SpaceX Mission Delay Could Cost NASA Hundreds of Millions of Dollars

[onebyone]

In the race to return astronauts to space, first Boeing and now SpaceX are falling behind schedule.

Rich Smith
(TMFDitty)
Dec 25, 2016 at 12:13PM

Earlier this year, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration signed a contract hiring Russia's Roscosmos to transport six American astronauts to the International Space Station for $81.7 million per head. The two-year contract was valued at $490 million -- 15% more than the preceding contract. It was intended to secure NASA's access to ISS for the final few months while Boeing (NYSE:BA) and SpaceX get their manned spacecraft programs ready to fly.

That was the intention.

But now it seems NASA must write Russia another big check.

NASA AWARDED BOEING (LEFT) AND SPACEX (RIGHT) BILLIONS TO PUT AMERICANS BACK IN SPACE -- SO WHY AREN'T THEIR SPACESHIPS READY? IMAGE SOURCE: NASA.

First one shoe drops, then the other
As recently as a few months ago, it looked like Boeing and SpaceX would give NASA what it paid for: a means of putting American astronauts back into space, under our own power, by late 2017, or early 2018 at the latest. In succeeding, they'd save NASA from the necessity of paying Roscosmos another $490 million (or more, given the steep price increase of the last contract) to continue ferrying astronauts to space.

Unfortunately, Boeing hit a snag in October. Announcing that supplier and technical issues would delay the first flight of its CST-100 Starliner capsule, the company now believes CST-100 won't fly before June 2018 at the earliest. Furthermore, CST-100 won't be ready to carry live passengers before August 2018, and Boeing set a regular flight schedule before the end of that year.

Now, the second shoe has dropped. Last week, SpaceX revealed that, in part due to the still-unfinished investigation into its September rocket explosion, its participation in NASA's "Commercial Crew Transportation" project will also be delayed. SpaceX now targets an initial November 2017 unmanned test flight of its Crew Dragon, to be followed by a May 2018 launch date for its first crewed mission. If SpaceX hits that target, it could still beat Boeing into space by a few months.

How SpaceX stumbled
According to The Wall Street Journal, NASA has complained about a whole series of issues with SpaceX's spacecraft, ranging from "stress fractures" in its propulsion system to cracks in a tube used to connect Crew Dragon to ISS, to perhaps the most serious objection of all: SpaceX's plan to board astronauts into Crew Dragon before fueling the Falcon 9 rocket that will carry it.

This would minimize the time between pumping supercooled fuel into Falcon and launching it -- so the fuel doesn't have time to warm up and expand before liftoff. The problem is, use of this very supercooled fuel appears to have been a key contributor to the last SpaceXplosion. And NASA would prefer that if SpaceX's next rocket decides to explode, it not do so with astronauts sitting atop the rocket -- but this puts NASA's preferences at loggerheads with SpaceX's.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

truncated article post continued:

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/12/25/spacex-mission-delay-could-cost-nasa-hundreds-of-m.aspx

To Russia, with cash
So what's the upshot of all this? NASA's inspector general thinks it's "likely" SpaceX will encounter additional delays in getting Crew Dragon ready for launch. If SpaceX doesn't fix its issues quick, this could result in Boeing getting to space first. Either way, NASA is probably going to have to cut the Russians another check.

What does this mean for investors? Two years ago, NASA awarded almost identical Commercial Crew contracts to both Boeing and SpaceX. But NASA paid Boeing $4.2 billion and SpaceX only $2.6 billion to carry the same number of astronauts to ISS. At the time, that seemed an unfair decision to overpay a favored contractor, while shortchanging SpaceX. But now it's looking like NASA may have made the right call.

NASA paid Boeing more in part because its record of reliability suggested Boeing was more likely than SpaceX to succeed in building a working space capsule. And while both contractors have now encountered delays, it's starting to look like Boeing will in fact get to space first. If that's how things play out, it will bolster Boeing's argument that it deserves to be paid a premium when performing tasks identical to what SpaceX performs -- because it performs them more reliably.

Turns out, this record of reliability may be Boeing's best defense against competition from SpaceX -- even if it does mean a higher cost for taxpayers. And if it hastens the day when NASA can stop sending money to Russia, it may be worth the extra cost.

 

[Nan Yang]

truncated article post continued:

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/12/25/spacex-mission-delay-could-cost-nasa-hundreds-of-m.aspx

To Russia, with cash
So what's the upshot of all this? NASA's inspector general thinks it's "likely" SpaceX will encounter additional delays in getting Crew Dragon ready for launch. If SpaceX doesn't fix its issues quick, this could result in Boeing getting to space first. Either way, NASA is probably going to have to cut the Russians another check.

What does this mean for investors? Two years ago, NASA awarded almost identical Commercial Crew contracts to both Boeing and SpaceX. But NASA paid Boeing $4.2 billion and SpaceX only $2.6 billion to carry the same number of astronauts to ISS. At the time, that seemed an unfair decision to overpay a favored contractor, while shortchanging SpaceX. But now it's looking like NASA may have made the right call.

NASA paid Boeing more in part because its record of reliability suggested Boeing was more likely than SpaceX to succeed in building a working space capsule. And while both contractors have now encountered delays, it's starting to look like Boeing will in fact get to space first. If that's how things play out, it will bolster Boeing's argument that it deserves to be paid a premium when performing tasks identical to what SpaceX performs -- because it performs them more reliably.

Turns out, this record of reliability may be Boeing's best defense against competition from SpaceX -- even if it does mean a higher cost for taxpayers. And if it hastens the day when NASA can stop sending money to Russia, it may be worth the extra cost.

United States space program lack vision and leadership. NASA seems infiltrated with interest groups trying to protect their jobs. The Boeing SLS is just using the old Space shuttle Hydrogen engines and solid boasters thus preserving the Space shuttle industry and their jobs.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

United States space program lack vision and leadership. NASA seems infiltrated with interest groups trying to protect their jobs. The Boeing SLS is just using the old Space shuttle Hydrogen engines and solid boasters thus preserving the Space shuttle industry and their jobs.

NASA is doing extensive unmanned planetary missions because for the last 15 years nobody has been interested in giving them crazy money to send a man to Mars. The strategy was to allow private companies to take over rocket building. NASA got plenty of money for decades to send over 800 passengers into space with the Space Shuttle. There is still a rather permanent presence on the International Space Station by our astronauts.

Until SpaceX showed up there was no serious competiton so the big players had been dragging their feet on rocket development. We'll see if they change direction as a result.

 

[jhungary]

United States space program lack vision and leadership. NASA seems infiltrated with interest groups trying to protect their jobs. The Boeing SLS is just using the old Space shuttle Hydrogen engines and solid boasters thus preserving the Space shuttle industry and their jobs.

Actually, that's where you are wrong.

It's not that NASA lacking of leadership or anything, but their goal is set to deepspace exploration instead of manned operation, it have been so ever since late 1990s to early 2000s

NASA and US department of Defence is now depending on Private Commercial interest to have the manned mission afloat. And the one thing it will do is to piping down contract to private entity. NASA have no authority over these Private Entity as this is their mission, not NASA. NASA is simply playing the role for renting out their facilities for the private entity to launch their space mission from.

In another word, NASA has simply moved on.

NASA is doing extensive unmanned planetary missions because for the last 15 years nobody has been interested in giving them crazy money to send a man to Mars. The strategy was to allow private companies to take over rocket building. NASA got plenty of money for decades to send over 800 passengers into space with the Space Shuttle. There is still a rather permanent presence on the International Space Station by our astronauts.

Until SpaceX showed up there was no serious competiton so the big players had been dragging their feet on rocket development. We'll see if they change direction as a result.

fuk...........you said the same thing a few minute before me.....

 

[TruthHurtz]

Hopefully SpaceX's Mars colonisation plans will bring competition not only in the US, but internationally where it will further bring down the cost of space exploration. We are already seeing signs of the upcoming space race in Blue Origin and other smaller companies, this will put increasing pressure on companies like Boeing and Lockheed to outperform the other two. I believe this will have a knock-on effect on entities outside the US. If China and Russia as well as other space-fairing countries can create reusable rockets and space hardware, it will greatly increase interest in space from the general public.

Then we can fly around in space and have cool space battles and shoot each other and stuff..

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Actually, that's where you are wrong.

It's not that NASA lacking of leadership or anything, but their goal is set to deepspace exploration instead of manned operation, it have been so ever since late 1990s to early 2000s

NASA and US department of Defence is now depending on Private Commercial interest to have the manned mission afloat. And the one thing it will do is to piping down contract to private entity. NASA have no authority over these Private Entity as this is their mission, not NASA. NASA is simply playing the role for renting out their facilities for the private entity to launch their space mission from.

In another word, NASA has simply moved on.



fuk...........you said the same thing a few minute before me.....

I think it is rather interesting that SpaceX on their own in a few short years basically created an intercontinental ballistic missile from scratch. Meanwhile other countries have spent decades trying to do this.

 

[Nan Yang]

I think it is rather interesting that SpaceX on their own in a few short years basically created an intercontinental ballistic missile from scratch. Meanwhile other countries have spent decades trying to do this.

Until the explosion on Sept 1st, that is what most people though. The explosion has now got people scrutinizing SpaceX more closely.
Apparent, SpaceX maybe cutting corners.
Example. Their launcher use super cold LOX....is unusual and problematic. Using supercool LOX mean once it is fueled, you must quickly launch or the LOX will boil away. The LOX and RP1 share the same tank separate only by a bulkhead.... unusual as both RP1 and LOX are at different temperature.
Their manned launcher must fuel up with astronauts on board. A big problem with NASA.

So you have expensive Boeing SLS and an unreliable SpaceX Falcon.

https://www.google.com/amp/newatlas.com/spacex-falcon-9-explosion-helium/45594/?amp=true?client=ms-android-motorola

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Until the explosion on Sept 1st, that is what most people though. The explosion has now got people scrutinizing SpaceX more closely.
Apparent, SpaceX maybe cutting corners.
Example. Their launcher use super cold LOX....is unusual and problematic. Using supercool LOX mean once it is fueled, you must quickly launch or the LOX will boil away. The LOX and RP1 share the same tank separate only by a bulkhead.... unusual as both RP1 and LOX are at different temperature.
Their manned launcher must fuel up with astronauts on board. A big problem with NASA.

So you have expensive Boeing SLS and an unreliable SpaceX Falcon.

https://www.google.com/amp/newatlas.com/spacex-falcon-9-explosion-helium/45594/?amp=true?client=ms-android-motorola

I'm quite sure they will be able to figure out a way of getting it refueled before the astronauts board. It just wasn't a priority for unmanned launches.

 

[alwaysfair]

So for 2.6 b and 4.2b $ how many astronauts will be transported ?
I believe spacex has promised 60 m $ per astronaut eventually.