NASA gives SpaceX a billion reasons to keep flying Crew Dragon

NASA has added almost $1 billion to SpaceX's commercial crew contract for three more Crew Dragon missions to the International Space Station (ISS). The $946 million contract modification covers Crew-15, Crew-16, and Crew-17, along with ground operations, launch, in-orbit services, return and recovery, cargo transportation, and …

[lglethal]

I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

One size does not fit all. In pretty much any field, but in space especially. So yes Starship when it works will have a big segment that it controls. But there are other niches. Niches which are nice and popular and bring in money right now - like Falcon 9 and Dragon. So why not keep both them AND Starship in operation?

Not every launch needs a super massive rocket. Many launches are happy with a medium sized stack or even smaller.

Or to give a similar analogy, not every flight needs an A380. Not every destination can handle an A380. So there's a bloody good reason Airbus has different sized Aircraft (A320, A330, A340, A350, etc.). Hell even within the A320, there are numerous configurations. Because one size does NOT fit all.

Musk seems to be planning to take SpaceX out of a very profitable market segment to focus on a super heavy segment, which there is no guarantee there's even a market for it. The A380 is stopping production soon, because it turns out there are only so many super large passenger liners you need out there. I'm willing to bet the space biz is not so different...

[Mishak]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

The claim is that the cost per launch of Starship will be less than it costs to launch a Falcon 9.

Sure, Starship will be able to carry heavy loads (~150T) to orbit - but it will be possible to optimise the fuel load (under-fuel) when the payload is less, and that's where most of the launch costs are when you exclude the one-off hardware costs.

[lglethal]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

That might be the claim, but Starship is a big shape, and a heavy shape, so yes you can under fill it, but you are still carrying more weight into orbit than an equivalent smaller rocket. Which means you still need more fuel than that equivalent smaller rocket. Which will add up.

I also know that there is a claim that they can take up lots of satellites at the same time. Which might work if your setting up a constellation, but it's rare you will actually have that many satellites to launch that all want to be in the same neck of the space woods. So for those that want to be somewhere else, then they need to bring along their own propellant to get to where they want to go, which means they are heavier and more costly...

I just dont see the economics of Starship actually working, personally. Or at least not enough to replace the workhorse Falcons. Starship will have a role for sure, just like the A380, but just because we have an A380, doesnt mean we get rid of the A320's...

[Vulch]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

The fuel cost for a launch is relatively trivial. For a Falcon 9 it's around $200,000 and for Starship just under a million. Every Falcon 9 launch requires a new second stage at somewhere between 6 and 10 million a time depending on who you listen to. Refurbishment costs for a Falcon booster are unknown, but it takes about a week with not a huge number of people. If Starship rapid reusability works out and takes a similar amount of effort (it's bigger but it has been designed from scratch to be reusable unlike the F9) then it's the upper stage cost makes the F9 uneconomic.

[Sproggit]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

There's a much simpler/less flexible limit than that:-

Starship is simply too big to dock with the ISS in the station's present configuration. It simply isn't feasible to dock due to severe clearance, mass and plume-impingement limits.

https://www.nasa.gov/faqs-the-international-space-station-transition-plan/

In fact, given their relative sizes, it kinda reminds me of that "joke" photograph that did the rounds years back. There's a C130 transport aircraft on taxi, approaching a parked C-5 Galaxy. The Galaxy has the forward cargo door open. Under the image there's a caption with the C-130 pilot asking, "What are your intentions, over?" and the Galaxy pilot responding, "I'm going to EAT you!"

One false move with Starship docking with the ISS and the nudge might even be able to do some structural damage.

Not a good idea.

[MachDiamond]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

"but you are still carrying more weight into orbit than an equivalent smaller rocket. "

The vast majority of the mass doesn't get to orbit, but it does have to accelerate from the bottom of a deep gravity well.

[jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

"it will be possible to optimise the fuel load (under-fuel) when the payload is less"

Falcon 9 is about 25 tonnes empty, starship is about 350. I assume starship always needs the main booster, otherwise, the second stage is only about 90tonnes.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

Musk's ego probably weighs the sum of those

[MachDiamond]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

"Musk's ego probably weighs the sum of those"

Both fully fueled.

[BartyFartsLast]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

His wallet twice that

[MachDiamond]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

"but it will be possible to optimise the fuel load (under-fuel) when the payload is less, and that's where most of the launch costs are when you exclude the one-off hardware costs."

Propellants are some of the cheapest aspects of a launch. It's massively eclipsed by the payload cost, labor, license fees, amortized R&D, etc, etc. The $33mn ish of Raptor engines on the booster that are written off is far more than a whole load of propellant.

What they do get with a lighter load is being able to run the engines less aggressively which increases the safety margins/lowers risk.

[Oneman2Many]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

You are correct about fuel costs, Gemini say aerospace grade liquid methane is around $1k per ton, 1,500 tons needed. And Oxygen from ASR is around $100 per ton, 3,500 needed. Giving a total of around $2million.

Not sure what you mean about raptor engines being written off ?

[Mishak]

raptor engines being written off

Indeed - the plan is to reuse them many, many times. Musk is also targeting a per-engine cost of ~$100k (a lot less than the current cost).

[MachDiamond]

Re: raptor engines being written off

They are "fixin' " to reuse the engines many time, but.........

I don't think they'll get the cost of the engines down to $100k a copy. The current cost is closer to a mil. They are complex machines that have to be built very carefully, which costs money. They need to be tested, which costs money. They need to be transported to BF, TX, which costs money. If they go wrong, they have to be shipped back, rebuilt, retested and shipped back. There's no word on the yield they'll admit to. Outside of a unit cost, they keep working on the design and that has to be amortized in the books somewhere.

Getting a manufactured cost down can often be a matter of being able to tool up and run the production line for a reasonable amount of time. Once the engines get all sorted and they stop "improving" them, they will be down to making short runs to replace the ones that wear out which makes the cost go up. That also increases the time it takes to amortize all of the tooling that's been made when initially ramping up production. I expect there is already a load of tooling that's been deprecated as they've evolved the engines.

[John Robson]

Re: raptor engines being written off

Where does that $1m figure come from?

[MachDiamond]

Re: raptor engines being written off

"Where does that $1m figure come from?"

Elon. Take it with a grain of salt given the source.

[John Robson]

Re: raptor engines being written off

One large salt boulder acquired...

Given the production rate though, I wouldn't be surprised if the *marginal* cost of each engine veers substantially below that relatively soon.

There's a huge sunk cost in both R&D and tooling, hence looking at the marginal cost.

[Oneman2Many]

Re: raptor engines being written off

I think the engines are currently around $1m each with a end goal of $350k. They sre going to need a lot of engines, they sre aiming for 30 new starships per DAY between the factories. 9ne employee did say expect 2.annoucements for new factories/ launch sites. One west coast (maybe Vandy)and one abroad which I am guessing will be Australia .

[MachDiamond]

Re: raptor engines being written off

"One west coast (maybe Vandy)and one abroad which I am guessing will be Australia ."

Close to Vandenberg would be more likely, but there's not much to choose from between their existing plant in Hawthorne, CA and VAFB (or whatever they call it now). Doing anything on a military base is a giant PIA.

Even as friendly as the US is with Australia, there's still ITAR to deal with which adds a layer of complexity. My question would be how far over will Canberra bend over for Elon or will they not give him extra-regulatory powers to do what he likes.

[Oneman2Many]

Re: raptor engines being written off

Australia and UK have ITAR exceptions.

[MachDiamond]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

"Not sure what you mean about raptor engines being written off ?"

How many dozen are sitting on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico?

[John Robson]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

Invalid comparison...

Cars are designed for repeated reuse, how many of those which are used by Euro NCAP are then sold on for use on the road?

[Oneman2Many]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

Flight 14 might be the last flight were they don't catch ship and booster.

Notice that it's no longer being called IFT as its launching production payload even though its fully expended.

[steelpillow]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

ITEM: Orange Idiot pushed into the hot seat.

ITEM: Orange idiot falls for hyper-brain sociopath's hype.

ITEM: Boeing Boeing Bong! falls from favour, socipoath's fave toy rises to the occasion.

It's not rocket science. Oh, wait....

[Andrew Kaluzniacki]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

Boeing should feel free to use the larger contract that they won over Dragon and try launching a safe spaceship a few time.

Sincerely,

Taxpayer

[MachDiamond]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

"Musk seems to be planning to take SpaceX out of a very profitable market segment to focus on a super heavy segment"

The vast majority of what Falcon does is launch Starlink satellites. To call the Falcon "very profitable" doesn't work. Strip out the Starlink launches and it could be awash in red ink with Starship being required to launch the larger v3 Starlink satellites.

I would think that keeping Falcon going should be profitable if it's streamlined and further R&D is reduced.

[Andrew Kaluzniacki]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

I've heard that the limiting resource is competent engineers - and SpaceX wants them all on Starship.

[MachDiamond]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

"I've heard that the limiting resource is competent engineers"

I've looked at their postings and know several people that have worked there. It's a meat grinder. They want AT LEAST 50 hours per week at a barely 40hr/week salary. When I looked at a position years ago at the McGregor test site, minimum was 50 hours per week with obligatory overtime for extended test runs. What I heard (friend of a friend sort of thing) was that the overtime was a wee bit too common. That's why they pay salary rather than hourly. The pay offered wasn't that great and Texas in the summer isn't the best for an outside job.

The limiting resource is usually pay. It's not that they can't get people, they can't get people at the wages they want to pay and the hours they want worked. This is why the crowds you see at the facilities during launches are mostly young men and I'll guess that many/most are single. If you get tapped for OT all the time, it means you can't take the nice lady you've met out to dinner and have to keep cancelling plans. They don't put up with that for long. In my younger years, I'd start dating somebody nice shortly before I'd be asked to go on tour. She wasn't around when I got back.

[John Robson]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

Falcon loses a second stage every launch, the idea is that SS/SH won't... and that alone could actually make SS a cheaper vehicle to launch than F9, irrespective of payload.

[Oneman2Many]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

The problem with your argument is that Starship launch costs could eventually be similar to small sat launchers and cheaper then medium launcher. Plus invariably there will rideshare options. Not suggesting that anybody will be crazy enough to put a 300kg payload as sole payload on Starship but certainly as a secondary payload.

There is a window between 2028 and around 2030 when other launch providers have an opportunity to grab and maybe retain market share but I assume SpaceX are confident to have Starship routinely operational by then which seem optimistic. However realistically what other options will be able to absorb the spare capacity. Even today Ariane announced they have turbopump problems. And they are hoping for 8 to 10 launches at best for 2027.

[MachDiamond]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

"Not suggesting that anybody will be crazy enough to put a 300kg payload as sole payload on Starship but certainly as a secondary payload."

If you have a payload that you aren't too fussed about what orbit it goes into, flying as a secondary payload is a great deal. One of the issues might be that you'd have to be launchable out of the Pez Dispenser door until/unless they add a more traditional faring that can open up.

Elon was crowing about getting permission to fly a couple of dozen missions of Starship in 2026. Each time they launch and not tick all of the boxes that should be ticked, it creates concern for the regulators. What's yet to be accomplished such as a catch of the upper stage is fresh new territory and confidence would be much higher in government offices if they had some nominal missions where everything worked. This is why I'm critical of them "pushing the envelope" when they haven't had a completely successful mission (both stages back in possibly reusable shape). Adding the speed to get to orbital velocity and winding that back down again is going to be a big nail biter.

[John Robson]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

And given the costs... it might even be worth adding a Hall effect orbital manoeuvring stage so you can choose a "close enough" orbit.

Close enough still has to be pretty close, orbital plane changes are much more expensive than people expect, but altitude and phase can be modified relatively cheaply.

[You aint sin me, roit]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

You're missing the point!

Take a look at the SpaceX website, they are aiming for a launch cadence of Starship of at least 10 a day in order to pepper Mars with the requisites they will need for for a Martian base. Falcon just can't shift the goods.

[Sarcasm only implied by SpaceX website...]

[MachDiamond]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

"Take a look at the SpaceX website, they are aiming for a launch cadence of Starship of at least 10 a day in order to pepper Mars with the requisites they will need for for a Martian base. "

They'll need 10 crews for those 10 launches. It's a lot to do for each one and draining. The number of control centers will need to be increased as well so there's enough that the next rocket or three is going through prep at the same time. Maybe 5 or more depending on their workflow.

[Oneman2Many]

Re: I dont get SpaceX and Musk on this...

There are two pads at Starbase, 3 at KSC and at least 10, more likely 12 at the new site in Louisiana. Plus they announced they are looking they are looking for another mega site in NA and some capability abroad, most like Aus. I don't think launch cadence is going to be an issue.

[FIA]

It's not just Crew Dragon, it's Falcon too. They've stopped taking orders after 2028.

[Ian Johnston]

in favor of Starship, assuming it can get the vastly larger vehicle operating reliably.

The word "reliably" seems a little optimistic, in view of the fact that they haven't got it to work at all yet. But hey, it'll totally be ready to land people on the moon and recover them again in a year's time.

[FIA]

Your definition of 'at all' is quite churlish. They've flown it, validated new heat shield designs, validated a new engine including a re-light in space, and almost managed to land it. They may not have got where they expected, but that's hardly 'at all'.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Would reliably matter?

If it did blow up there isn't going to be a Presidential Enquiry with a Feynman.

Between Musk and his boss they own all the news

[Fruit and Nutcase]

All the more reason to put the idea to the boss that he should be the first serving POTUS in space, and Musk should accompany him.

Nothing will go wrong, right?

[Simon Harris]

By the time Falcon is retired, there will be a new boss anyway. I don't know who would be a modern day Feynman though.

[Anonymous Coward]

We hope there will be a new boss.

All this talk of "Czars" is a bit worrying; if the leader of AI Force is going to be a a Czar of Imperial America, what title does DJT see for himself?

[Sorry that handle is already taken.]

Flight 14 will occur in days, so we'll know soon enough.

[MachDiamond]

What's the price per seat again?

SpaceX providing transportation for astronauts to/from ISS was supposed to be a massive savings over what the US was paying Russia. This latest contract seems to wipe all (if any) of that savings right off the ledger.

[Oneman2Many]

Re: What's the price per seat again?

NASA is paying Roscosmos $90m per seat, they are paying SpaceX $79m per seat which still makes it cheaper.

And its not just a cost thing, they want to be able to launch with a US provider. It was reported that NASA is in talks for Boeing for 10 or more Starliner flights with additional funds in addition to the $4.2bn contract they had for development and have seen half a test flight in return so far.

[MachDiamond]

Re: What's the price per seat again?

"NASA is paying Roscosmos $90m per seat, they are paying SpaceX $79m per seat which still makes it cheaper."

With billions being offered to extend the contract for more rides, I don't think that $79mn/seat is what's being charged. I seem to recall that several years ago the SpaceX price was more like $85mn/seat.

The US having a US vendor slants the pricing comparison and especially with Putin being the monster he's turned into. It's certainly easy to see why China is happy to be sole owner/operator of their space station.

[Oneman2Many]

Re: What's the price per seat again?

"With billions being offered to extend the contract for more rides, I don't think that $79mn/seat is what's being charged. "

I don't know if you have read the article ???

The contract value is in the article, $946m for 3 launches with 4 seats per launch. That gives 12 seats and basic maths give you $78.88m, round up to $79m per seat. No idea where you are getting billions from ? And SpaceX have never charged $85m per seat. First 6 missions were $60m per seat, then first extension was $65m, second extension $72m and now latest extension is $79m.

[John Robson]

Re: What's the price per seat again?

That's assuming that the cost of the cargo services etc is zero.

[Oneman2Many]

Re: What's the price per seat again?

Not sure what cargo services cost has to do with Crew services, two completely separate contracts. And de-orbit is a separate contract to the others.

[John Robson]

Re: What's the price per seat again?

"The $946 million contract modification covers Crew-15, Crew-16, and Crew-17, along with ground operations, launch, in-orbit services, return and recovery, cargo transportation, and lifeboat capability while the spacecraft is docked to the ISS."

[Sorry that handle is already taken.]

Human spaceflight

I think this demonstrates why sending people to Mars simply won't happen. Even after all of the cost savings SpaceX has achieved, it's still almost a billion dollars for three flights to (and from) LEO, just because there are people on board.

[John Robson]

Re: Human spaceflight

That's because it includes bits of rocket which get thrown away, oh and all the rest of the bits of contract which you seen to have ignored.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Human spaceflight

"I think this demonstrates why sending people to Mars simply won't happen."

There's a massive question about humans being able to make the trip and then being able to do anything useful when they get there. The astronauts that have stayed on ISS for 9 months (the trip time to Mars) aren't in good physical shape when they get back. Once on Mars, the pace will be hectic to get habitats and life support up and going with margin to be able to handle an problems that crop up. Typical NASA will likely want to schedule every waking minute from that point on too.

Leaving people on Mars to die would be an issue, so there would have to be workable plans for them to get back. No calling Praxair for a fleet of trucks carrying LOx and Methane. Getting a fuel plant together would be paramount and that would likely take up all the time of a small crew. Starship cannot take 100 people. 15 people might be pushing it. Forget Methane, LOx/LH2 propulsion would be easier to manage. That's a whole new regime of engine that SpaceX is not working on.

Some extended stays on the moon will generate some useful health data for living in reduced G. If nuclear propulsion can be finished up, going to and from Mars under constant acceleration would reduce the transit time and give crew some G as well.

[John Robson]

Re: Human spaceflight

There are a few ways to get some g on the way, but absolutely having some extended time on the moon would be a good simulation... just sit in a high earth orbit for 9 months before landing, both ways.

I would fully expect the first set of trips to be one way, and unmanned. Those trips will establish the fuel depot (not just manufacture, but an actual depot in case the manned flight needs to leave in a hurry).

Starship isn't taking 100 people any time soon - this page reckons on maybe 1000 kg of supplies for a 6 month stay on the ISS.

Assume a 9 month (Hohmann) trip there, and back, and a 15 month stay waiting for the transfer window back - just shy of three years.

That's about 6 tons of supplies per astronaut... Which is going to take a few starships to get more than a small visiting party across... Fortunately most of that can be sent in advance along with the fuel depot setup.

There won't be anything fresh in there though :(

[Simon Harris]

Re: Human spaceflight

"There won't be anything fresh in there though"

What? No potatoes?