Author Topic: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030  (Read 472006 times)

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4993
  • Likes Given: 6458
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #260 on: 09/21/2014 04:26 am »
What kind of volume and mass does dreamchaser carry? Could it fill the requirements?

I read some where it has 16m3 of volume and probably has more down mass then any of the other vehicles.

So going for cargo could be a good option for SNC since their vehicle has an advantage over both Dragon and the CST-100 in pressurized volume.

The stretched Cygnus beats it in up cargo volume but SNC is using the more powerful Atlas V rocket so mass is less limited on DC.

Since cargo missions do not need abort engines if they are uncrewed I wonder could they replace the hybrid propulsion system with a couple of low thrust propellant engines such as the TR-308.

Possible they could add some sorta carrier to the pack that adds more volume and a CBM sorta like what was on the back of the old Hermes concept.

Dream Chaser is a much bigger vehicle than Dragon -- it is significantly longer, wider, and more massive.  Its launch vehicle is much more expensive than that of Dragon or Cygnus.  Even if Dragon has less capacity per flight, by spreading the load over more flights you're likely to get the same cargo to the station and the same cargo back down to Earth, much more cheaply with Dragon.  Plus, of course, Dragon can also carry a bunch of unpressurized cargo at the same time.  Even if all the development costs of a cargo Dream Chaser were already spent, the operational costs of the Dream Chaser would likely make it more expensive than either Dragon or Cygnus.  I think even if it were fully developed and tested and ready to go today it would most likely lose out to Dragon and Cygnus.

But Dream Chaser isn't ready.  It's far from it.  It's doubtful it could even finish development and testing in time to qualify for CRS2.  If Sierra Nevada did bit Dream Chaser on CRS2, NASA would have to take into account the development schedule risk and funding risk of Dream Chaser compared with Cygnus and Dragon, both of which are already developed, tested, and in service.

I just have a hard time seeing Dream Chaser for CRS2.

The only way Dream Chaser could have a chance to deliver cargo for NASA would be if Sierra Nevada put up hundreds of millions of its own money with little prospect of getting that money back, completed development of cargo Dream Chaser, and then waited for CRS3 in 2024.  That's a long wait, and by then SpaceX could have reusable Falcon 9 and Dragon making its bids much, much cheaper.
« Last Edit: 09/21/2014 04:27 am by ChrisWilson68 »

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10638
  • US
  • Liked: 14739
  • Likes Given: 6345
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #261 on: 09/25/2014 10:52 pm »

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1687
  • United States
  • Liked: 2095
  • Likes Given: 3218
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #262 on: 09/26/2014 03:00 pm »
RFP posted online today http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/

Attached is the RFP.

Here are some tidbits:
REQUIRED CAPABILITY: Pressurized Delivery Upmass (kg) per flight range: 2500-5000 kg
REQUIRED CAPABILITY: Pressurized Downmass (kg) consisting of either Return or Disposal Capability or both 2500-5000 kg
OPTIONAL CAPABILITY: Accelerated Pressurized Return Downmass (kg) Consisting of the same requirements as Pressurized Downmass with the following modifications:
Double powered lockers with R+6 hour in lieu of R+24 hour hand over (# lockers) To be proposed
Conditioned stowage with R+6 hour in lieu of R+24 hour hand over (# bags) To be proposed
Passive CTBEs with R+6 hour in lieu of R+24 hour hand over (# CTBEs) To be proposed
Single powered lockers with R+3 hour in lieu of R+6 hour hand over (# lockers) To be proposed
REQUIRED CAPABILITY: Unpressurized Upmass and Disposal (kg) Consisting of: Unpressurized upmass items (1-3 items)
DEFINE: Operational Capabilities       
Docking or Berthing   D or B   To be proposed
Mated Duration (days)   45-To be proposed


« Last Edit: 09/26/2014 03:01 pm by sghill »
Bring the thunder!

Offline tobi453

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 250
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #263 on: 09/26/2014 03:16 pm »
Quote
Question. In order to better leverage the services that NASA is procuring, as well as to further utilize space station as a launch pad for commercial low - earth orbit, I wonder if the ability of NASA to have the cargo ships be directed to any existing commercial platforms in similar orbit and inclination, on a per needed basis,where possible post ISS delivery, could be included as part of the eventual SOW? This would, for no additional funding, position the NASA ISS services as supporting both the current Program and any eventual follow-on. Most useful for raising funds from the commercial sector for a commercial platform. Thanks for your consideration.

Answer. With this CRS2 procurement, NASA is procuring fixed-price services (i.e., missions) to and from the International Space Station (ISS).As such, NASA will not direct the contractor on how it should transport cargo to and from the ISS or whether it should or should not make stops at any commercial platforms along the way. Pursuant to II.A.5, Contractor Objectives on ISS Resupply Service Missions, in the RFP, the contractor may utilize unused space on a NASA purchased ISS resupply missions to deliver non-NASA cargo to other destinations, including existing commercial platforms.
Source: https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160726-OTHER-003-001.pdf

So which company did ask this question? ;)

I guess the answer is good news.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2014 03:18 pm by tobi453 »

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1687
  • United States
  • Liked: 2095
  • Likes Given: 3218
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #264 on: 09/26/2014 03:28 pm »
Quote
Question. In order to better leverage the services that NASA is procuring, as well as to further utilize space station as a launch pad for commercial low - earth orbit, I wonder if the ability of NASA to have the cargo ships be directed to any existing commercial platforms in similar orbit and inclination, on a per needed basis,where possible post ISS delivery, could be included as part of the eventual SOW? This would, for no additional funding, position the NASA ISS services as supporting both the current Program and any eventual follow-on. Most useful for raising funds from the commercial sector for a commercial platform. Thanks for your consideration.

Answer. With this CRS2 procurement, NASA is procuring fixed-price services (i.e., missions) to and from the International Space Station (ISS).As such, NASA will not direct the contractor on how it should transport cargo to and from the ISS or whether it should or should not make stops at any commercial platforms along the way. Pursuant to II.A.5, Contractor Objectives on ISS Resupply Service Missions, in the RFP, the contractor may utilize unused space on a NASA purchased ISS resupply missions to deliver non-NASA cargo to other destinations, including existing commercial platforms.
Source: https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160726-OTHER-003-001.pdf

So which company did ask this question? ;)

I guess the answer is good news.

It's amazing we're now in a world where the question was even posed! 

This: "the contractor may utilize unused space on a NASA purchased ISS resupply missions to deliver non-NASA cargo to other destinations, including existing commercial platforms" is an amazing statement IMHO.  It opens the possibility for uber cheap access to space for the remaining payload capacity- even if it's just along for the ride and not stopping at some other platform.

And then I reached here in the RFP: "In the event that NASA does not utilize the entire capability of the service mission, the Contractor may request to use the service mission to meet Contractor objectives or fly non-NASA cargo per the requirements below.  NASA may require a price adjustment or other consideration."

So much for that thought, but I wonder what their formula shall be for determining the price break on a launch that includes some commercial cargo in the unused space.  It's a firm fixed-price contract after all, so the cost of  consumables (such as propellant) is already going to be calculated at maximum payload values.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2014 03:39 pm by sghill »
Bring the thunder!

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2591
  • Likes Given: 8466
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #265 on: 09/26/2014 04:11 pm »
Quote
Question. In order to better leverage the services that NASA is procuring, as well as to further utilize space station as a launch pad for commercial low - earth orbit, I wonder if the ability of NASA to have the cargo ships be directed to any existing commercial platforms in similar orbit and inclination, on a per needed basis,where possible post ISS delivery, could be included as part of the eventual SOW? This would, for no additional funding, position the NASA ISS services as supporting both the current Program and any eventual follow-on. Most useful for raising funds from the commercial sector for a commercial platform. Thanks for your consideration.

Answer. With this CRS2 procurement, NASA is procuring fixed-price services (i.e., missions) to and from the International Space Station (ISS).As such, NASA will not direct the contractor on how it should transport cargo to and from the ISS or whether it should or should not make stops at any commercial platforms along the way. Pursuant to II.A.5, Contractor Objectives on ISS Resupply Service Missions, in the RFP, the contractor may utilize unused space on a NASA purchased ISS resupply missions to deliver non-NASA cargo to other destinations, including existing commercial platforms.
Source: https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160726-OTHER-003-001.pdf

So which company did ask this question? ;)

I guess the answer is good news.
I guess jongoff forwarded a question Orbital. Or he might have asked it himself. It was the only question that that included an "I wonder".  :P

Offline nadreck

Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #266 on: 09/26/2014 05:39 pm »
In looking at the language of this, it seems possible that it gets awarded to SpaceX and someone else, but I am not sure if there is any possibility of it going just to operators who can't support return cargo.  Could NASA forgo returning cargo under this RFP?
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3266
  • Liked: 4340
  • Likes Given: 5902
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #267 on: 09/26/2014 05:55 pm »
After a cursory look it seems that Dragon V1 would probably qualify after all, albeit on the low end of the pressurized upmass requirement?  Although I don't see a volume requirement in the blurb above, so that might be an issue.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2014 05:56 pm by abaddon »

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3266
  • Liked: 4340
  • Likes Given: 5902
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #268 on: 09/26/2014 05:58 pm »
In looking at the language of this, it seems possible that it gets awarded to SpaceX and someone else, but I am not sure if there is any possibility of it going just to operators who can't support return cargo.  Could NASA forgo returning cargo under this RFP?

Pressurized downmass includes disposal as an option, so no problem for Orbital (or anyone else) there.

Offline nadreck

Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #269 on: 09/26/2014 06:03 pm »
In looking at the language of this, it seems possible that it gets awarded to SpaceX and someone else, but I am not sure if there is any possibility of it going just to operators who can't support return cargo.  Could NASA forgo returning cargo under this RFP?

Pressurized downmass includes disposal as an option, so no problem for Orbital (or anyone else) there.

Yes I noted that given the language for sure it could be awarded to SpaceX and someone who doesn't provide return capability. But could SpaceX be excluded even if no one else provides return capability. The disposal option is not consistent with seeking 24 hour and 6 hour express delivery of returned cargo. So, again I ask, has anyone seen clear language that suggests, as part of this RFP and its modifications, that some of the contracted services must be awarded to a company that provides a return option?
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1687
  • United States
  • Liked: 2095
  • Likes Given: 3218
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #270 on: 09/26/2014 06:57 pm »
Yes I noted that given the language for sure it could be awarded to SpaceX and someone who doesn't provide return capability. But could SpaceX be excluded even if no one else provides return capability. The disposal option is not consistent with seeking 24 hour and 6 hour express delivery of returned cargo. So, again I ask, has anyone seen clear language that suggests, as part of this RFP and its modifications, that some of the contracted services must be awarded to a company that provides a return option?

On what page of the RFP did you see the above bolded requirement?
Bring the thunder!

Offline nadreck

Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #271 on: 09/26/2014 07:17 pm »
In http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160726-SOL-001-003.docx top of page 4 by there numbering but the 8th page in the document. This is for 24 hour return. Then lower on that page is the section that is labelled "Optional capability" that asks about 6 hour return time.

Given that the 2nd one is optional, I infer, but it I can't seem to find it in the document anywhere, that returning cargo is not an optional requirement.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4993
  • Likes Given: 6458
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #272 on: 09/26/2014 07:20 pm »
In looking at the language of this, it seems possible that it gets awarded to SpaceX and someone else, but I am not sure if there is any possibility of it going just to operators who can't support return cargo.  Could NASA forgo returning cargo under this RFP?

Pressurized downmass includes disposal as an option, so no problem for Orbital (or anyone else) there.

Yes I noted that given the language for sure it could be awarded to SpaceX and someone who doesn't provide return capability. But could SpaceX be excluded even if no one else provides return capability. The disposal option is not consistent with seeking 24 hour and 6 hour express delivery of returned cargo. So, again I ask, has anyone seen clear language that suggests, as part of this RFP and its modifications, that some of the contracted services must be awarded to a company that provides a return option?

The RFP is exactly what you would expect if NASA were planning to continue its current policy of having one provider do downmass and the other not do downmass.

There's virtually no chance NASA will go only with providers with no downmass capability.  NASA seems to really like having this capability.

Offline nadreck

Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #273 on: 09/26/2014 07:23 pm »
In looking at the language of this, it seems possible that it gets awarded to SpaceX and someone else, but I am not sure if there is any possibility of it going just to operators who can't support return cargo.  Could NASA forgo returning cargo under this RFP?

Pressurized downmass includes disposal as an option, so no problem for Orbital (or anyone else) there.

Yes I noted that given the language for sure it could be awarded to SpaceX and someone who doesn't provide return capability. But could SpaceX be excluded even if no one else provides return capability. The disposal option is not consistent with seeking 24 hour and 6 hour express delivery of returned cargo. So, again I ask, has anyone seen clear language that suggests, as part of this RFP and its modifications, that some of the contracted services must be awarded to a company that provides a return option?

The RFP is exactly what you would expect if NASA were planning to continue its current policy of having one provider do downmass and the other not do downmass.

There's virtually no chance NASA will go only with providers with no downmass capability.  NASA seems to really like having this capability.
I don't disagree with you, but I don't find wording that proves that, it seems vague and slightly contradictory to me.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4492
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #274 on: 09/26/2014 07:29 pm »
RFP requirment is tied at the hip to the national lab designation and expected (or hoped for) expansions in funding (and ISS utilization after us crew flights are resumed).

I am quite sure Boeing could easily produce a cargo version of CST 100 if NASA wants more than just SpaceX for CRS2.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline getitdoneinspace

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 142
  • Liked: 311
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #275 on: 09/26/2014 07:41 pm »
I found the following bullets extracted from the Pre-Proposal Conference Presentation powerpoint very interesting:

1) NASA may elect to award multiple contracts. -->Does NOT limit to only 2

2) The guaranteed minimum value for any awarded contract is six (6) cargo resupply service missions -->Guessing there will be a need in excess of 18 missions (6 missions * 3 providers)

3) The total maximum value of any contract awarded will be $14 billion. The total amount of all task orders under all contracts awarded shall not exceed $14 billion. -->This is a lot of money even relative to the recently awarded CCtCap which was $6.8 billion for 14 missions ((1 certification mission + 6 post certification missions) * 2 providers)

Based on this information, I would suggest that NASA is not limited to choosing only 2 providers to deliver services under CRS2. Perhaps 3 is possible. And NASA does explicitly request that non-recurring costs, such as development costs, be itemized separately from the recurring costs of each service mission. I hold out the possibility that Dream Chaser could continue its development under CRS2 along side both the continued service of both SpaceX and Orbital. One could hope  ;)

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4993
  • Likes Given: 6458
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #276 on: 09/26/2014 07:53 pm »
Based on this information, I would suggest that NASA is not limited to choosing only 2 providers to deliver services under CRS2. Perhaps 3 is possible. And NASA does explicitly request that non-recurring costs, such as development costs, be itemized separately from the recurring costs of each service mission. I hold out the possibility that Dream Chaser could continue its development under CRS2 along side both the continued service of both SpaceX and Orbital. One could hope  ;)

I hope not.

The most important thing CRS2 can do for us long term is lower costs for access to orbit.  That both frees up NASA to spend more money on other things and makes non-NASA use of space more likely.

The way to best do that is to have more scale for fewer providers, not spread the limited flights among more companies.  Three is too many providers for CRS2.

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Israel
  • Liked: 245
  • Likes Given: 593
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #277 on: 09/26/2014 08:17 pm »
Now that we know that cst100 is being developed through cctap, what do we know about cst100 for crs2?
Will it be ready in time?
Is it possible cost wise?
Cst100 on a different LV?
Space is hard immensely complex and high risk !

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 716
  • Liked: 485
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #278 on: 09/26/2014 08:25 pm »
I'll be amazed if anything other than SpaceX and Orbital getting one contract each happens. Not that other companies can't do these services or even do it cheaper.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2591
  • Likes Given: 8466
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #279 on: 09/26/2014 08:34 pm »
I found the following bullets extracted from the Pre-Proposal Conference Presentation powerpoint very interesting:

1) NASA may elect to award multiple contracts. -->Does NOT limit to only 2

2) The guaranteed minimum value for any awarded contract is six (6) cargo resupply service missions -->Guessing there will be a need in excess of 18 missions (6 missions * 3 providers)

3) The total maximum value of any contract awarded will be $14 billion. The total amount of all task orders under all contracts awarded shall not exceed $14 billion. -->This is a lot of money even relative to the recently awarded CCtCap which was $6.8 billion for 14 missions ((1 certification mission + 6 post certification missions) * 2 providers)

Based on this information, I would suggest that NASA is not limited to choosing only 2 providers to deliver services under CRS2. Perhaps 3 is possible. And NASA does explicitly request that non-recurring costs, such as development costs, be itemized separately from the recurring costs of each service mission. I hold out the possibility that Dream Chaser could continue its development under CRS2 along side both the continued service of both SpaceX and Orbital. One could hope  ;)
That's 7 years of service (2018 to 2024). Or 2B per year. At five missions/year that would be 400M per year. Unless they expect to need more missions per year. Cygnus and Dragon currently do 5 missions per year together. And supposedly the logistic needs will be higher since the Shuttle cache is depleted and the 7th crew will increase nearly double the science output.
Let's do the numbers the other way around. Let's say 300M per mission (which is about the current Cygnus contract adjusted by inflation to 2024). That should allow for 7 missions/year. Or they might lower costs. So there is a lot of budget margin for two and even three contractors. There's also margin for paying some setup and certifications cost for somebody (like SNC Cargo Dream Chaser).
I still believe that Dragon an Super Cygnus are the best possible combo. But we'll know in six months or so.

Tags:
 

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