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.
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).
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.
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.
Quote from: Pages 85 and 86 of the RFP2.6 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... Think about that requirement for a minute. Two things jump out at me ...
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?
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/30/2014 07:33 pmOne 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 NNJ14507542R4. 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.
Quote from: getitdoneinspace on 09/30/2014 03:04 pmI 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.
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).
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
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/30/2014 10:07 pmAs 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#msg1264588Not 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.
QuoteSee also question 37:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1264512#msg1264512The 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.
The entire 55-foot robot arm assembly is capable of lifting 220,000 pounds, which is the weight of a space shuttle orbiter.
Next question can one flight a year be a different configuration? If so then options with a FH are possible. ...
Can the F9 deliver 2 dragons at once i.e stacked on top of each other. Once in orbit the dragons would fly separately.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 10/03/2014 07:39 pmCan 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