ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[Robotbeat]

Let's say LM is awarded 10 flights.

Jupiter might be expensive, so say it costs $300 million. The containers (which have plenty of volume) may cost only $40 million (or less!) since they're mostly just passive metal. Say LM buys Atlas V flights for $130 million each. That means each mission costs about $200 million each, but should have greater cargo than Dragon or Cygnus.

Sounds competitive to me, even if you tag on another $300 million dev cost for Jupiter bringing per mission costs to $230 million.

...Now suppose you add in another 10 mission, this time launched on a reusable F9 with a 35% discount, giving a per mission cost of just $80 million...

[newpylong]

Let's say LM is awarded 10 flights.

Jupiter might be expensive, so say it costs $300 million. The containers (which have plenty of volume) may cost only $40 million (or less!) since they're mostly just passive metal. Say LM buys Atlas V flights for $130 million each. That means each mission costs about $200 million each, but should have greater cargo than Dragon or Cygnus.

Sounds competitive to me, even if you tag on another $300 million dev cost for Jupiter bringing per mission costs to $230 million.

...Now suppose you add in another 10 mission, this time launched on a reusable F9 with a 35% discount, giving a per mission cost of just $80 million...

I also agree that we could be surprised how competitive the pricing for this proposal might be.

If built this system has far-reaching possibilities for use - I especially like how it could feed into the Orion program to allow for some commonality and reduce costs.

[manboy]

It sounds like a bad proposal. I don't like the unnecessary complexity

Making something reusable isn't unnecessary complexity in my book.  It tends to makes things cheaper, and it enables us to grow far more in the future than we ever could with the old paradigm of building everything new for every mission.

It's how they intend to accomplish reusability that adds complexity. How long does it delay getting supplies to the ISS?

or that the majority of the proposal out sources work to foreign aerospace companies (the Atlas V engine, the pressurized vessel, the robotic arm). I don't think CRS should be used to prop up the space economies of other countries when the US space economy is in as bad of shape as it's in.

The U.S. space economy is in the best shape its ever been in.

 
It depends on how you look at it. How many liquid engine manufacturers are there left? Aerojet Rocketdyne and SpaceX are the only ones building engines that have gone into space. How many rocket manufacturers?  And is there any American company besides Boeing that has history building space station modules?

Working with companies in other countries lets us get more out of each tax dollar we spend, and makes it easier for U.S. companies to sell to the governments of those other countries in return.

What you're proposing is a form of protectionism.

CRS is the American contribution to the ISS. If you want a Canadian or European one then look for funding from CSA or ESA. It's debatable on whether or not out sourcing the work really results in a higher return. What it does result in is less jobs for the aerospace industry and loss of technical capability.

It sounds like a bad proposal. I don't like the unnecessary complexity or that the majority of the proposal out sources work to foreign aerospace companies (the Atlas V engine, the pressurized vessel, the robotic arm). I don't think CRS should be used to prop up the space economies of other countries when the US space economy is in as bad of shape as it's in.

There's not much choice with regards to foreign companies, Orbital uses them too (Russian engines, same supplier for pressure vessel).

Sure there's a choice but they're choosing not to use them.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

LM's proposal is really interesting.

I think SpaceX are ok - NASA needs downmass and the three bidders offering that are the same as for commercial crew, except this time SpaceX are in an even stronger position having repeatedly proven their ability to do CRS. So SpaceX must be lowest risk and would expect them to be very price competitive.

 However, Orbital ATK may well have more of a fight on their hands than they may have assumed.

[AncientU]

Real competition is fantastic! (let's hope awards are on merit and price, not political clout)
New ideas, new players in the reusability gig, more competitors than previously, huge/creative variation in approaches...
The potential for this COTS/CRS model is growing...

On to the lander (or hab module, exploration outpost, space station, BFR, whatever***) competition.

*** forgot to add fuel depots!

[SWGlassPit]

I've read plenty of space enthusiast comments that Bigelow space habitats are just around the corner and will provide plenty of business for SpaceX.

So NASA could pick two new entrants in the field, develop new capabilities, and leave SpaceX to fill the sky with their Dragons servicing all those Bigelow space stations that will soon be up there.

Right?

What Port said.

NASA's goal with CRS-2 is to obtain reliable and preferably cost-effective transportation of cargo to the ISS. I really like this concept. (I'd like it even more if it used a cheaper launch vehicle.) I doubt NASA will pick it though.

BTW: Bigelow space habitats have been "just around the corner" for a while and probably will be for 5-7 years at least. Lots of work still needs to be done.

I would love to be proven wrong.

I'm not 100%, but I'm pretty sure Blackstar's tongue was firmly planted in his cheek as he posted that.

[Steam Chaser]

Sounds competitive to me, even if you tag on another $300 million dev cost for Jupiter bringing per mission costs to $230 million.

On top of all that, it looks like they have the ability to launch significant secondary payloads on the flights that aren't launching Jupiter, or offer some services similar to what ISS does (e.g.: hosting instruments), which could give them revenue that would allow them to reduce their bid, giving them a better chance against Cygnus.

If I recall correctly, NASA's proposed funding for CRS-2 was a lot more than for CRS-1, I think because of the larger span of years in CRS-2 and greater per-year mass (I suppose due to NASA taking over ATV's former responsibilities).  That might allow NASA to work with 3 cargo suppliers.  It's hard for me from my armchair to imagine LM replacing Orbital entirely during CRS-2.  CRS-2 starts pretty soon in aerospace development timeframes, so I'd be surprised if NASA would be confident enough that LM would be ready with this for the start of CRS-2.  I could see NASA working with both Orbital and LM, though (maybe phasing in more LM responsibilities later in CRS-2).

I wonder what Orbital's bid will be compared to LM?  They would have known about NASA's increased requirements, and the larger amount of money on the table possibly drawing in competitors.  Would Orbital have been able to offer a bid with more mass and/or volume based on Cygnus than they are already increasing to?  Is Antares the limit?  Could they have offered a mix of small and large Cygnus variants launched by a mix of Antares and Atlas V (since they are already working with Atlas V)?  Would they simply have lowered their bid price compared to CRS-1, given that their development phase would be done?  Would they offer ballute-based return capability?  Could they know about non-CRS Antares or Cygnus business in the pipeline, allowing them to share costs and lower their CRS-2 bid price?

It would be really good to have 3 independent cargo spacecraft, using 3 independent rockets, regardless of which spacecraft the Atlas V would be launching (CST-100, Dream Chaser, or Jupiter-Exoliner).

[beancounter]

Since this is a CRS contract, I'm assuming that all vehicle development costs will be paid for by the companies making their various pitches, not by NASA or other government agencies.  They'll only pay for the delivery and return services.  It's not a COTS equivalent.  Is this correct?
Cheers

[acrotti]

I'm surprised that no one has thought that LM, with Jupiter, is winking to NASA, indirectly suggesting a solution to fund (through CRS2) the development of a basic SM for Orion. A SM with a robotic arm, swappable tanks (its easy to increase the amount of fuel and oxidizer, just enlarge the tanks), and ion propulsion. All of that more or less for free. Yes, I know, the low power engine may be useful only in LEO, but it's a start. We need to keep in mind that the European SM for Orion is only 1, for the first mission. And then? Jupiter may be perfect also because it can be throughly tested in space before using it with a manned Orion.
Once funded through CRS2 resupply mission (that NASA has to pay anyhow), Jupiter can also be a low cost base to develop the ARM tug, an Hubble servicing tug and so on.
A forward-looking NASA administrator may trade the complexity of this solution with the savings it can give in these future missions.

[jongoff]

Since this is a CRS contract, I'm assuming that all vehicle development costs will be paid for by the companies making their various pitches, not by NASA or other government agencies.  They'll only pay for the delivery and return services.  It's not a COTS equivalent.  Is this correct?
Cheers

Beancounter,

That's at least my understanding. If someone wants to propose something that doesn't exist yet, they only get paid for flights, so they have to foot the development costs in-house and try to recoup them from CRS-2 flight revenues.

~Jon

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I'm surprised that no one has thought that LM, with Jupiter, is winking to NASA, indirectly suggesting a solution to fund (through CRS2) the development of a basic SM for Orion. A SM with a robotic arm, swappable tanks (its easy to increase the amount of fuel and oxidizer, just enlarge the tanks), and ion propulsion. All of that more or less for free. Yes, I know, the low power engine may be useful only in LEO, but it's a start. We need to keep in mind that the European SM for Orion is only 1, for the first mission. And then? Jupiter may be perfect also because it can be throughly tested in space before using it with a manned Orion.
Once funded through CRS2 resupply mission (that NASA has to pay anyhow), Jupiter can also be a low cost base to develop the ARM tug, an Hubble servicing tug and so on.
A forward-looking NASA administrator may trade the complexity of this solution with the savings it can give in these future missions.

Thank you for pointing out the variable tank size feature.  This feature does not stop here. Think of a AV 551 delivering a tank 18mt(16mt prop) for attachment to the tug. Now add another one. Then add a 18mt payload. Deliver this 18mt payload to L2 (A BA330-DS fully loaded). Deliver the payload to L2 drop one tank and return to LEO.  At ~$200M per AV551 launch X3 = ~$600M for a 18mt delivery to L2 vs SLS ~$2B. Now use an FH for the tank delivery of a single 40mt tank with 36mt of prop. Now add the AV551 flight with the payload. Costs for delivery to L2 drops to ~$350M. The tanks would be highly LV agnostic vs most of the other payload types currently launched because the tanks are about as dumb as you can get and as cheap a payload as can be manufactured.

For a slower delivery but still possible 2 40mt tanks and a 40mt payload delivered by FH for ~$450M sent to L2.  A BA 2100 DS module. Or just the delivery of the 40mt tanks to be parked at L2 for a Mars mission of truly impressive size for less than 3 years of SLS operations costs (SLS 3 years -3 launches ~$4.2B). 6 40mt storable prop tanks at L2 for ~$2.7B. Launched in just 1 year.

But alas its only a CRS contract and features not needed are a detractor and not a plus for such contract selection.

[GraniteHound92]

Has automated on-orbit fuel transfer ever been attempted more than once with the same spacecraft?  I know the Orbital Express mission accomplished automated fuel transfer, but I can't find anything that explicitly states how many times it was done over the course of the mission.  Does repeated refueling pose any specific technical difficulties (e.g. wear on valves or connectors)?  Also, does the LM CRS2 proposal warrant its own thread?

[meekGee]

Late to the party...

I'm trying to look at it from a corporate viewpoint.

Looks to me like the board decided that they can't just snub commercial space any longer.

The question they posed was "what can we put together relatively quickly from things that we have in the drawer"

It's not a bad result, and against the background of the industry of 10 years ago it might have looked revolutionary, but right now it seems a bit anachronistic. It is past-future.  (Didn't want to say steampunk)

It is not really optimized for CRS, but that's their business, and I count that as a plus.  One of my issues with Boeing and Orbital was that the proposals were never a part of something bigger.  This one is forward looking.

[robert_d]

Sorry, but I don't understand. Does the arm at any point leave the Jupiter tug completely?

Try this:

1) Jupiter rendezvouses with the new pod and upper stage, grappling the Centaur (NOT the new pod) with its arm, as depicted in the picture.
2) Jupiter maneuvers itself so the POA like end effector on the satellite bus ( end of the robot arm sticking out of the top) grabs the new pod
3) the new pod is released, the robot arm flips the stack around and berths the old one to the centaur
4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the arm

[WmThomas]

Just saying that I find the LockMart proposal exciting. It is trying to provide value-added. This whole competition now looks full of possibilities.

[Archibald]

I knew I had seen this (lockheed) silhouette before. History (and lockheed) repeat themselves
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202731.html?search=agena

What this jupiter / exoliner intends to do today, Lockheed own Agena could have done it four decades ago...

[Darkseraph]

I hope something like this gets picked over Cygnus...because of its future applications! It's forward thinking. The interesting and profitable things to do in space are not so much in the 10 mins of fireworks the launcher does, but what hardware we put up there, esp reusable robotics systems, propellant refuelling, electric propulsion, small sat deployment.

It being dependent on Atlas V is possibly a problem.

[nadreck]

It being dependent on Atlas V is possibly a problem.

Is it dependent? How much more expense/development would be required to ensure it could launch on an Antares or F9. Given that Cygnus is going to go for a one off ride on an Atlas, I think this would not be prohibitive in time or money. Also redundancy here might include two operational units at the ISS at any one time.  I also still see the constellation tender making for some serious demand for the Jupiter Electric, pairing that with the FH might be a good business model.

[butters]

Is the propulsion system (presumably hydrazine monopropellant like MAVEN?) on the reusable bus or the expendable pod?

[Political Hack Wannabe]

Is the propulsion system (presumably hydrazine monopropellant like MAVEN?) on the reusable bus or the expendable pod?

it's on the reusable bus.