Author Topic: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030  (Read 478898 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38177
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22655
  • Likes Given: 432
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #300 on: 09/30/2014 07:24 pm »
I am just suggesting that this may not be the best solution in the long term when re-usability becomes a reality and spacecraft that burn up are less cost effective.

Not really.  Not all spacecraft will be reusable and still it is a good idea to use reusable space craft for thrash

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #301 on: 09/30/2014 07:33 pm »
The most interesting aspect of this RFP is that based on current capabilities, SpaceX is the only provider who could submit a qualifying  proposal or be awarded a contract.

Other than SpaceX, all other potential providers--OSC, Boeing and SNC--require new development to submit a qualifying proposal (never mind compete for an award).

One of the question is on that issue. They ask what will happen if not all criteria are met. Will the proposal be rejected outright or will it still be evaluated? NASA answered that the proposal would still be evaluated.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #302 on: 09/30/2014 07:49 pm »
Furthermore, NASA mentions that there is a minimum of four flights per year but they don't specify the maximum number of flights per year. However, the lesser number of flights per year, the better the proposal will be evaluated:

Quote from: Page 79 of the RFP
NASA requires the service to provide the annual upmass required of the ISS in no fewer than four (4) flights per year with the cargo somewhat evenly distributed throughout the year.  Cargo includes both NASA cargo and NASA-sponsored cargo (hereinafter referred to as “cargo” or “NASA cargo”). Contractor provided non-NASA cargo may also be included per Clause II.A.5, Contractor Objectives on ISS Resupply Service Missions. Cargo includes both pressurized and unpressurized cargo.  Contracts may include 1) pressurized upmass, 2) pressurized return or pressurized disposal or both, 3) unpressurized upmass and disposal.  Contractors have the option to provide accelerated pressurized return as part of any standard mission(s).  Contractors can meet the required and optional capabilities by mixing them in any manner they choose within their 4 standard missions.

Quote from: page 248 of the RFP
NASA will evaluate the following:
(a)   Capabilities
The Offeror’s capabilities to meet NASA’s requirements as described in the SOW and per flight ranges as defined in Table I.A.3-1, Mission capabilities for the Standard Resupply Services Missions A-D.  The Offeror’s ability to provide a more comprehensive complement of capabilities will be evaluated; such as the ability to meet the annual ISS resupply need in four (4) flights per year, the ability to provide a Launch On Need (LON) capability, the ability to provide more types of capabilities (pressurized delivery, pressurized return or disposal, unpressurized delivery and disposal, accelerated pressurized return) within a standard mission, the ability to provide higher quantities of the capabilities within the per-flight ranges defined in Table I.A.3-1, the ability to provide flexibility for cargo integration and processing, especially being able to accommodate late cargo changes (e.g. substituting bag types or powered lockers late in the manifest process or accommodating irregular, non-rectangular bags, or exchanging unpressurized cargo elements), and the ability to meet the needs of the research community (e.g. a service that provides accelerated pressurized return is favored over pressurized return, with R+3 handover favored over R+6 handover, or provides for a longer mated duration to ISS).  NASA will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for development of Flight Support Equipment.  NASA will evaluate the ground infrastructure that will be used to provide the service, including launch site and launch site cargo processing capabilities and facilities, landing site and landing site cargo capabilities and facilities and control center infrastructure.
« Last Edit: 09/30/2014 08:01 pm by yg1968 »

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1687
  • United States
  • Liked: 2096
  • Likes Given: 3222
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #303 on: 09/30/2014 08:13 pm »

Quote from: Pages 85 and 86 of the RFP
2.6   LAUNCH ON NEED (LON)
A Launch On Need (LON) capability should be provided in the event there is an interruption in the provision of cargo services from any of the providers through the life of the contract.
The Contractor should meet the following technical capabilities to satisfy LON:
(a)   Able to be called up after the Contractor’s initial CRS2 flight,
(b)   Able to launch within two months after launch of a planned CRS2 mission,
(c)   Accommodate up to the full complement of pressurized cargo that had been planned for the next mission, as applicable to the standard mission, , including standard powered payloads and standard late load for launch and return,
(d)   The next planned launch following a LON can be as early as 2 months from completion of the LON mission,
(e)   In any 12 month period, accommodate one (1) LON mission in addition to the planned flight rate.

(C) in bold above is interesting.  I think they may have gotten a bit lazy in the language there, we'll see what comes back in the questions from respondents. 

Think about that requirement for a minute.  Two things jump out at me: 

First, the winners are going to have VERY similar payload capacities to meet requirement (C).  If respondent "O" proposes to deliver 5000 kg to orbit, vendor "X" proposed to deliver 4000 kg, and vendor "B" proposes to deliver 6000 kg, if NASA picks vendor B as a supplier, the other two vendors can't meet the requirement (assuming of course the whole 6000 was going to be utilized on the next flight).

Second, does anyone else read the word "return" in (C) to potentially mean all kinds of things (like safe return to surface versus just deorbit from the station)?  Maybe the word was a holdover from STS era when thinking about return meant all the way back to Earth (not as ashes).
Bring the thunder!

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4970
  • Liked: 2874
  • Likes Given: 1118
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #304 on: 09/30/2014 08:18 pm »
One of the question is on that issue. They ask what will happen if not all criteria are met. Will the proposal be rejected outright or will it still be evaluated? NASA answered that the proposal would still be evaluated.

An unqualified propsal may be evaluated; OTOH it may also go in the garbage.  NASA is  providing a very limited opening for unqaulified proposals to make their case.  In any case, that may not result in an award under the current solicitation, and may require allowing all proposers to resubmit under new revised requirements.  Specifically:

Quote from: CRS2 RFP NNJ14507542R
4. Deviations and/or Exceptions (Mission Suitability Proposal)

... Such proposals shall clearly identify why the acceptance of the proposal would be advantageous to the Government.  Any deviations from the terms and conditions of the solicitation, as well as the comparative advantage to the Government, shall be clearly identified and explicitly defined.  The Government reserves the right to amend the solicitation to allow all Offerors an opportunity to submit revised proposals based on the revised requirements.  A deviation to or exception to a material requirement, provision, or terms and conditions of the contract may be determined as unacceptable, making the Offeror ineligible for award of a contract. 

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4970
  • Liked: 2874
  • Likes Given: 1118
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #305 on: 09/30/2014 08:22 pm »
This contract doesn't start for 3 years, and anyone that submits a proposal is competing for the award, it's not a multi-stage process anymore.

The contract may not start for three years but proposals are due this November.  There was alread a request to delay CRS-2 proposal due date, based on there not being enough time to revise CRS-2 proposals due to delays in the CCtCap award announcements.  The request was denied.

This is as much a "multi-stage" process as anything that combines DDT&E and acquisition, which is why there are different CLIN's (as with CCtCap).  Any new development and qualification will be performed under CLIN-002 (or outside the contract).

None of which changes the fact that based on the capabilities available today, SpaceX is only  provider which could submit a qualifying proposal.  Which, if you read the fine print in the solicitation, may be one reason why NASA may allow evaluation of unqualified proposals, and may allow resubmission of proposals based on revised requirements (see previous post)--that is an unusual allowance.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4970
  • Liked: 2874
  • Likes Given: 1118
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #306 on: 09/30/2014 08:35 pm »
... Think about that requirement for a minute.  Two things jump out at me ...

All of those are prefaced or qualified by "should", not "must" or "shall"; translation: "NASA wants and nice to have but don't know if we can afford."

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10815
  • US
  • Liked: 15025
  • Likes Given: 6586
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #307 on: 09/30/2014 09:11 pm »
None of which changes the fact that based on the capabilities available today, SpaceX is only  provider which could submit a qualifying proposal.  Which, if you read the fine print in the solicitation, may be one reason why NASA may allow evaluation of unqualified proposals, and may allow resubmission of proposals based on revised requirements (see previous post)--that is an unusual allowance.

Where in the RFP does it say the proposed solution has to be working at the time the proposal is submitted?  This is nonsense.  They are required to have their system ready by 2018.  I'm a big SpaceX fan, but I find it really weird to be using their current capabilities in this argument.  They were still working on Falcon 1 when the first commercial cargo awards were decided.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4970
  • Liked: 2874
  • Likes Given: 1118
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #308 on: 09/30/2014 09:53 pm »
Where in the RFP does it say the proposed solution has to be working at the time the proposal is submitted? 
The RFP does not state that.  I did not state that.  I have no idea how you arrived at that interpretation.  I pointed out an interesting and relatively unique aspect of this solicitation and potential implications and knock-on effects.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #309 on: 09/30/2014 10:07 pm »
One of the question is on that issue. They ask what will happen if not all criteria are met. Will the proposal be rejected outright or will it still be evaluated? NASA answered that the proposal would still be evaluated.

An unqualified propsal may be evaluated; OTOH it may also go in the garbage.  NASA is  providing a very limited opening for unqaulified proposals to make their case.  In any case, that may not result in an award under the current solicitation, and may require allowing all proposers to resubmit under new revised requirements.  Specifically:

Quote from: CRS2 RFP NNJ14507542R
4. Deviations and/or Exceptions (Mission Suitability Proposal)

... Such proposals shall clearly identify why the acceptance of the proposal would be advantageous to the Government.  Any deviations from the terms and conditions of the solicitation, as well as the comparative advantage to the Government, shall be clearly identified and explicitly defined.  The Government reserves the right to amend the solicitation to allow all Offerors an opportunity to submit revised proposals based on the revised requirements.  A deviation to or exception to a material requirement, provision, or terms and conditions of the contract may be determined as unacceptable, making the Offeror ineligible for award of a contract. 

As I posted above, 4 flights per year is a minimum but it isn't a requirement. But they specifically say that the number of flights that is required will have an impact on the evaluation. See this post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1264588#msg1264588

See also question 37:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1264512#msg1264512
« Last Edit: 09/30/2014 10:13 pm by yg1968 »

Online jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6920
  • Erie, CO
  • Liked: 4217
  • Likes Given: 1954
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #310 on: 09/30/2014 11:50 pm »
I have a question for those who are more knowledgeable than I about ISS trash. Why is there any need for "pressurized" disposal? Specifically, why does "pressurized" trash need to be placed within a "pressurized" spacecraft? Is it possible to simply place all disposal items within the Dragon trunk and simply release the trunk and all its contents for burn up in the atmosphere before reentry? I would think there could be a rather simple and inexpensive container, that could even maintain a pressure if needed, to hold trash "a trash can". This "trash can" could have two attachment points. The trash can be placed outside station, then grabbed with the arm, and then attached in the trunk. Seems like there is no reason to waste usable "pressurized" volume or mass for trash. Am I missing something? Obviously, if you have spacecraft leaving station that will burn up in the atmosphere it makes sense to take the current approach to trash day. But seems like trash day could be handled by any vehicle with an ability to carry the trash can to the dump (the atmosphere) instead of to someone else's home (the Earth).  :)

You are missing that your idea would require an EVA.    "pressurized" disposal means the crew can access the disposal volume in their shirts sleeves, just like taking the garbage from the kitchen to the can in the garage.  This requirement also covers Cygnus and it does destructive entry.

Exactly. Also, some of the trash has liquid in it, and depressurizing it could cause leaks (which would then boil off and potentially redeposit stuff on the outside of the ISS). This is part of why our notional HatchBasket design is intended to maintain internal pressure inside Cygnus post departure--fluid leaking/boiloff might not turn out to be a real concern, but everyone we spoke with about it was relieved that they wouldn't even after to see if it was an issue.

~Jon

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4970
  • Liked: 2874
  • Likes Given: 1118
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #311 on: 10/01/2014 01:11 am »
As I posted above, 4 flights per year is a minimum but it isn't a requirement. But they specifically say that the number of flights that is required will have an impact on the evaluation. See this post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1264588#msg1264588

Not sure what you are getting at here.  I was not referring to nor did I mention number of flights, only capabilities; specifically, those capabilities which are required for "standard missions".

In any case, a proposal which provides for less than four flights/yr would be considered non-compliant.  A proposal which requires more than four flights/yr for the standard missions would be compliant but--all other things equal--would be evaluated less satisfactory than a proposal which provides the same with four flights/yr.

Quote
See also question 37:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1264512#msg1264512

The answer to Q37 does not address whether the proposal will be excluded from evaluation based on meeting "required" capabilities, only "requested" capabilities.  An optimistic interpretation is that non-compliant proposals will still be considered.  However, that is a bit vague and easily misinterpreted.

The contract section I quoted in the previous post directly and clearly addresses whether non-compliant proposals (those that do not meet minimum requirements) may still be considered for evaluation, and what non-compliant proposals must provide to get past the front door to in order to make it to the evaluation stage.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #312 on: 10/01/2014 04:38 am »
As I posted above, 4 flights per year is a minimum but it isn't a requirement. But they specifically say that the number of flights that is required will have an impact on the evaluation. See this post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1264588#msg1264588

Not sure what you are getting at here.  I was not referring to nor did I mention number of flights, only capabilities; specifically, those capabilities which are required for "standard missions".

In any case, a proposal which provides for less than four flights/yr would be considered non-compliant.  A proposal which requires more than four flights/yr for the standard missions would be compliant but--all other things equal--would be evaluated less satisfactory than a proposal which provides the same with four flights/yr.

Yes I know that you didn't. But I was thinking that perhaps an offeror that doesn't meet the requirements for four flights for mass and volume could meet them by adding a fifth flight. But that point isn't very clear.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #313 on: 10/01/2014 04:43 am »
Quote
See also question 37:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1264512#msg1264512

The answer to Q37 does not address whether the proposal will be excluded from evaluation based on meeting "required" capabilities, only "requested" capabilities.  An optimistic interpretation is that non-compliant proposals will still be considered.  However, that is a bit vague and easily misinterpreted.

The contract section I quoted in the previous post directly and clearly addresses whether non-compliant proposals (those that do not meet minimum requirements) may still be considered for evaluation, and what non-compliant proposals must provide to get past the front door to in order to make it to the evaluation stage.

Although that is generally true, in the context of question 37, NASA seems to be using request and requirements as if had the same meaning.

Offline watermod

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 159
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #314 on: 10/01/2014 11:04 am »
For more mass from SpaceX.   First what can the arm dock?  NASA ISS info says:
Quote
The entire 55-foot robot arm assembly is capable of lifting 220,000 pounds, which is the weight of a space shuttle orbiter.
So it can dock anything a Falcon Heavy can launch.

Next question can one flight a year be a different configuration?    If so then options with a FH are possible.   A minimal solution would be a pressurized tube with solar cells on the sides and thrusters to enable destructive re-entry. 

Now to make it interesting, if return mass is also desired, have another docking adapter at the end of the tube with a Dragon already attached.   This way the Dragon can be filled ASAP with return packages and sent on it's way.   The mass in the tube can slowly be unloaded and replaced with trash.   When done it can be destructively de-orbited.

This leaves 53 tons for a Dragon, a tube and cargo.   

The only major question left out is the reach of the arm.   Can it reach a Dragon or other capsule on the end of the tube?   If it can other ships could dock after the initial Dragon left and before the tube is full of trash.  Of course all of this negates Musk's philosophy of maximal reuse but if NASA wanted such a disposable option it appears do-able. 
 


Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4970
  • Liked: 2874
  • Likes Given: 1118
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #315 on: 10/03/2014 06:32 pm »
Next question can one flight a year be a different configuration?    If so then options with a FH are possible.  ...

Yes.  Up to four different "standard mission" configurations are allowed, and may be used in any mix as long as they satisfy NASA's requirements.  The fewer the number of different configurations the better.

A minimum of four missions/yr is required.  More than four missions/yr is allowed, but the fewer the better.  All other things equal, NASA's ideal would be to meet all required and optional capabilities with four missions/yr (presumably excluding launch on need missions).

Less frequent but larger/heavier cargo missions using FH (or whatever) may be feasible, but may run afoul of the need for timeliness.  I don't know what time constraints there are on typical consumable up-mass or disposal down-mass or what percentage of cargo that represents, but that may be a limiting factor.

Some percentage of consumables will have a shelf life.  I would also guess there are limits on how long some waste may be stored awaiting disposal due to environmental and hygiene concerns.


edit: p.s. Also, available berthing/docking ports are limited, and having one in use for an extended period may be a problem. 
« Last Edit: 10/03/2014 07:01 pm by joek »

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #316 on: 10/03/2014 07:39 pm »
Can the F9 deliver 2 dragons at once i.e stacked on top of each other. Once in orbit the dragons would fly separately.
« Last Edit: 10/03/2014 07:40 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 901
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #317 on: 10/03/2014 08:02 pm »
Can the F9 deliver 2 dragons at once i.e stacked on top of each other. Once in orbit the dragons would fly separately.

Even in expendable mode I don't think an F9 has the capability of lofting more than one Dragon at a time.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6362
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4235
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #318 on: 10/03/2014 10:14 pm »
Can the F9 deliver 2 dragons at once i.e stacked on top of each other. Once in orbit the dragons would fly separately.

Even in expendable mode I don't think an F9 has the capability of lofting more than one Dragon at a time.

Randy
ISTM;

as a full expendable the NASA NLS II calculator shows F9 maxed out at 16.6+ tonnes. You'd also need some sort of interstage, with the lower Dragon bearing much of the load. Real thin, if any, margins.

And the length of the stack with 2 Dragons + Trunks + interstage makes a skinny stack even skinnier, causing possibly troublesome bending loads.

No, not gonna happen.
« Last Edit: 10/03/2014 10:21 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9270
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10740
  • Likes Given: 12347
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #319 on: 10/03/2014 10:22 pm »
Can the F9 deliver 2 dragons at once i.e stacked on top of each other. Once in orbit the dragons would fly separately.

I doubt Dragon V2 has been designed to carry a payload on top of itself (i.e. another Dragon).  That's a lot of load, and no obvious ways to elegantly (i.e. without a lot of extra weight) stack two inline.  Even if you used Falcon Heavy I'm not sure why this would be a good idea...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags:
 

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