ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[GraniteHound92]

Page 231 of the document states:

The Offeror shall propose, at least one (1) and up to four (4) standard mission(s).

[gongora]

Page 231 of the document states:

The Offeror shall propose, at least one (1) and up to four (4) standard mission(s).

The standard missions are vehicle configurations to address different needs (pressurized upmass, downmass, unpressurized upmass, etc.)

[woods170]

LM is not the lead on the SNC proposal. It's just a contractor. But it's possible that LM has submitted its own bid. Perhaps, a cargo Orion?

Crazy idea from a standpoint of cost-competitiveness.

For commercial crew, NASA choose the most expensive proposal. So you never know. Furthermore, NASA only wants 4 to 5 cargo missions per year on a combined basis. So a large spacecraft is at an advantage.

Emphasis mine:
Invalid argument. Pressurized volume of enhanced Cygnus is substantially larger than pressurized volume of Orion.
Orion is (much) more expensive than Cygnus. Orion is an economic non-starter compared to the competition.
Also, the logic used for choosing Boeing in commercial crew is not the logic being applied to CRS-2. Selection rules for cargo are substantially different from those used for crew.

[TrevorMonty]

Dragon should be safe as NASA really can't afford to lose its upressurized cargo carrying capabilities. Most flights todate  have used the trunk to carry external payloads for ISS. Most of the next few flights are carrying external payloads.

At present Cygnus is king when it comes to volume when compared to Dragon, DC and CST100. If LM can offer a diposable vehicle with more volume at better price they should be able win some flights.

With 2 commercial crew vehicles come on line NASA will have a lot more up and down mass capability. With both 7 seaters only carrying 4 crew there is a lot of spare volume for cargo.

[yg1968]

LM is not the lead on the SNC proposal. It's just a contractor. But it's possible that LM has submitted its own bid. Perhaps, a cargo Orion?

Crazy idea from a standpoint of cost-competitiveness.

For commercial crew, NASA choose the most expensive proposal. So you never know. Furthermore, NASA only wants 4 to 5 cargo missions per year on a combined basis. So a large spacecraft is at an advantage.

Emphasis mine:
Invalid argument. Pressurized volume of enhanced Cygnus is substantially larger than pressurized volume of Orion.
Orion is (much) more expensive than Cygnus. Orion is an economic non-starter compared to the competition.
Also, the logic used for choosing Boeing in commercial crew is not the logic being applied to CRS-2. Selection rules for cargo are substantially different from those used for crew.

Actually, the selection criteria are very similar. I agree that Orion doesn't make sense. But I didn't think that the CST-100 made any sense either. In any event, I suspect that it will be a less expensive liter version of Orion. I hope that NASA sticks with Orbital ATK and SpaceX too. But it is possible that NASA will add a third company. It could be the CST-100 or the LM spacecraft.

[ChrisWilson68]

Well, SpaceX /did/ just launch some Boeing-built satellites.

If the price advantage is big enough, it makes a lot of sense to use someone else's launch vehicle.

Yeah, but did Boeing make the choice of launch vehicles or did Boeing's customers?

And nobody really expects commercial communications satellites to launch with ULA anyway -- it's more a matter of SpaceX versus Ariane there.  U.S. government contracts are more ULA's thing, and having LM choose SpaceX over ULA for a high-profile U.S. government contract would be much more of a PR blow against ULA than Boeing going with SpaceX for some comsats.

Other than the fact that ULA are launching a commercial communication satellite but don't let that little fact bother you.

Yeah, their launch rate for commercial comsats is about one every five years.  When only a tiny fraction of the market goes to ULA, I stand by my statement that nobody really expects commercial communications satellites to launch with ULA.

[Robotbeat]

And we're supposed to expect commercial cargo craft will launch on ULA?

But honestly, I don't see why LM would pick Atlas V over a Falcon 9 which is half the price.... Except if they believed the Falcon 9 manifest was too full or something (similar to the decision Orbital made).

[ChrisWilson68]

I think it would be wonderful if LM decided to put in a CRS-2 bid using their own spacecraft launched on Falcon.  Lockheed Martin has a lot of great people and a lot of great capabilities.  If they could start to be weaned from cost-plus contracting and embrace competing for commercial fixed-price contracts, I think they would have the right incentives to be more cost-conscious and they could do some amazing things.  I imagine SpaceX largely providing the launch services and LM largely providing the in-space elements of an exciting, cost-effective exploration program.

[yg1968]

That's page 79 of the attached document. If you read the context they bidders were required to fill tentative schedules. You can't ask them to coordinate with the other bidders. They want at least 4 flights per contractor. Please remember that ATV is no more and HTV will halve its frequency. I'm pretty sure they want 8 flights now.

Each contractor makes a proposal as if if it was to win the entire CRS2 contract. It's up to NASA to then decide how many companies it wants. But each company has to assume that no other provider but themselves will win a contract. So it's a total of at least 4 flight per year for the entire CRS2 contract.

[ChrisWilson68]

That's page 79 of the attached document. If you read the context they bidders were required to fill tentative schedules. You can't ask them to coordinate with the other bidders. They want at least 4 flights per contractor. Please remember that ATV is no more and HTV will halve its frequency. I'm pretty sure they want 8 flights now.

Each contractor makes a proposal as if if it was to win the entire CRS2 contract. It's up to NASA to then decide how many companies it wants. But each company has to assume that no other provider but themselves will win a contract. So it's a total of at least 4 flight for the entire CRS2 contract.

Not every CRS bid will cover all the capabilities NASA requires.  Cygnus has no downmass capability, but NASA has a requirement for downmass.  So Orbital's winning CRS-1 proposal can't have assumed no other provider would win a contract.

[swervin]

With regards to LM stating their intentions to submit a bid and release details on 12 Mar, have we any indication of the spacecraft they look to use (regardless of launch vehicle)?

They did team with SNC on the orbital spacefcraft composite airframe for Dream Chaser.

http://www.sncorp.com/AboutUs/NewsDetails/627

Perhaps they might pull a wild card and team with SNC? It may be an odd marriage, but may be expediant, and possibly get them a foothold on a cargo/crew capability and also not require them to design a clean-sheet spacecraft. Thoughts? Tear my question apart, and... Go!

Apologies if someone already posted this idea and I missed it. Mods delete if req'd.

Splinter

[ChrisWilson68]

With regards to LM stating their intentions to submit a bid and release details on 12 Mar, have we any indication of the spacecraft they look to use (regardless of launch vehicle)?

They did team with SNC on the orbital spacefcraft composite airframe for Dream Chaser.

http://www.sncorp.com/AboutUs/NewsDetails/627

Perhaps they might pull a wild card and team with SNC? It may be an odd marriage, but may be expediant, and possibly get them a foothold on a cargo/crew capability and also not require them to design a clean-sheet spacecraft. Thoughts? Tear my question apart, and... Go!

Apologies if someone already posted this idea and I missed it. Mods delete if req'd.
Splinter

Yeah, this was discussed.  Someone pointed out (correctly, in my opinion) that with SNC also putting in a Dream Chaser bid for CRS-2 it wouldn't make sense for LM to put in a competing bid with the same spacecraft.  It was also pointed out that LM is a subcontractor, not the prime, for Dream Chaser.

Also, Dream Chaser would take a huge amount of money to be made operational, even in cargo mode, and it would need a different docking adaptor, and would need to be redesigned around that.

[yg1968]

That's page 79 of the attached document. If you read the context they bidders were required to fill tentative schedules. You can't ask them to coordinate with the other bidders. They want at least 4 flights per contractor. Please remember that ATV is no more and HTV will halve its frequency. I'm pretty sure they want 8 flights now.

Each contractor makes a proposal as if if it was to win the entire CRS2 contract. It's up to NASA to then decide how many companies it wants. But each company has to assume that no other provider but themselves will win a contract. So it's a total of at least 4 flight for the entire CRS2 contract.

Not every CRS bid will cover all the capabilities NASA requires.  Cygnus has no downmass capability, but NASA has a requirement for downmass.  So Orbital's winning CRS-1 proposal can't have assumed no other provider would win a contract.

Disposal (i.e., trash) is considered downmass. See page 83 of the RFP.

[Robotbeat]

That's page 79 of the attached document. If you read the context they bidders were required to fill tentative schedules. You can't ask them to coordinate with the other bidders. They want at least 4 flights per contractor. Please remember that ATV is no more and HTV will halve its frequency. I'm pretty sure they want 8 flights now.

Each contractor makes a proposal as if if it was to win the entire CRS2 contract. It's up to NASA to then decide how many companies it wants. But each company has to assume that no other provider but themselves will win a contract. So it's a total of at least 4 flight for the entire CRS2 contract.

Not every CRS bid will cover all the capabilities NASA requires.  Cygnus has no downmass capability, but NASA has a requirement for downmass.  So Orbital's winning CRS-1 proposal can't have assumed no other provider would win a contract.

Disposal (i.e., trash) is considered downmass. See page 83 of the RFP.

...which in context is irrelevant since NASA needs a way to /recover/ significant downmass, not just dispose of it.

[yg1968]

That's page 79 of the attached document. If you read the context they bidders were required to fill tentative schedules. You can't ask them to coordinate with the other bidders. They want at least 4 flights per contractor. Please remember that ATV is no more and HTV will halve its frequency. I'm pretty sure they want 8 flights now.

Each contractor makes a proposal as if if it was to win the entire CRS2 contract. It's up to NASA to then decide how many companies it wants. But each company has to assume that no other provider but themselves will win a contract. So it's a total of at least 4 flight for the entire CRS2 contract.

Not every CRS bid will cover all the capabilities NASA requires.  Cygnus has no downmass capability, but NASA has a requirement for downmass.  So Orbital's winning CRS-1 proposal can't have assumed no other provider would win a contract.

Disposal (i.e., trash) is considered downmass. See page 83 of the RFP.

...which in context is irrelevant since NASA needs a way to /recover/ significant downmass, not just dispose of it.

It is relevant because Orbital ATK will propose at least 4 flights of Cygnus. It is up to NASA to decide how many flights of Cygnus it wants. I agree that it is unlikely that NASA will choose only Orbital ATK flights. But in their proposal, Orbital ATK must suggests the maximum number of flights (i.e., at least 4) that it can as if it was the only cargo provider.

[joek]

The rules are fairly simple:
1. Each bidder may propose up to four standard mission types (e.g., different configurations to meet different requirements).
2. Those standard mission types collectively must provide for pressurized up AND unpressurized up AND unpressurized disposal AND either pressurized disposal OR pressurized return.
3. For each standard mission type proposed, each bidder must provide pricing for 1-5 missions/year.
4. Each awardee will receive a minimum of six missions.

NASA may mix-and-match different proposed standard mission types from the same provider or different providers.  One bidder could offer different LV/craft in a single proposal--so long as the total number of standard mission types does not exceed four.

One bid could include Orion+Atlas and Cygnus+something.  Or whatever.  LM teaming with Orbital?  SNC teaming with whoever?   Maybe.  Pick your favorite or most potentially feasible teaming combination of craft and LV.

There is nothing in the RFP limiting such mash-ups, as long as collectively they meet the NASA requirements and can do so with no more than four different configurations. 

[ChrisWilson68]

2. Those standard mission types collectively must provide for pressurized up AND unpressurized up AND unpressurized disposal AND either pressurized disposal OR pressurized return.

Cygnus doesn't provided unpressurized up.  Are you saying that they can't bid?

[gongora]

2. Those standard mission types collectively must provide for pressurized up AND unpressurized up AND unpressurized disposal AND either pressurized disposal OR pressurized return.

Cygnus doesn't provided unpressurized up.  Are you saying that they can't bid?

According to the CRS2 solicitation, Orbital will have to bid a new configuration of the vehicle as one of their standard mission types to handle the unpressurized requirements.  (It doesn't necessarily have to be a configuration that is likely to be chosen, but it should exist).

[Sesquipedalian]

Orbital did include an unpressurized variant of Cygnus in their CRS-1 proposal, but for whatever reason NASA ordered only pressurized missions.

[jongoff]

And we're supposed to expect commercial cargo craft will launch on ULA?

But honestly, I don't see why LM would pick Atlas V over a Falcon 9 which is half the price.... Except if they believed the Falcon 9 manifest was too full or something (similar to the decision Orbital made).

Until SpaceX gets its flight rate up to a decent fraction of what they claim at the beginning of a given year, they're going to keep losing customers who have to fly on time. Low cost matters, but only if it's delivered on time.

I personally think they'll get there, but I'd be more cautious about guessing how the cost vs. schedule reliability trade actually leads any given supplier to go.

~Jon