behind schedule SpaceX is. They will not see the several billion dollars for flying cargo to ISS, until they actually start flying cargo to the ISS. Technically, they have only 7 months left to hold up their end of the contract and complete all 3 DEMOs. I dont think they will make it. But I think the deadlines will be slipped for them.

"When Falcon 9 flies in 27 days and actually achieves orbit, and actually achieves space maneuverability, and actually achieves reentry with Dragon, then we can state, unequivocally, that SpaceX was ahead of NASA..."

Those are a lot of bold statements for a vehicle which has never launched. For a compnay that has never done any sizable mass into space on its two succesful missions on a different rocket. For a company that has never done rendezvous and prox ops. For a company that has never done re-entry and as far as I know, has never even tested their capsule return in drop tests, parachute tests or anything. In fact, I dont think I have ever even heard how they retreive the Dragon. Oh yeah, and one more thing, evern when they do achieve all of that to make their COTS demo completions, that is an uncrewed vehicle, that has not been man-rated, has no launch abort system and no life support and environmental control. Those things will take them years to accomplish.

Actually, they had clean staging the first time. That was their second flight (which ultimately failed due to fuel slosh induced oscillations in the second stage). Stage recontact occurred on the third flight due to residual thrust from the new first stage engine (which was flying for the first time). Both where rookie mistakes. It might be more constructive to note that the two most recent flights were successful. That's the pattern one expects to see.

Speaking of stage separation, did you happen to catch staging on Ares 1-X? Enough said.

I don't know about you but the people I work with in the industry take SpaceX seriously. Very seriously. You and your buddies may be laughing but it's looking more and more likely that the joke is actually on you.

As joshcryer said, Constellation was indeed technically viable. Unfortunately for the program, that's not the only criteria for a successful system.

Just to be clear on another point... SpaceX (or PayPal boy according to The Rat) has developed their entire vehicle in house with complete vertical integration from propulsion to the Dragon spacecraft. On the other hand, traditional A&D company Orbital Sciences (the other COTS cargo supplier) is using the aforementioned 40 year old Soviet engines. That's the same Orbital who has the contract for the Orion LAS by the way. But remember... you can't trust commercial providers and only Constellation contractors know how to get the job done.

jcspace and Spaceboy - you guys are so right. The commercial guys are nowhere near an HSF capability. The Holdren/Garver "plan" for HSF is an insult.

Spaceboy, I guarantee you that Ascent Abort on Ares I would never have been in the first 90 seconds, since the Air Force deemed that it was not survivable.

From what I understand many of the delays for Falcon 9 were regulatory. Bolden mentioned that he wanted to slim back the whole fiasco, and it sounds right because if you're a private company and you can't launch your vehicle due to bureaucracy (nothing technical), then what's the point.

By no means is Dragon ready to fly with man rated environmentals and safeties, at least not that we know (they haven't been talking much recently about their tech if you haven't been following their website). However, 3 years is more than enough time to get your own demo going, especially if you're doing it with live hardware as opposed to carefully choreographed tests. If the bureaucracy stays the way it is, then I might agree with you that getting NASA to jump on board could take longer, but if Bolden is able to slim it back and stop forcing them to jump through so many unnecessary hoops (they're not a NASA company, they're a private company), I certainly think it is quite feasible.

The last Falcon 9 delay was over stupid range conflicts and permitting. Falcon 9 test fired successfully and they *were* ready to go. Both times the range conflicted and I've heard that permits may have been the cause for the last delay. Hopefully the Air Force will get its act together and let them have access to the range. They're ready to go and have been since Nov. of 2009. It took them 9 months to jump through regulatory hoops to get to that point.

I think they can complete the demo in 7 months if Falcon 9 succeeds. And I agree that that should be the deadline.

There's no way the Congress is foolish enough to allow NASA to completely abandon its space flight capability on the mere hope that private companies can quickly fly humans into space just as safe as NASA or Energia.

Marcel F. Williams

Spaceboy, btw, it appears that SpaceX is using SRB chutes, via NSSFlorida on Twitter. The company that makes them has a new customer.

"And if you think those in the human space flight industry are not alarmed by a 40% success rate then I am not sure naivety lies on my court. But ignoring human spaceflight, you are right. Those of us in the industry weren't surprised, we just laughed."

And here lies the problem, human space flight industry doesn't know squat and its arrogance is why most of them are going to out of a job. You are the dinosaurs/horse whip makers.

A. Spacex is not the only game in town. ULA, LM, Boeing, etc will be entrants for commercial crew launch

B. Spacex will have more than 5 years to get things right and after that it will still have beaten Orion/Ares.

C. Man rating is not that hard. And EELV's are only a LVHM box away from it.

D. Holdren/Garver plan for ISS crew support is one of the smartest moves ever.

E. As for the rest of the HSF plan, it is lacking

"Both where rookie mistakes."

That's the problem with going into new fields such as HSF. There will likely be rookie mistakes that will likely take years to correct flying tests before they would be able to take humans to space.

Amen SpaceBoy!

SpaceX has a long way to go before any humans will be taking a ride on Falcon 9.

Falcon 1 has failed 3 out of 5 flights. Even if you discount those failures with an optimistic 80% fix factor (i.e. design changes that mitigate the same failure in the future), the demonstrated reliability is only 0.88. That means that in the near future you can expect 1 out of 8 flights to end in failure.

The Falcon 9 first stage is an order of magnitude more complex than Falcon 1 and accounts for at least half of the overall vehicle LOM probability. That means the probability of failure is about 5 times greater than Falcon 1, which yields a mission reliability of 0.6! Therefore, you can expect about 4 of the first 10 missions to end in failure. For reference, the Shuttle has had only 1 ascent failure in nearly 130 mission (Columbia failed on reentry). I don't know about others, but I would not bet my life on the flip of a coin.

I'm not faulting SpaceX. Their success record is similar to development projects in the 50s and 60s. Over time, Falcon 9 will experience reliability growth, but that growth will depend on the amount of money spent on test development and numerous test-fail-fix cycles. The large commercial incumbents have quite an advantage over SpaceX in this arena as they are building upon decades (over 50 years) of development, corporate knowledge, and heritage practices. Recruiting a few experts and a bunch of young kids to build some impressive hardware with a boatload of money is easy. Achieving high reliability takes time, money, and a conscious commitment to doing so. If SpaceX personnel do not embrace safety and reliability in their everyday practices, Elon can say whatever he wants, but they will never achieve success.

"I stand corrected on my incorrect reference to OSP. The alphabet soup of failed NASA programs sometimes staggers the mind and fogs the memory."...InTheKnow

No, an "alphabet soup of programs" is not fogging memories on these threads, it's the intense hatred of Griffin that's doing it. Forget the facts let's get the ba$tard seems to pervade a lot of these posts. That was my objection. NASA's history of failed or incomplete programs is but a symptom of politician's lack of interest in HSF. That's 40+ years of lukewarm to non-existent leadership, not just one man. Griffin, Obama, Bolden, Bush, Nixon, et. al. bear responsibility for where we are.

Thanks for your clarification with the rest of your post. You made some interesting points that are worthy of consideration.

joshcryer, the shame isn't in the details over dollar amounts. Its just a shameful situation, buying seats on a ship that was originally designed in the mid 60s for the purpose of carrying Soviets to the moon.

It seems to me we are missing a larger risk beyond going commercial. We are now placing ourselves in a position where a Russian system failure may mean the loss of the ISS since their will be no backup flight vehicle for delivery of crews or rescue. We were in this situation once before and that did not work out well. Without the shuttle as a backup we may also have the issue of an uncontroled re entry of the ISS. Then there is the issue of having to use the life boats which are Russian derivatives of a vehicle which may have experienced a major failure initiating the dilema.

"The last Falcon 9 delay was over stupid range conflicts and permitting. Falcon 9 test fired successfully and they *were* ready to go. Both times the range conflicted and I've heard that permits may have been the cause for the last delay. Hopefully the Air Force will get its act together and let them have access to the range. They're ready to go and have been since Nov. of 2009. It took them 9 months to jump through regulatory hoops to get to that point."

Let's be fair here - and I have nothing against SpaceX. They were *not* ready. Not in 2009. They are not ready now, either. They still have unresolved issues with range safety but that's irrelevant because it's not true the vehicle was ready last year. There was an acceptance test of the 2nd stage in October 2009, but then it appears they changed their mind and decided to go for an additional, full 2nd stage burn duration test. Which only happened this January. The vehicle is *only now* being integrated for the first time at the Cape. The pad hasn't been checked out yet, neither electrical nor fluid interfaces tested nor and GSE bugs flushed out. Expect more delays caused by that. Technical delays. Any delays are their own fault, either overly optimistic schedules or not enough manpower - it's irrelevant. Blaming it on bureaucracy (which every other commercial launch provider needs to do as well) is just lame.

Also, there's a snowballs chance in hell USAF will waive that range safety issue, until they are certain the launch poses no danger to the general public, F9 won't fly. The same applied to Ares I-X after all. The most they can do before that is resolved is a static firing at the pad.

@All others equating commercial crew to newspace: lame argument, do you ignore proven aerospace companies on purpose? Because it really lets your agendas shine through.

I have total admiration for the new-start commercial companies (that said the 'going-in' position was to not take gov't monies; that apparently was false given the latest handouts). However, when the Shuttle stops flying we will cede so much control of the ISS to foreigners that we will be dismantling the entire aerospace industry (which has been ongoing anyway). Commercial, non-subsidized, companies do not sustain through the cycles of business - esp. space where business plans are terse. It is already difficult to find American suppliers of aerospace (satellite and vehicles alike) parts. This is due primarily to Democrat administrations.

I can see it now, India, China and Russia will be the only ones able to get to the ISS that was payed for for the most part be the US. All the US workers in the maned space programs and losing their jobs to India, china and Russia, now that's outsourcing. I HOPE we don't have more CHANGE like that.

Don't worry. In a few years, when the gyros start failing on the ISS, they'll realize they don't have any way to get replacements to it. Then it will spin out of control and the commercial vehicles won't be able to dock with it. So then it will be re-entered and the commercial space industry will give up when they have no place to go.