Author Topic: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System  (Read 118876 times)

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #160 on: 11/13/2015 06:34 pm »
Each Dream Chaser itself will be expensive. Reusing it many times along with a minimal refurbishment cost is likely where the peanuts happen. I can imagine that SNC would very much not like to lose one on launch. Doing so means all those reuses for that vehicle don't happen and another expensive vehicle needs to be built. That may be why they are selecting the most reliable vehicle they can even though there is greater expense. Though I'm not sure the Falcon is that much worse in reliability than the Atlas.

Offline freakdog

  • Member
  • Posts: 40
  • USA
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #161 on: 11/13/2015 06:36 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.

Just like loading a U-Haul except everything is held in place.  I don't think there's a timeliness need on upmass as there is on downmass, so the family of gerbil-nauts is probably not going to be a cargo resupply mission.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #162 on: 11/13/2015 10:23 pm »
Each Dream Chaser itself will be expensive. Reusing it many times along with a minimal refurbishment cost is likely where the peanuts happen. I can imagine that SNC would very much not like to lose one on launch. Doing so means all those reuses for that vehicle don't happen and another expensive vehicle needs to be built. That may be why they are selecting the most reliable vehicle they can even though there is greater expense. Though I'm not sure the Falcon is that much worse in reliability than the Atlas.

I'm not sure why you (and many others) seem to be forgetting about the substantial expendable component of every cargo DC. Again, see this image:

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 968
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #163 on: 11/13/2015 10:54 pm »
WRT loading...It doesn't look like Cargo DC will be capable of "Late" loading of certain bio cargo. But I suppose NASA would simply use the Dragon for any cargo that needed to be loaded at the last minute as there is no obstruction in accessing Dragon for late cargo loads. Dragon and DC would make a good team.

Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8267
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #164 on: 11/14/2015 03:10 pm »
Ironically, something more like an HL42 would end up being more appropriate. Specially on a Vulcan 56x.

Offline adrianwyard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1140
  • Liked: 322
  • Likes Given: 367
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #165 on: 11/14/2015 06:11 pm »
Ironically, something more like an HL42 would end up being more appropriate. Specially on a Vulcan 56x.

This is a very good point. SNC has shown a willingness to scale the DC design down for Stratolaunch, and given that NASA had worked on the 42% larger design it would presumably be even easier. You'd save the weight of the fairing, and retain the ability to tow some unpressurized cargo in the stage adapter. I wonder if you could even fit a CBM on the back; probably not. Trash would have to be brought all the way home - just like Dragon 2.

Given that they opted for the current proposal (developing an entirely new throw-away module plus folding fins), I'd guess that scaling turns out to be not that easy after all? Plus they may be hoping that a flying cargo DC - courtesy of CRS2 - makes the subsequent development of a crewed DC a manageable task. 

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4860
  • Liked: 2780
  • Likes Given: 1095
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #166 on: 11/14/2015 08:12 pm »
...
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.

They'll probably need to do better than $950M/yr.  CRS-2 budget estimated at an average of $1.0-1.4B/yr (NASA IG-14-031).  That number is inclusive, not just payment to providers.

I can't see NASA stretching the budget to include Dream Chaser.  Then again, maybe the proposals came in less than expected so NASA feels there is room.  Or maybe they came in higher than expected and DC is being offered at a price that's hard to refuse.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5469
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1801
  • Likes Given: 1296
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #167 on: 11/14/2015 08:25 pm »

This is a very good point. SNC has shown a willingness to scale the DC design down for Stratolaunch, and given that NASA had worked on the 42% larger design it would presumably be even easier. You'd save the weight of the fairing, and retain the ability to tow some unpressurized cargo in the stage adapter. I wonder if you could even fit a CBM on the back; probably not. Trash would have to be brought all the way home - just like Dragon 2.

Given that they opted for the current proposal (developing an entirely new throw-away module plus folding fins), I'd guess that scaling turns out to be not that easy after all? Plus they may be hoping that a flying cargo DC - courtesy of CRS2 - makes the subsequent development of a crewed DC a manageable task.

Think SNC choose the folding fins in a fairing concept so the CRS DC can be put on top of any launcher capable of using a 5 meter fairing. Without the messy aerodynamic profile of the crewed DC and the specialized stage adapter for each launcher configuration.

Offline Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 164
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #168 on: 11/14/2015 08:37 pm »
...they may be hoping that a flying cargo DC - courtesy of CRS2 - makes the subsequent development of a crewed DC a manageable task.

To that point - and to rcoppola's late loading comment - wouldn't keeping the original overhead hatch from the crew version have some benefit? That would allow late loading of cargo.
Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #169 on: 11/14/2015 09:18 pm »
...
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.

They'll probably need to do better than $950M/yr.  CRS-2 budget estimated at an average of $1.0-1.4B/yr (NASA IG-14-031).  That number is inclusive, not just payment to providers.

I can't see NASA stretching the budget to include Dream Chaser.  Then again, maybe the proposals came in less than expected so NASA feels there is room.  Or maybe they came in higher than expected and DC is being offered at a price that's hard to refuse.

2x DC + 2x Dragon is affordable at those prices. Depending on Dragon costs, they could add a third Dragon every year or two.

It's riskier and more expensive than the incumbents for sure, but it does offer NASA a way to hit the upmass goals in 5 or fewer flights as requested. And maybe SNC was able to persuade NASA that the low-G accelerated return is worth paying for?

I'm not a big fan of SNC and DC, but I'm trying to keep an open mind and see if they have a path to an award at all.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4860
  • Liked: 2780
  • Likes Given: 1095
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #170 on: 11/14/2015 09:21 pm »
Each Dream Chaser itself will be expensive. Reusing it many times along with a minimal refurbishment cost is likely where the peanuts happen. I can imagine that SNC would very much not like to lose one on launch. Doing so means all those reuses for that vehicle don't happen and another expensive vehicle needs to be built. That may be why they are selecting the most reliable vehicle they can even though there is greater expense. Though I'm not sure the Falcon is that much worse in reliability than the Atlas.

If SNC is worried about recovering the cost of a DC due to launch failure, the cost of a more expensive LV needs to be weighed against a lower cost LV plus the cost of insurance or reserves.

Also note that CRS-2 will likely require 4-6 missions/yr.  Given that there will be at least one other provider, that limits the number of potential DC flights and the ability of SNC to amortize costs.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4860
  • Liked: 2780
  • Likes Given: 1095
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #171 on: 11/14/2015 11:36 pm »
2x DC + 2x Dragon is affordable at those prices. Depending on Dragon costs, they could add a third Dragon every year or two.

It's riskier and more expensive than the incumbents for sure, but it does offer NASA a way to hit the upmass goals in 5 or fewer flights as requested. And maybe SNC was able to persuade NASA that the low-G accelerated return is worth paying for?

I'm not a big fan of SNC and DC, but I'm trying to keep an open mind and see if they have a path to an award at all.

Agree, but NASA has already dinged for being overly optimistic about transportation costs (cargo and crew).  There is no money for DC development other than SNC's pockets (presumably amortized over the CRS-2 contract) or what could be paid under CRS-2--which must come under ISS "initial" or "base" integration--and which is added to the evaluation price.  This is largely going to hinge on NASA's evaluation of DC's risk and how aggressive SNC is in pricing...

edit: See arachnitect's post below for clarification on price evaluation formula.

The CRS-2 price evaluation is based on the price of the number of standard missions required for 7500kg annual pressurized upmass (50% of annual 15000kg requirement).  Which means--all other things equal--DC's 5500kg upmass doesn't get any points over, e.g., a competitor who can lift 3750kg: both require two missions.[1]  However, it would mean DC has an advantage over competitors who can lift less than 3750kg, as they would require at least three missions to DC's two (again, assuming all other things equal).

Not counting potential mission suitability points for accelerated return downmass or reduced number of missions (which are not included in the price evaluation)...

If DC can deliver >=3750Kg pressurized/mission AND the competition cannot deliver >=3750kg presurized/mission AND DC can do so at <= 50% per-mission premium over the competition (2 missions instead of 3) THEN DC has a very good chance in the pricing evaluation (which is the most important evaluation factor).  Add some mission suitability points and DC might get past the post.


[1] There is also an unpressurized component to the price evaluation but only if a standard mission is all unpressurized, in which case the evaluation is based on 1000kg unpressurized upmass; if it is a mix of pressurized and unpressurized only the pressurized value is used for evaluation.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2015 09:32 pm by joek »

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #172 on: 11/15/2015 12:51 am »
I find it interesting that Boeing and LM seem to have priced themselves out of the CRS-2 competition.

Especially with the first commercial crew contract, NASA seemed to set the expectation that they would gladly pay extra to more experienced and larger concerns, based on their supposed greater ability to achieve results.  With CRS-2, they appear to be going in the other direction, telling Boeing and LM that they don't get to put in big, fat bids and expect they will get the business, when the smaller, hungrier SpaceX, OrbitalATK and SNC are willing to provide the same services for less.

I think it's an important move.  The days when a contractor could place NASA "tightly over a barrel" by insisting their high bids be accepted based on intangibles may be passing...
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 598
  • Likes Given: 2058
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #173 on: 11/15/2015 01:23 am »
It's only natural that NASA would be more conservative with commercial crew than CRS because astronaut lives are at stake.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 565
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #174 on: 11/15/2015 01:54 pm »

The CRS-2 price evaluation is based on the price of the number of standard missions required for 7500kg annual pressurized upmass (50% of annual 15000kg requirement).  Which means--all other things equal--DC's 5500kg upmass doesn't get any points over, e.g., a competitor who can lift 3750kg: both require two missions.
NASA will be evaluating based on multiyear program requirements, not per anum requirements.

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #175 on: 11/15/2015 02:08 pm »


It's only natural that NASA would be more conservative with commercial crew than CRS because astronaut lives are at stake.

There are failures of cargo vehicles that could lead to LoC.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #176 on: 11/15/2015 04:22 pm »
The CRS-2 price evaluation is based on the price of the number of standard missions required for 7500kg annual pressurized upmass (50% of annual 15000kg requirement).  Which means--all other things equal--DC's 5500kg upmass doesn't get any points over, e.g., a competitor who can lift 3750kg: both require two missions.[1]  However, it would mean DC has an advantage over competitors who can lift less than 3750kg, as they would require at least three missions to DC's two (again, assuming all other things equal).


I'm looking at section VII.C of the RFP and am confused.

First of all, is selection necessarily based on this number? I thought selection was based on actual proposed prices in the matrix at I.A.3. My understanding is that this "price at 50% upmass" is just the baseline the government is evaluating to document that prices are "fair and reasonable."

Also, it appears that the number of missions is prorated based on capacity, but multiplied by the unit price for the whole number of missions that would be required. E.G:

If SNC were offering 1 mission per year at (say) $600M, and 2 missions per year at $500M ea. (and assuming 5000kg. pressurized upmass).

7500/5000 = 1.5 x $500M = $750M

(see attached image).
« Last Edit: 11/15/2015 04:23 pm by arachnitect »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4860
  • Liked: 2780
  • Likes Given: 1095
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #177 on: 11/15/2015 11:06 pm »
I'm looking at section VII.C of the RFP and am confused.

First of all, is selection necessarily based on this number? I thought selection was based on actual proposed prices in the matrix at I.A.3. My understanding is that this "price at 50% upmass" is just the baseline the government is evaluating to document that prices are "fair and reasonable."

Also, it appears that the number of missions is prorated based on capacity, but multiplied by the unit price for the whole number of missions that would be required. E.G:

If SNC were offering 1 mission per year at (say) $600M, and 2 missions per year at $500M ea. (and assuming 5000kg. pressurized upmass).

7500/5000 = 1.5 x $500M = $750M

(see attached image).

Thanks for clarifying the price evaluation formula.  Your calculation is correct.  The value should be prorated, including fractional, which I did not.

Price evaluation--which is the most significant selection factor--is based on the values determined in section VII.C.  Section I is the input to Section VII.C.  The prices in Section I are used in price reasonableness tests (details in FAR 15.404-1).  Proposals which do not pass that test would be rejected.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4860
  • Liked: 2780
  • Likes Given: 1095
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #178 on: 11/15/2015 11:21 pm »

The CRS-2 price evaluation is based on the price of the number of standard missions required for 7500kg annual pressurized upmass (50% of annual 15000kg requirement).  Which means--all other things equal--DC's 5500kg upmass doesn't get any points over, e.g., a competitor who can lift 3750kg: both require two missions.
NASA will be evaluating based on multiyear program requirements, not per anum requirements.

The price evaluation is based on the sum of given and calculated per-annum not-to-exceed (NTE) pricing over the period CY2018-2024 for 7500kg annual pressurized upmass, plus ISS certification costs.[1]  E.g., perform the calculation given in Section VII using the prices in Section I (CLIN-001) for each year; sum them; add ISS certification price (CLIN-002A).  The total is the value used for price evaluation.

edit: [1] Excluding the unpressurized upmass calculation, which is very unlikely to play a part in the price evaluation.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2015 11:33 pm by joek »

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: CRS-2: Dream Chaser Cargo System
« Reply #179 on: 11/15/2015 11:26 pm »


It's only natural that NASA would be more conservative with commercial crew than CRS because astronaut lives are at stake.

There are failures of cargo vehicles that could lead to LoC.


Nothing short of an collision with the station or major malfunction while attached to the ISS would cause that. Loss of Cargo Vehicle would at most cause loss of mission by causing the ISS to be evacuated due to insufficient supplies.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1