ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[arachnitect]

I could see NASA considering to NOT select SpaceX; due to the fact they really don't need the money anymore to survive and be successful. They could select the other two (and also have the work they have done with SpaceX in their back pocket, give them a back-up capability to launch on Dragon should the emergency need arise). In the meantime, perhaps the money is better spent for our nation to develop an additional U.S. spacecraft. I'm a big fan of SpaceX, but realistically they don't have a need for winning this contract.
Thoughts?

I'd be astonished if spacex doesn't get a piece of CRS2. Their competitive position is so formidable, I can't come up with a reasonable CRS2 portfolio that doesn't include them.

Even if NASA decides to throw more of the money at other providers, they would be crazy not to keep cargo Dragon operational.

[guckyfan]

I could see NASA considering to NOT select SpaceX; due to the fact they really don't need the money anymore to survive and be successful.
.............
Thoughts?

That would be absolutely illegal. There are rules to the selection process and they have to be followed.

[yg1968]

I don't know if the delay to CRS2 was partly related to the fact that until last Friday, the federal governmnet was still under a CR. But I would be surprised if there is another delay to CRS2 given the enactment of the omnibus bill last Friday.

[rcoppola]

I just think NASA got 3 very robust proposals and it became more difficult to discern which way to go. It was stated publicly that they gave time to the offerers to further tweak out their proposals, guided from NASA feedback. Specifically DC and Cygnus IIRC. It's the incumbents to lose but since DC is still in the mix, that would indicate that their proposal had/has altered NASA's thinking quite a bit.

[JasonAW3]

It's too bad NASA can't take all three proposals.

With Cygnus, not only do you get a fairly competent and reliable cargo carrier, but you also get a company that is developing cannister modules that could easily be used for either space stations or long rand craft.

With The Dragon/Falcon, not only do you get a reliable launch provider, but a craft that can do double duty as both a cargo carrier as well as a crew carrier.  This craft is also designed with BEO returns in mind as well.

With the Dream Chaser, you get a low G return flight for cargo, a fairly well designed experimental platform, and a craft that could be easily upgraded for at least limited Manned Spaceflight, should teh need arise.

[yg1968]

There is nothing that says that they have to pick 2 proposals.

[arachnitect]

It's too bad NASA can't take all three proposals.

With Cygnus, not only do you get a fairly competent and reliable cargo carrier, but you also get a company that is developing cannister modules that could easily be used for either space stations or long rand craft.

With The Dragon/Falcon, not only do you get a reliable launch provider, but a craft that can do double duty as both a cargo carrier as well as a crew carrier.  This craft is also designed with BEO returns in mind as well.

With the Dream Chaser, you get a low G return flight for cargo, a fairly well designed experimental platform, and a craft that could be easily upgraded for at least limited Manned Spaceflight, should teh need arise.

3 Dragon, 1 DC, 1 Cygnus can do the job and might fit in the budget NASA is anticipating. "3 providers" is running only very slightly behind in the NSF CRS-2 predictions poll.

Both DC and Cygnus are going to struggle at minimum launch rate. It's not the most efficient way of doing things, but NASA always seems willing to pay more to get what they really want.

[getitdoneinspace]

It's too bad NASA can't take all three proposals.

With Cygnus, not only do you get a fairly competent and reliable cargo carrier, but you also get a company that is developing cannister modules that could easily be used for either space stations or long rand craft.

With The Dragon/Falcon, not only do you get a reliable launch provider, but a craft that can do double duty as both a cargo carrier as well as a crew carrier.  This craft is also designed with BEO returns in mind as well.

With the Dream Chaser, you get a low G return flight for cargo, a fairly well designed experimental platform, and a craft that could be easily upgraded for at least limited Manned Spaceflight, should teh need arise.

I have yet to read anywhere that NASA is constrained to the selection of only 2 providers. I am curious if anyone else has seen this explicitly stated. I share your hope that all 3 can be selected, establishing a broader base of cargo resupply providers for other endeavors in space.

[rcoppola]

There is no explicit preordained constraint. If NASA feels like 3 service providers adds extra certainty and capabilities and they can fit all 3 into their budget profile then there's nothing stopping them from doing so. But adding an additional provider would mean reducing someone else's order total which could increase costs.

Something has to give at some point but this is what they are working so hard on. Running all the scenarios. The good news, is that they bought themselves time by extending CRS-1 out for both SpaceX and OATK. Personally I think they'll find a way to ramp-on DC while winding down Cygnus in the 2018 -2019 timeframe but reserve an additional Cygnus or two in case DC is delayed.

Edit: I think the oncoming Commercial Crew services has impacted this as well. Obviously not unexpected from NASA's POV, but certainly alters how they are planning 2018 onwards. Essentially CC allows the station to be fully occupied with all that implies wrt supply levels, garbage removal and experiment donwmass and frequency.

[rayleighscatter]

But adding an additional provider would mean reducing someone else's order total which could increase costs.

Not necessarily true. USOS had 4 cargo providers, it now has 3 and will probably be to 2 providers around the time CRS-1 ends. And HTV/ATV are bulk carriers, there's a lot of slack to be picked up there.

[yg1968]

I am not sure if it played a role but from a timing perspective, the fact that Orbital ATK (through the Atlas V) and SpaceX have both returned to flight makes it easier to announce CRS2 now as opposed to a few weeks ago.

[abaddon]

So, we are currently NLT Jan 30th for the contract award, right?  Had to dig a bit deep in the thread to find that as I had forgotten since the announcement.

Wonder if they're going to use all of the time available or announce something sooner.

[Vultur]

Dream Chaser is cool, but does it have any advantages beyond lower G reentry, and is that really important?

[Robotbeat]

Dream Chaser is cool, but does it have any advantages beyond lower G reentry, and is that really important?

Much bigger than the lower G reentry, IMHO, is the potential for much lower refurb costs in between flights.

[vt_hokie]

Dream Chaser is cool, but does it have any advantages beyond lower G reentry, and is that really important?

Quick access to cargo, rapid unloading.  Gentle touchdown in addition to lower G reentry. 

[arachnitect]

Dream Chaser is cool, but does it have any advantages beyond lower G reentry, and is that really important?

The ability to carry 5500 kg. in each flight means fewer missions to meet upmass targets, which was a stated CRS-2 desire.

Looking good never hurts either.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Dream Chaser is cool, but does it have any advantages beyond lower G reentry, and is that really important?

Much bigger than the lower G reentry, IMHO, is the potential for much lower refurb costs in between flights.

I am not sure that it needs less refurb than the Dragon capsule does. The TPS is rather demanding in this regard. I remember something about 2 weeks for TPS inspection.

[baldusi]

The 5,000kg payload would only apply if they had the necessary volume. I undestand that the DC internal volume is 14m3, how much do they add with the disposable module?
Let's remember that Enhanced Cygnus can do 3,500kg in 27m3, so you would need something like 38m3 for 5,000kg.

[rayleighscatter]

The 5,000kg payload would only apply if they had the necessary volume. I undestand that the DC internal volume is 14m3, how much do they add with the disposable module?
Let's remember that Enhanced Cygnus can do 3,500kg in 27m3, so you would need something like 38m3 for 5,000kg.

16m^3 for the crew variant if I recall.

It really does hinge on the disposable module which we know almost nothing about. But SNC must think 5,000kg is possible if they selected an Atlas V 542 as a LV. If they were volume constrained they could have gone with a cheaper Atlas.

[Robotbeat]

Dream Chaser is cool, but does it have any advantages beyond lower G reentry, and is that really important?

Much bigger than the lower G reentry, IMHO, is the potential for much lower refurb costs in between flights.

I am not sure that it needs less refurb than the Dragon capsule does. The TPS is rather demanding in this regard. I remember something about 2 weeks for TPS inspection.

That's not too bad, actually.