Quote from: Kryten on 09/19/2014 05:18 pm 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.
What kind of volume and mass does dreamchaser carry? Could it fill the requirements?
RFP posted online today http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/
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.
QuoteQuestion. 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.pdfSo which company did ask this question? I guess the answer is good news.
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?
Quote from: nadreck on 09/26/2014 05:39 pmIn 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?
Quote from: abaddon on 09/26/2014 05:58 pmQuote from: nadreck on 09/26/2014 05:39 pmIn 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?
Quote from: nadreck on 09/26/2014 06:03 pmQuote from: abaddon on 09/26/2014 05:58 pmQuote from: nadreck on 09/26/2014 05:39 pmIn 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.
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 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 22) 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