Author Topic: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System  (Read 118916 times)

Offline Todd Martin

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Stacy, MN
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #140 on: 11/08/2015 01:26 pm »
My first reaction to SNC's cargo variant was negative.  It seemed like a step backward putting the craft inside a fairing, a step backward including a non-reusable service module, and the additional components imposed needless added cost and complexity.  DC by itself is a beautiful craft, but cargo DC is not so much.

SNC was right though.  The incremental cost of adding SRB's to 1 Atlas V launch is less than 2 separate launches.  A separate service module allows for pressurized disposal, which was a sole ability to Orbital's Cygnus craft.  You have to have the fairing in order to launch the service module.  Frankly, they didn't follow conventional wisdom and just scratch off the word "Crew" on their proposal for CRS-2, they got innovative.

The odds are now looking good they will get an award.  :)

Mr. Sirangelo's favorite quote rings true!
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
 Mahatma Gandhi


Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #141 on: 11/09/2015 12:05 am »
ULA are trying to get Atlas 401 price down to $100-$110M so say <$160M for 552 especially with new lower cost OrbitalATK SRBs. The Vulcan should reduce that again as it will need less SRBs.


Right now, Atlas V is cheap partly because of the high flight rate, and there's some concern about that over the period of the CRS2 contract. But if SNC can order an Atlas 552 for well under $200M, they're in good shape.

Here's where I'm going with this:

By my estimation, SNC needs to be able to offer 2x DC per year for less than $1.1B to have any chance (and I feel that's being generous). They really need to get under $1B to compete.

I think they can win at $950M per year (2 flights). Can they get that low? I don't know. I think it's achievable, but barely.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #142 on: 11/12/2015 04:36 pm »
Some very interesting Jeff Foust tweets

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/664850098191486976

Quote
Olson adds that SNC is in “the final three” (with SpaceX and Orbital ATK) for CRS-2 contract. #ASGSR2015

So according to this Lockheed Martin is out with Boeing.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/664849108134461440

Quote
John Olson, Sierra Nevada Corp.: Dream Chaser per-mission cost is “peanuts.” 95% of cost is launch. #ASGSR2015

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 921
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #143 on: 11/12/2015 05:14 pm »
If the politics of using Russian hardware (RD-181, etc.) is a issue with congress then the orbital/ATK model might not be as attractive as a cargo program using Atlas 5 and then possibly Vulcan - putting SNC in a reasonable position to win a contract, as Boeing (and LM?) is out.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #144 on: 11/12/2015 05:46 pm »
If the politics of using Russian hardware (RD-181, etc.) is a issue with congress then the orbital/ATK model might not be as attractive as a cargo program using Atlas 5 and then possibly Vulcan - putting SNC in a reasonable position to win a contract, as Boeing (and LM?) is out.

Have you seen indications of this? The RD-180 ban doesn't include NASA flights so it doesn't seem likely there would be a ban on the RD-181 which is only used on NASA flights.

However, if the RD-180 ban is extended and expanded to include the RD-181, then it only leaves SX until Vulcan come to fruition. Doesn't seem likely.

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 921
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #145 on: 11/12/2015 06:14 pm »
If the politics of using Russian hardware (RD-181, etc.) is a issue with congress then the orbital/ATK model might not be as attractive as a cargo program using Atlas 5 and then possibly Vulcan - putting SNC in a reasonable position to win a contract, as Boeing (and LM?) is out.

Have you seen indications of this? The RD-180 ban doesn't include NASA flights so it doesn't seem likely there would be a ban on the RD-181 which is only used on NASA flights.

However, if the RD-180 ban is extended and expanded to include the RD-181, then it only leaves SX until Vulcan come to fruition. Doesn't seem likely.
Right - I have seen no direct indication of a wide ban on Russian rocket  hardware, but as I said [if the politics...].  It is my opinion that relying on Russian engines is a weakness, we shall see how NASA and congress view this.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1487
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #146 on: 11/12/2015 06:58 pm »
Yes, political winds are unpredictable. Going on a total ban of Russian engines, they only provider left is SX until Vulcan and whatever BO produces come on line. And extending from that premise, Congress could dump money into the AR-1.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 435
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #147 on: 11/12/2015 10:44 pm »
The Russian RD-180 issue is real, but then so is the fact that Atlas V is now 59 for 59 if I'm not mistaken (with one second stage underperformance if you count that as a partial failure, but by that standard SpaceX has an additional failure as well). Falcon 9 is 18 for 19, with a lot to prove between now and when it becomes entrusted with human lives. That plus the inherent desire for dissimilar redundancy regardless and the fact that Orbital-ATK has both the Russian engine and the reliability question marks has to weigh in DC's favor imo.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #148 on: 11/12/2015 10:47 pm »
Quote
John Olson, Sierra Nevada Corp.: Dream Chaser per-mission cost is “peanuts.” 95% of cost is launch. #ASGSR2015

If reported accurately that's a pretty solid number, even with some of the more dire cost estimates of the bigger Atlases. There's still some development cost left as well but it really is seeming more possible that we could see a lifting body in space.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #149 on: 11/13/2015 12:11 am »
Quote
John Olson, Sierra Nevada Corp.: Dream Chaser per-mission cost is “peanuts.” 95% of cost is launch. #ASGSR2015

If reported accurately that's a pretty solid number, even with some of the more dire cost estimates of the bigger Atlases. There's still some development cost left as well but it really is seeming more possible that we could see a lifting body in space.

$10M - $20M to refurbish DC, attach new cargo/power module, and integrate for launch?

Theoretically possible I guess, especially if this is just the direct cost of working on the spacecraft, and doesn't include profit/margin markups, salaries of SNC management/support staff, facility costs, etc.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25223
  • Likes Given: 12114
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #150 on: 11/13/2015 12:20 am »
The Russian RD-180 issue is real, but then so is the fact that Atlas V is now 59 for 59 if I'm not mistaken (with one second stage underperformance if you count that as a partial failure, but by that standard SpaceX has an additional failure as well)....
...I like to draw the distinction with "catastrophic failures," while acknowledging the partial failures (which wouldn't have required a use of the LAS).

...and yes, this is legitimately a leg-up for Atlas V (and that was true before SpaceX's recent failure, but more so now, unfortunately), but the cost for an Atlas V is just soooo much more (even with the cost reduction as of late), that Falcon 9 is still the better option for Dream Chaser cargo. And Full Thrust Falcon 9 ought to get about the same performance to ISS as Atlas V 552 (within 10%, at very least, although it's quite possible it could have greater performance than 552).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #151 on: 11/13/2015 12:45 am »
The Russian RD-180 issue is real, but then so is the fact that Atlas V is now 59 for 59 if I'm not mistaken (with one second stage underperformance if you count that as a partial failure, but by that standard SpaceX has an additional failure as well)....
...I like to draw the distinction with "catastrophic failures," while acknowledging the partial failures (which wouldn't have required a use of the LAS).

...and yes, this is legitimately a leg-up for Atlas V (and that was true before SpaceX's recent failure, but more so now, unfortunately), but the cost for an Atlas V is just soooo much more (even with the cost reduction as of late), that Falcon 9 is still the better option for Dream Chaser cargo. And Full Thrust Falcon 9 ought to get about the same performance to ISS as Atlas V 552 (within 10%, at very least, although it's quite possible it could have greater performance than 552).
They could always do a split between Atlas and Falcon. Gives you flexibility to put more expensive hardware on the LV with the better track record. This provides some of the cost advantages of falcon, some of the added reliability of Atlas, launcher redundancy if one fails and greater American content of the contract. NASA would probably want to avoid only having one baseline launcher for cargo and that is still achieved. SNC could even play the two lifters against each other to get a better deal.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25223
  • Likes Given: 12114
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #152 on: 11/13/2015 12:50 am »
But it increases the engineering costs because you have to analyze 2 different launch vehicles. Might still be worth it, doesn't seem to have been a show-stopper for Orbital.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17256
  • Liked: 7111
  • Likes Given: 3061
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #153 on: 11/13/2015 12:55 am »
The Russian RD-180 issue is real, but then so is the fact that Atlas V is now 59 for 59 if I'm not mistaken (with one second stage underperformance if you count that as a partial failure, but by that standard SpaceX has an additional failure as well)....
...I like to draw the distinction with "catastrophic failures," while acknowledging the partial failures (which wouldn't have required a use of the LAS).

...and yes, this is legitimately a leg-up for Atlas V (and that was true before SpaceX's recent failure, but more so now, unfortunately), but the cost for an Atlas V is just soooo much more (even with the cost reduction as of late), that Falcon 9 is still the better option for Dream Chaser cargo. And Full Thrust Falcon 9 ought to get about the same performance to ISS as Atlas V 552 (within 10%, at very least, although it's quite possible it could have greater performance than 552).

I don't think that Cargo DC needs an Atlas V 552. It maximizes cargo with it but it isn't required. So a F9 should be more than enough. 

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25223
  • Likes Given: 12114
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #154 on: 11/13/2015 01:03 am »
The Russian RD-180 issue is real, but then so is the fact that Atlas V is now 59 for 59 if I'm not mistaken (with one second stage underperformance if you count that as a partial failure, but by that standard SpaceX has an additional failure as well)....
...I like to draw the distinction with "catastrophic failures," while acknowledging the partial failures (which wouldn't have required a use of the LAS).

...and yes, this is legitimately a leg-up for Atlas V (and that was true before SpaceX's recent failure, but more so now, unfortunately), but the cost for an Atlas V is just soooo much more (even with the cost reduction as of late), that Falcon 9 is still the better option for Dream Chaser cargo. And Full Thrust Falcon 9 ought to get about the same performance to ISS as Atlas V 552 (within 10%, at very least, although it's quite possible it could have greater performance than 552).

I don't think that Cargo DC needs an Atlas V 552. It maximizes cargo with it but it isn't required. So a F9 should be more than enough.
That's right, but I am still pretty sure that Full Thrust gets very close to 552 performance (and much more than other Atlas V variants). Based on this:
elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov (Performance query to 400km by 51.6, comparing v1.1 and 551)
and relative performance of 551 to 552, available from various sources (to ISS, 552 is likely to get about 10% better performance than 551) cited in Wikipedia article for Atlas V
and the fact that SpaceX has said Full Thrust should get ~30% better performance to GTO as v1.1 (and certainly a smaller improvement to ISS orbit, but still substantial)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #155 on: 11/13/2015 05:44 am »
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/664849108134461440

Quote
John Olson, Sierra Nevada Corp.: Dream Chaser per-mission cost is “peanuts.” 95% of cost is launch. #ASGSR2015

I'm skeptical of that number, given that Cargo DC carries a rather large pressurized cargo component (that has to have a pressurized tunnel) with lots of equipment on every flight - unlike what the crew DC was planning to to.
« Last Edit: 11/13/2015 07:24 am by Lars-J »

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #156 on: 11/13/2015 05:58 am »
I likewise wouldn't read much into that figure. It's certainly true, but from a "certain point of view", anything can be. It all depends what variables you choose to leave out of the whole.

Any process can appear cheaper if you don't factor every element of the process into your public cost estimates. Not saying that they're deliberately misinforming people, but they're probably talking about physical material costs only.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17256
  • Liked: 7111
  • Likes Given: 3061
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #157 on: 11/13/2015 02:45 pm »
Yes I agree. He didn't specify DC cargo plus if you fly DC very often, you can probably get to that 95% figure.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5469
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1801
  • Likes Given: 1296
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #158 on: 11/13/2015 03:08 pm »
Anyone got any ideas on how SNC is going to load the CRS Dreamchaser?

Guessing they will load the vehicle and attach module horizontally, close up and rotate the vehicle on it's tail with the CBM hatch on the bottom. Before encapsulation in a fairing. How very strange.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #159 on: 11/13/2015 03:42 pm »
Cost isn’t everything… SpaceX needs to come back from their "self-inflicted" wound first. When they can achieve Atlas V reliability at a lower price it would truly be a game changer. I know they are hard at work on it, I wish them the best.
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0